Pivot - BONUS EPISODE: Parler, GETTR CEOs in Conversation with Casey Newton at Pivot MIA
Episode Date: February 26, 2022Platformer's Casey Newton speaks with Parler CEO George Farmer and GETTR CEO Jason Miller about the conservative social media business model, free speech, and content moderation. Recorded live at P...ivot MIA on February 16, 2022. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic.
Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey.
Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in.
On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working.
Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you.
delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you.
Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast.
Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.
Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast.
Indeed.com slash podcast.
Terms and conditions apply.
Need to hire?
You need Indeed.
Hi, everyone.
This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.
I'm Kara Swisher.
Today, we've got a bonus episode.
It's Casey Newton's discussion with the CEOs of Parler and Getter.
Casey spoke with George Farmer and Jason Miller on Wednesday, February 16th at Pivot MIA.
It was quite the event.
Have a listen and stay tuned for more bonus episodes in the feed.
Let's start with a little bit of news.
Jason, last night it was reported that Guo Wengi, reportedly a big financier of
Getter, filed for bankruptcy. What does this mean for Getter? Well, it doesn't mean anything for
our plans. Miles is someone who's an ideological ally. He does not have any financial stake in the
company, something we've said pretty clearly from the beginning. We have multiple international
investment funds who have contributed and give us our seed money to get going. We have great capital,
good standing position, just starting to get out and start to add additional investors. So that's
pretty excited. And as we're approaching 5 million people signed up for the platform,
the sky's the limit. All right. So the runway is still as long today as it was yesterday.
Absolutely. In fact, today we just rolled out Getter Vision, which is our short video
competitor to TikTok and Instagram Reels. So new products, new features. It's pretty exciting.
All right. So for folks in the audience who may not have tried out Parler or Getter just yet,
I would love for each of you to give me the elevator pitch. What are these apps?
Well, Parler is a free speech orientated social media network with a nascent NFT offering.
It has been labeled as the conservative haven of Twitter.
And from our perspective, we like to view ourselves
as the free speech haven, basically,
Twitter without censorship, effectively.
All right. Jason?
Yeah, and I would say, I think one of the important ways
to look at this dynamic is not so much of a,
you hear the alternative platforms
that are competing against, say, Twitter and Facebook.
But I think it's also important to point out the fact that Facebook is actually losing people, that Twitter
is effectively a dying platform. I think the Washington Post described them as the, that their
business model was misery. With Getter, so there's plenty of room for whether it's Getter or Parler
or TruSocial, other platforms, even Rumble taking on YouTube. We think that the traditional,
the Silicon Valley tech platforms are dying. With Getter, we describe ourselves as the all-in-one
free speech platform. Right now, obviously, we have the features, essentially the micro-blogging
competitors to say Twitter, Facebook, or other platforms. We have live streaming that we've
offered just again today, launched our short video platform platform but where we're going as a company this summer when we launch getter pay which will be our two coin crypto ecosystem
that will not only be a competitor say to the the apple pays and the alley pays of the world
but we also think we're going to bring the d5 aspect and peer-to-peer lending to a whole
community of people in the us and beyond who've never had the opportunity to really experience
that right so those those are huge ambitions.
You brought up all platforms, including Truth Social.
And I think just yesterday we saw Donald Trump Jr.
shared a screenshot of the president posting.
So when this thing launches, how are your apps going to adapt?
Well, I think it's important to define the terms of debate, first of all.
You know, what is Truth Social? Truth has done a deal with Rumble. Well, I think it's important to define the terms of debate, first of all.
What is Truth Social?
Truth has done a deal with Rumble.
They clearly have an eye on the video distribution network.
From that perspective, I think they're going to be engaging with Rumble very aggressively
and trying to take on a kind of Netflix style of business.
I don't necessarily think that competes with our style of business.
And I think then, as Jason just hinted at, you know, you can
have quite a broad array of free speech orientated social media sites, which are trying to cater to
that growing market of people who don't necessarily want as strict moderation policies in their
social media. And so to that end, you've got Truth, you've got Getter, you've got Parler,
all of us are pitching ourselves into that space. And of course, one thing that we've done is try and take that model overseas as well. So what
does free speech look like overseas? What does free speech look like to the consumer in Saudi
Arabia, where we have a good number of accounts? Iran, where we have a good number of accounts?
It doesn't look the same as it does in the US consumer market. It doesn't look the same
as it is for the US domestic consumer. So the world is growing in our space. There's definitely more competition, but I think that
there's a good reason for all of us to exist. I do think, though, that there's an assumption
that where President Trump goes, the free speech loving conservative crowd is going to follow.
How much does it sting that he hasn't joined your
platforms? Well, I think Jason probably has talked to him as much as I have talked to him.
You know, we've had meetings with the Trump organization. You know, as I said, I think
they definitely have their eye on things which are outside of our remit. You know,
we are not a video distribution network. We don't have any intentions to be in that space.
We also are building out an NFT and Web3 style of business, right? We're trying to do
more in the NFT space. We have a platform launching relatively shortly. We have a marketplace coming
out relatively shortly. We already launched our first NFTs in December. All of this is kind of
outside the traditional social media world, I guess. And you've obviously seen Facebook and
Twitter try and pitch themselves into that business model as well with sort of crypto social. We have our eye on that territory as well.
So I think from that perspective, you know, that's not something that Trump is really looking at.
And I don't think Truth Social is really going to be competing in that space. So it doesn't really
bother me. He's free to obviously choose whichever platform he wishes to use.
Right. How do you feel about it?
Yeah, I'm actually looking forward to it.
I'm going to see the president this afternoon and I'll make the pitch again to say,
got at real Donald Trump, all reserved and ready for you.
But one of the things that I think people might find interesting is when President Trump
announced in October that he was going to roll out True Social, we actually saw 135%
increase in new signups in the 10 following days, as opposed to the
10 preceding days.
And a lot of people might not realize this, but actually about 20 to 25% of Trump voters
quit social media when President Trump was deplatformed.
We know that from our market research.
Now, they may not have gone and deleted their accounts, but they got frustrated at what,
again, that Twitter and Facebook and YouTube, the deplatforming.
And they just said, you know, we're over it. This is silly. What we're seeing are people getting off the sidelines. So every time President Trump makes a new announcement or anytime Twitter and Facebook go through their round of kicking people off, we see them come to these new platforms that have started, whether it be mine or George's, anybody else. And I always say to kind of channel my inner George Bailey that every time Twitter or Facebook
kick someone off of their platform,
another getter angel gets its wings.
So it's terrible for democracy,
but hey guys, keep kicking people off
because they're coming over to our platforms quick.
But I also would say with regard to President Trump,
I wouldn't rule him out joining additional platforms
beyond his own.
I've certainly encouraged him to say,
as he looks towards a potential 2024 run,
that he should be on as many platforms
as possible to amplify his voice.
So I think that's a distinct possibility.
But I think George also made a smart point,
that the direction all of these different companies are going,
I think when you look who are our competitors now,
but who are competitors in six months or a year,
or five years down the road, are going to look much different. I think everybody has learned
from the mistake that Twitter made where that the microblogging on its own and selling advertising
and microblogging isn't enough to go and take you to the stratosphere. All right. So we do have to
have this fight because you just said that deplatforming is bad for democracy. I take the
complete opposite view. I think when you have the president of the United States inciting violence on Twitter, leading to deaths of law
enforcement officers, urging the overthrow of a free and fair election, you're going to tell me
that removing that guy from the platform is bad for democracy? What's good for democracy?
No, I think it's a terrible precedent to go and...
Which side is the audience on? Yeah, exactly.
No, look, you guys are wrong.
I think to go and kick off a sitting president of the United States is nuts.
And it sets the precedent.
It sets the precedent that certain people have free speech rights in this country and certain people don't. Now, it's all of us.
And I know we'll probably talk additionally on moderation, which is very important to make sure that platforms are safe and inviting for people to join.
And obviously, there are laws that need to be adhered to both in the U.S. and internationally.
But what we're seeing right now from this White House, where you literally have the press secretary of the White House going and picking winners and losers in the free speech debate, saying that if someone's been kicked off of a platform, they should be kicked off of all platforms.
If this was Donald Trump saying that,
you guys would be going nuts.
And so when you clap at that,
imagine if this was reversed
and you had a Republican in the White House
that was going and kicking people off
just because they didn't like their comment.
That's insane.
I think it's an assault on the First Amendment.
And I think as Americans,
we really take, we take for granted.
I think we take for granted
the fact that we have free speech.
And that's why it's good that we have free speech. And that's why
it's good that we have platforms such as Getter and Parler that are rising up and saying, you know
what, we're going to take those rights back. All right. So let's get into the free speech side of
things. You know, I would love to get your thoughts on like, what are some of the good ideas that you
can't find on Twitter and Facebook? What are people being starved for here? I mean, just to
echo what Jason was saying there. And I think, you know, there is a philosophical point underlying this whole conversation. And yes, we can pin it down
on exact specifics about what people are saying. And of course, you can get into the minutiae of
the debate around that. But you actually do have to take a step back and talk about that
philosophy of free speech and what you're trying to do. Because at the end of the day, Jason's
right, you know, when you all applaud, there is a point right now
where you think, yes, this is the right thing to do. But at some point, you will be the subject of
all of that, right? Everyone here will say something at some point in their life where all
of you will then have the archaeology mob coming after you and telling you that what you said in
2011 or 2016 or 2021 is the wrong thing and you no longer think the right way. And that's why free speech is
important because at the end of the day, we all make mistakes and you need mercy and you need
grace and you need forgiveness. And if you don't have that and you don't have that sort of social
media platform, which allows for that, you're all going to get canceled, right? At the end of the
day, you're all going to get wiped out. To answer the question about what now, right, is important.
I think there's no greater topic than COVID, right?
Because at the moment,
you saw what happened in the last two years.
In the last two years,
the major tech companies have shut down debates
around COVID, right?
Whether it be the efficacy of cloth masks,
whether it be the efficacy of lockdowns,
whatever it might be, right?
And at the end of the day,
all of these debates are now the ones we're having
in the current national conversation, right?
Because these are actually now suddenly open for debate again, right? And you've even
seen, I heard somebody yesterday, a major journalist, I won't name him because you might
go and cancel him, but a major journalist coming out and saying, actually, there is need for the
dissenter's voice, right? And that was not an opinion which was held, right? You didn't have
a dissenting voice. You had the voice and that was it, right? Right. Yeah. I mean, there's clearly a need for dissent. I think the question is, well, let me ask
it a different way. I think one reason why companies love to come along and say we're for
free speech is because it means they don't actually have to pay as much attention to what
their users are saying, right? So I'm not saying you don't have a principled view. I'm also just
saying it makes your business easier in a lot of ways. Right. You don't have to hire as many moderators. You don't have to screen as many posts.
I think you're just totally off. I think just like just completely off. We take moderation very seriously.
Our terms of service make it very clear that we're not going to allow illegal behavior or doxing or things that, you know, racial or religious epithets, those types of things.
things that, you know, racial or religious epithets, those types of things. We take that very seriously. The difference is that we don't use political discrimination to pick winners and
losers. It's not this community gets to have free speech, but that community doesn't. So in fact,
we always, the only two, that's a kind of litmus test ideological guidelines that we have at the
platform when we hire people to the company, do you support free speech? Do you oppose cancel culture? And if you agree with both of those, then great. You're people
who we want to work with. Because again, as you look around the world, there are different
communities and people are impacted in different ways. So you've got to think about the companies
in global terms if you want to be able to scale. But to say that moderation isn't taken seriously
or that there's some blind eye this turn, I think that's just misleading. I'd say you're off on that.
of, are we really fighting over nothing here? Doesn't every platform just kind of have to come up with its own rules for the road? Some are a little bit more restrictive, some are a little
bit more expansive, but to say that one's for free speech and one isn't seems too simple to me.
Well, I mean, I think they're generally accepted. I mean, there's what's legally defined, right? And
that's something that we've constantly come back to. You can't shout fire in a crowded room,
right? You can't threaten to kill people at a certain time and place. You know, there are various, you can't dox people,
you can't steal other people's property, intellectual property.
All of these are constitutionally protected rights, right?
So you can't just say, well, what does free speech mean?
It means nothing to some people and everything to others.
It's like, no, we all have the accepted rules,
the constitutional rules of the road, if you like,
which we will have to stick by.
What you're seeing in the tech giants, what you're seeing particularly in Twitter, for example,
is not just a one-off decision being made. And this is something that I talked about with
Kara Swisher on her podcast, but a subjective line of thinking, which has been made over a
long period of time, which has clearly defined a platform's viewpoint, therefore means that that
company has now become not just a platform, it's become a publisher, viewpoint, therefore means that that company has now become
not just a platform, it's become a publisher, right?
And so that consistent line of rational argument by them
over a series of years
has clearly defined them now as a publisher, right?
If you're just saying this is a one-off
where we're going to shut down somebody
because they've said one thing we don't like,
okay, you can have the merits
or the argument about that particular comment, but where they've taken the same line of reasoning, as Jason mentions, political
discrimination over several years, that clearly means that that company, for example, is no longer
subject to the rules of Section 230. Okay. We don't honestly have enough time to get into Section 230,
but I want to sort of keep going in this direction when it comes to free speech. So before you became CEO of Parler, I think we might say it enabled more free speech, right?
And there was some violent material that was on the platform and led to a lot of problems that I think the company is still recovering from.
How has the company adapted since then and has it had to compromise at all on those free speech values?
In answer to your latter question, no.
We have the same moderation principles that we had in place beforehand. What you're referring to really
was the issue that the company faced around scale. And I think anyone sitting in this room who's
run a tech startup will probably have experienced that same issue. There are several points I've
made there. The first, I think, is scale, right? So we went from a company with less than a million accounts to having 16 million accounts in a very short space of time. That obviously incurred huge scalability issues. And obviously, we kind of suffered the repercussion of that. We were still moderating at the time of January the 6th, which, of course, is what you're referencing.
referencing. And, you know, we published that in our report to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where we talked about how we were working with law enforcement to talk about
the threats of violence which were on the platform. So that's the first kind of major thing.
The second thing is, you know, we came back to the table and after the January the 10th,
when we got deplatformed by AWS and by Google and by Apple, there were various studies which
were published in Charging charging documents, which were analyzed
in the aftermath of the Capitol riot,
which talked about Parler's involvement.
And it found us to be a very small minority actor
compared with someone like Facebook.
Even Instagram was listed as a higher
sort of social media platform with engaged content
than ours in terms of extremism.
So again, they looked at us, they said,
we don't like this guy, we're going to kick him out.
So as a result, we were kind of unfairly scapegoated. But do we moderate more now
than we did? No, we don't. You don't moderate more now than you did?
No. So if, let's say,
sometime in the next two or four years, there's political violence again in America,
what are you going to do to ensure that it's not happening on your platforms?
We would do the same thing that we did last time. We would moderate threats and incitement to violence,
which is exactly what we've always done.
They're against our terms of service.
Right.
We've taken exactly the same line since that day
as we had before that day.
So we haven't changed anything.
We've always tried to cooperate with law enforcement
where needs be or cooperate with whoever's,
I mean, we still receive subpoenas in
relation to January the 6th to this day. So we work with them and we work with law enforcement
to do what we can, but we moderate in the best fashion that we see fit.
Right. Jason, you launched in the wake of January 6th, but how do you think about this problem?
Well, again, as talked on the moderation front, something that we take very seriously. And so
we use essentially a two-pronged system
with both AI as well as paid human moderators.
And then we also have kind of a couple thousand person
volunteer force that kind of supplements some of that.
But even if they weren't there,
we still have plenty to cover everything
between the AI and the human moderator front.
But this is something that we're constantly watching,
again, not just in the US,
but all around the rest of the world, something that we pay very close attention to
and obviously cooperate with law enforcement as needed. But I think that, you know, as we look
forward for where this is going, all platforms are going to continually update and revise certain
aspects of their community guidelines or their terms of service or things like that. There are
always going to be different things that come up. And I think all of us share the same goal.
I shouldn't say all of us, I'd say at least I think George and myself share
the goal of making sure that we have inviting platforms.
We want people to come and join and feel safe to be able to join the platforms.
And we monitor things like that.
But I think George is also very right that as we've started to learn more
about what happened on January 6th, I think they go and try to point the finger
in a particular social media platform and try to lay some kind of blame at them, I think, just wildly off the mark.
Yeah, I mean, I think it was the president's fault myself. But I want to talk about censorship in a different way, which is, you know, the most popular social platform in America right now is TikTok, which is also the platform that censors more than any other. Like until three years ago, you couldn't even show
somebody who had a tattoo like on the For You page. And I've been talking to folks who are like,
you know, Americans talk about free speech as a value, but when you look at what they choose,
they're often choosing censorship. Like the market is rewarding censorship. So I'm curious,
like what gives you the confidence that there's actually an audience you think that there is there for free speech paradise?
Well, I mean, it's, it's what drives consumer demand where it's like the golden egg question
of the entire world. So, yeah, I mean, look, it's different things to different people, right? I
mean, there's no, there's no, there is no one answer to say, well, like this is going to be
the key formula for success. What you are seeing right now of course and we've seen this and this is why our
platforms have some success is because of the fact that there are there is obviously no consumer
demand for you know anti-censorship free speech social media platforms right otherwise we wouldn't
exist so you are obviously seeing platforms which cater to that demand flourish right at the same
time of course tick tock which i would right? At the same time, of course,
TikTok, which I would say is a completely the kind of opposite end of social media in some ways,
it's far more centered around content creation. That's what makes it so popular. Of course,
the short form content is absolutely beautiful. I mean, that's why people love it, right? So,
and now you've seen YouTube shorts and you've seen a whole lot of other people kind of move
into the space. So in the back of that, you know, what do the two cater to? Well, there's very, very different demand
profiles, right? And, you know, supply and demand, we're supplying a particular need. TikTok is
supplying a different need. That's totally fine. There's room for both. Do you feel that way too?
I would say, look, there's a lot of, it's not just ages, but I think there's also a lot of it has to
do with countries and where people are. So say, for example, in Japan, which is I think our number, I think our fifth largest country that
we're in, Twitter is actually bigger than Facebook. I think it's Twitter's bigger than
Facebook. I think Saudi Arabia as well. Just those are two places where those countries have really
grabbed it. But even as I mentioned earlier, with regard to the short video, and this is where we
just launched our Getter Vision, which is our competitor to TikTok and Instagram Reels.
But the short video clip space is where that's really where the future is as far as for the younger audience.
I mean, even Zuckerberg in his most recent quarterly earnings said, I believe it was Instagram Reels accounted for 60% of their user engagement.
And that's also part of the reason why I think they're moving away from Facebook and going into this metaverse.
Because I think Zuckerberg also said they're going to lose 45%
of their under 18 audience over the next two years and so you see where kind of the trend
lines are going but I think whether it's the the micro blogging space or the short video format or
some people go into the content creation or obviously with the say the crypto and the
payment platform sense I think a lot of
the companies are going in different ways. But I got to go back to the thing that you started with,
though, was saying where you didn't necessarily see where this need or where this community would
be. I think you have to also keep in mind that the big tech companies have effectively written
off 40 to 50 percent of people in every country around the world. This isn't just a U.S. problem.
We see it in Brazil where they try to silence the Bolsonaro folks. This isn't just a U.S. problem. We see it in Brazil,
where they try to silence the Bolsonaro folks. We see it in the U.K. with anyone who would fall
into whether it be a lever, you know, anyone who supported Brexit. We see it in France,
obviously going on their presidential election right now, the way that Zemmour and Le Pen are
being politically discriminated against. So the free speech issue is going on all over the world,
not just here. But if you're not being discriminated against, you're not going to see it. Because again,
like President Trump got kicked off and you applauded that, like you liked that.
Many people, there were what, 73 million people who voted for him or 75 million,
the exact number was, who would say, that's a shame. That's terrible. So there are people all
over the world who I think would have a strikingly different viewpoint.
Yeah. I mean, although I always hasten to point out, look at what the number one page is on
Facebook. It's either Dan Bongino or Ben Shapiro every day, right? Conservatives are cleaning up
on Facebook and Twitter. And it's always strange to me that they won't acknowledge how successful
it has been for them. I think it has been a miracle for the conservative movement that they've
been able to use social platforms to be as successful as they had. Does that not strike
true to you? Yeah, but I think, again, this is something that I've had to face many times in
terms of questions like, well, we've got this study which shows that, you know, conservatives
are not as well-censored, you know, this is a misperception, right? So read the studies, right?
The studies actually say nothing like that. The studies talk about the fact that engagement is
much higher on conservative pages true engagement is right the
top three on facebook breitbart fox news and i think the daily caller generate as much interest
as the bbc cnn new york times you know a whole load of other platforms abc um but that doesn't
address the fundamental question like have they censored other right-wing platforms is that the
reason that these three are more engaged with?
Because they're narrowing the funnel of content choice, right?
So at the other end of the spectrum, you're saying,
well, look how engaged these platforms,
look how engaged these channels are.
Yeah, for sure.
But that's how many other platforms have you,
how many other media organizations have you taken out
in an effort to get to these three, right?
So the concept of censorship engagement
is not a direct correlation.
You can be a highly censored but engaged person, right? So the concept of censorship engagement is not a direct correlation. You can be a highly censored
but engaged person, right?
That doesn't,
they are not mutually exclusive.
So to say that this is why,
well, you've got really high engagement.
Yes, you have,
but that's not to say
that you haven't taken out
a lot of people to get high engagement.
We'll be back in a moment
with more from Pivot MIA.
Vox Creative.
This is advertiser content from Zelle.
When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting,
crouched over their computer with a hoodie on,
just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.
And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists.
And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built
to facilitate scamming at scale.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world.
These are very savvy business people.
These are organized criminal rings.
And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,
we can protect people better.
One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face
is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says
one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward
conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do
if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive?
Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam,
but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time.
So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other.
Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle.
And when using digital payment platforms,
remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.
Out. Procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road.
In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done.
Out, carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In, knowing what to do, when to do it,
and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.
with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Welcome back. We'll now return to Casey Newton's discussion with Parler's George Farmer and Getter's Jason Miller at Pivot MIA.
All right, let me ask one more question about market demand, and then I think we are going to
take some audience questions. So one other thing that I've wondered about, some people will sometimes say
that the reason that they believe
that a platform that caters to conservatives
may have trouble taking off
is that liberals won't be around to dunk on, right?
Like that the fun of these networks
is actually yelling at people,
making them look foolish, right?
Is that a challenge for you?
Is creating a useful dunking surface?
You want to go first? Yeah, well, as someone who could never really dunk in my basketball days,
I could get up to the rim, but just that I can't jump. So, no, but I think there are a couple of
things when we launched Getter, we made a very conscious effort. And
especially with as polarized as things now and people kind of retreating to their kind of
ideological corners in many ways. I mean, you see it with cable television and other. That's part
of the reason we made such an effort to have a global base. And in fact, the U.S. is only about
50% of our base. And up until January, when we grew by 50%, it was about 37% of our base. So we've
made an effort to make sure
that we have an international, diverse set of voices
that are out there.
And right now, the reality is a lot of the passion
in the free speech debate is in the center-right.
I'd say traditionally in U.S. history,
the free speech debate was largely a center-center-left.
As you go through talking about whether it be women's rights
or African-American rights or gay rights or any of the debates have really fueled a lot of the fire around free speech in recent decades or this last century.
But guys, the pendulum is going to swing back.
And we see Nicki Minaj getting sentenced to digital jail for daring to raise questions about vaccine effectiveness.
The cancel culture, once that pendulum gets swinging, you never know when it's going to come after you and so that's why it's good to decentralize get things away from twitter
and facebook and all the power being in the hands of these these few people and look it's the fact
that we've recently added everything from feminists in the uk to a whole bunch of mainstream media
reporters here in the us i think it's great so more than barrier not saying that people are
necessarily going to agree with the leftist center perspective all that much, but they're
welcome. All right. It is now time for the free speech portion of today's chat. If it is more of
a comment than a question, I am going to cut you off. So questions only, please. Hello. Sure. Hi,
I'm Claire Cruz. I work in legal technology I wanted to
thank both of you for coming here I appreciate that I always like hearing
different perspectives my question for both of you what percentage on both
platforms of like Gen Z or say people under the age of 25 are using both of
these platforms and what are you doing to obtain more of that age group?
Yeah, I mean, our platform, gosh, on user metrics, I mean, I would say under 30 is probably about 40% of our user base. And then in terms of NFT consumption, which is obviously
something we are still kind of testing and rolling out, And we'll be doing a lot more of that in the next six weeks.
Pretty much 100%.
So every, I think all the NFTs which have been purchased, all the ones that we've tracked at least have gone to kind of sub 30.
And I would say with regard to Getter, I'd say with the more of the microblogging aspect, what we initially launched with,
that probably skews a little bit older,
but that's part of the reason why we launched Vision
and why that's out today,
at least in the beta testing format,
because that will bring in a whole younger dynamic.
And so my 13-year-old who's on TikTok
and kind of showing me how it works,
and being the boomer in the house.
But again, that's where all the energy is
for the under 18 or even under 30s on the short video.
So that's a very distinct part of the reason
why we're moving into that space
to be able to broaden out and diversify the user base.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi.
You guys are brave.
Okay, here's my question. I'm Karen Kahn. I run a company called iFundWomen.
Do you all have, like, security teams that are monitoring IRL,
things that might be happening in the violence space in the world
as it relates to the conversations that are happening on your platform?
Obviously, like, we're watching you. Big Brother's watching you. Like a fucking hawk.
But are you guys watching you? Does that make sense?
Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, you know, well, in terms of moderation, in real time,
we have AI systems, which obviously monitor everything that's being put up on the platform.
The average takedown time of a comment on our platform which violates our moderation policies is less than three minutes.
Yep.
You know, there are obviously areas which... And do you see pods?
Like, for example, like I know like at Airbnb, I'm psyched to see Brian speak.
They have, you know, I have to think about how I'm gonna say this.
They know when people are booking pockets of Airbnbs
in random places of customers
that haven't been Airbnb customers before,
like around the Capitol with the insurrection,
that shit's going down.
So do you guys have those capabilities?
Oh yeah, I mean very much, well, I mean, yeah, we do.
I mean, yeah, very much so.
We can monitor in real time. I mean, we have very good real time monitoring. I mean, very much. Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, we do. I mean, yeah, very much so. We can monitor in real time. I mean, we have very good real-time monitoring. I mean, we
have... And what do you do about it, though? Well, it depends on where it falls within our moderation
policies, right? I mean, as I said, incitement to violence is taken down. I mean, we come under
bot attack pretty frequently. You know, we are very conscious of that. We obviously have to
monitor it in real time. If I suddenly see, you know, 150,000 accounts sign up from the same IP address, well, okay. Fairly bloody obvious, right? So,
you know, we obviously deal with that in real time. And so we obviously have to monitor what's
going on on the platform in real time. We have AI systems which do that. We work with Hive. That's a
publicly known piece of information. And they're very good. All right, I'm going to have to, that's going to have to be the last question.
All right, yeah.
Candice, hi.
Hi, question for you.
When we return, Casey gets a surprise question
from Candice Owens.
That's coming up.
As a Fizz member, you can look forward to
free data,
big savings on plans,
and having your unused data roll over
to the following month. Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and
conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at fizz.ca.
Welcome back. Here's the rest of Casey's panel at Pivot MIA.
Candice, hi.
Hi. Question for you. First, I just wanted to clarify
because I know that there's so many well-meaning journalists in the room who have actually written
and updated something that you said on stage that was incorrect about the officer being killed on
January 6th. He actually died of a stroke two days later, according to Vox Media, Reuters,
Washington Post, and plenty of journalists in this room. So I just wanted to clarify that.
That came out much later, but that's not true. I did want to ask you, though, because you said that you felt, or at least made
the assumption, it sounded like you meant that Donald Trump deserved to be deplatformed because
he wasn't citing violence. That was your comment. And I wanted to ask you, are you basing that on
what he actually said? Because his last tweets, just to read them out loud, because I think it's
important to actually know
what we're talking about.
The 75 million great American patriots
who voted for me, America first,
to make America great again,
will have a giant voice long into the future.
They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way.
Go home in peace.
I just am trying to understand.
I'm asking for everyone at the US Capitol
to remain peaceful, no violence.
Remember, we are the party of law and order.
Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
Thank you.
So I just wanted to just, if you could expand a little bit on what you mean when you say
that that's worthy of being deleted from a social media site because it's inciting violence.
I want to operate on facts, not narrative.
Well, sure.
I mean, I think when you spend the entire period after the election saying that it was
stolen and then you mask your supporters on the lawn of the Capitol, and then
you suggest that they just sort of walk into the halls of Congress while the votes are being counted.
I'm talking specifically on Twitter, because you said this is-
Right. Well, because what I believe is that we actually should take off-platform behavior into
account. I don't think you get to be a terrible person in real life.
Thank you for answering my question.
All right.
Off-platform behavior you think should count.
Yeah, I do think so.
So murderers and rapists and everybody who has a platform, fine,
but off-platform behavior should be taken. These are complicated things, but something else I
believe is that the president of the United States should actually be held to a higher
standard than everyone else, not the very lowest. Okay. Thank you for answering the question. All
right. One more. Hey, folks. Thanks for being here. So I think one thing we can all at least
agree in this room is that the political discourse in this country
is getting very hot.
Really?
So I'm wondering,
we're here to also talk about innovation.
A lot of times when I hear moderation,
it's a lot of after the fact, cleaning up the fallout.
Do you think that you two can have a place
in your platforms to maybe innovate in the space
of how do we lower the temperature of conversations
as they're happening,
rather than just cleaning up the fallout? And I'm trying to be wary of this whole idea of censorship
because I know you guys are sensitive to that. And so I don't know how you see this idea of moderation.
You know, even like I said, cooling the temperature of a conversation. Is that something that you've
looked into? I would say from from Getter's perspective, getting in and trying to influence
the conversation or say,
let's go and take it in this direction or something else, that's not what we're about.
We want to have a platform for people to come and actually speak their thoughts and opinions.
And I think you start getting down a real slippery slope when, say, if you start putting up warning labels. That's one thing that we don't do, for example, with Getter. Either it fits the terms
of service or it doesn't. As soon as you put up a warning label or some kind of, you know,
be warned before you click on this, then it becomes editorializing that takes it into an entire different direction.
So, for example, the fact we're YouTube right now, if you're talking about climate change and it's outside of their particular worldview, they'll throw up a label.
Now, last time I checked, climate change didn't have anything to do with insurrection or any kind of violent activity.
I mean, that's I think a pretty egregious example. But I think you have to be very careful if you're taking it from the
perspective that you want to go and, say, guide or manipulate or tone down certain conversations,
because then at that point, you really, you cease to become what you set out to do, which would be
a free speech platform. So, I think the goal, our approach to it, is to try to diversify and get as broad of
an audience as possible, not just ideologically, but even one of the directions we've taken
is just try to get people who aren't necessarily even politics first. For example, Enos Cantor
Freedom, the basketball player in the NBA, someone who, he talks a lot about international issues,
but I don't think people view him as, say, a political figure. We have a dozen or so MMA fighters who like to talk about everything
from smashing people's brains to cooking, and we're glad to have those perspectives. But I think
you accomplish that by getting more voices on board rather than trying to suppress
people who are passionate. Do you mind if I clarify? So like Twitter, for example,
if you're about to retweet something with a comment and you haven't clicked that link, they now say like, hey, do you think you should read this first before you post? They don't stop you from doing anything, but they're just kind of nudging you in the direction of saying, hey, let's have a productive conversation.
Yeah, they're not going to do that to repost something, say, on Twitter from the New York Times.
I don't think I've ever gotten one of those. It's only if I say I'm going to repost something from, you know, Breitbart or something like that.
So it's...
All right. Let's try to take one more question.
Gentlemen, thank you both for being here. I'm Evan Engel. I'm a producer with Pivot.
I have a question about the difference between moderation and censorship, which I can't really see. George, you said you're going to obey the Constitution as your guide,
as if our courts are not full of constitutional problems around free speech and trying to decide
what's in line with the Constitution, what's not. Jason, you said you're not going to allow hate
speech or, I think, direct calls to violence. But the second you take that down and you say,
I'm moderating, won't somebody say, no, I meant it as a joke
and you're censoring me?
What is the difference here?
Well, so I mean, you're absolutely right.
There is a very strong debate to be had
what defines kind of the concept of free speech.
The kind of easy answer to that
is that we have to use common law, right?
We have to use what's established currently,
what's constitutionally accepted, right?
So I go back to the commonly used example.
You can't shot fire in a crowded room, right?
That's well known.
Okay, well, you can't incite to violence.
You can't say, I'm gonna kill you
at this particular place and time, right?
That is not allowed under the constitution, right?
It's conspiracy to murder.
So as a result of that, you can't say,
well, like I'm gonna go on a platform and say that, right? It's conspiracy to murder. So as a result of that, you can't say, well, like,
I'm going to go on a platform and say that, right? So that's a very clear example of what we don't
allow, right? There is a difference between moderation and censorship. Censorship is where
there is clearly no established political ground or legal ground for discussion around what you're
talking about on the platform, right? So for example, like COVID-19,
there's clearly no legally defined COVID-19 narrative in the courts as to what can and
cannot be talked about with regards to COVID-19, right? You're still going to have issues where
an elected official gets up and he says, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. And is that
a call to violence or is that free speech? And you're not, the courts don't know the answer to
that. You're going to have to solve that. Yeah. well, look, of course, at the end of the day,
if you're asking is somebody at some point
gonna have to make a decision, yes, they are.
I've used this example before
in terms of the free speech scale,
if you want zero to 100,
we're trying to set the bar as far towards one end
in terms of maximum allowable free speech, right?
Whereas other social media platforms are probably more in the middle, right?
And the other thing that I would add to that
is the fact that ultimately
it's going to be the consumer choice
for where they want to go.
We think that with Getter,
we've really found the sweet spot of the bat
of making sure that people
can express themselves politically,
that they can voice their opinions
without the threat of being deplatformed
or censored or algorithmed out of existence, which the whole algorithm game is something we haven't really gone into,
but I think it's actually a really big deal.
It's just, it's effectively just censorship by another name.
But each platform is going to have their own terms that whether it be the people who run
the platform or their community that are going to have different aspects of input into that.
But again, ultimately, it's going to be a consumer choice
on where they want to go.
And I think that having more options for people
and decentralizing this is going to be much better
than just saying, hey, three Silicon Valley tech billionaires
get to decide your rights, not just here in the U.S.,
but around the rest of the world, too.
Right, but now it's three billionaires.
No, Evan, that's it.
Thank you.
Yeah.
This is an honest question, no agenda, really.
I'm from a company called Criterion Global.
We've been in Miami since 2012,
and we focus on growth in international markets,
so a lot of LATAM, et cetera.
And one thing that really struck me is that we talk a lot about the Constitution,
the continuum of free speech as kind of the premise of your platforms,
but you also talked about doing
business in Saudi Arabia, and I believe Iran. How does that work? Like, you can't download Grindr.
Like, how does that work? Yeah, that's the most interesting question that's been asked.
So, sorry, kids. Sorry, everyone else. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, that's, I think that that comes back to,
I mean, not to get too philosophical about it,
but that does come back to the philosophy
of what free speech means.
Like, what are we actually even talking about here?
Because what we can talk about in the US
is so different to what we're talking about in Saudi.
The reason we have such a large follower
and user count in Saudi and Iran
is because these are highly censored societies
which value the ability to speak out
beyond the government censors, right? So what does free speech mean there? We still have to
issue our community guidelines, right? This is what we operate on in terms of moderation on our
own platform, right? That's why I come back to those things that we talked about, inciting
violence, doxing, intellectual property theft, pornography. All of these areas are things that
we moderate, right? But beyond that,
we are not moderating because, again, you start to get into that subjective territory where free
speech in one country means something very different to another, right? So that's why free
speech is important. And it is different in Iran. It is different in Saudi. It is different in the
US. It is different in the UK. It's different in Sweden, right? All of these countries have
different angles where the people themselves, the consumer, to come back to Jason's answer, the consumer wants to choose what they want to consume and what they want to say on a free speech platform.
And also, I just added that, going back to my earlier point about how we take for granted our free speech rights here in the U.S.
So Brazil, for example, Brazil, obviously, they wouldn't have a First Amendment or not the same way because it's obviously a different country.
They don't have that as part of their constitution, free speech, which I just kind of assumed
that every country would.
Maybe they'd look a little bit different.
But actually, Deputy Carol Detone is writing that and trying to get it passed in Brazil's
Congress, which that just blows my mind that this massive democracy like that doesn't even
have guaranteed free speech.
And I think that's part of the reason why both Getter and Parler have done so well in Brazil. You take a look then, just their neighbor, though, Columbia,
does have essentially a no-censorship law. But as far as how it's applied then to the tech
community, I think it's really kind of open-ended. But there are certain countries where I know that
we've made the decision, we're just not going to invest the time and effort to scale because some
of their laws might be too restrictive.
But at a certain point,
it probably gets to where they're certain.
If we do want to scale truly globally,
probably have to go to moderation,
looking at differently in certain countries.
Obviously, certain things will be allowed here in the US
are going to be different than what's allowed in Saudi Arabia
or Iran or places like that.
But again, it's something we spend a lot of time on.
All right.
Well, that is all the time we have.
I appreciate the debate.
Jason Miller, George Farmer, round of applause.
We'll go.