Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - The Body Camera Propaganda Playbook

Starting point is 00:00:00 It has grown exponentially. And as it has grown, the police and the policing industry have come up with even more frightening ways of using it. In the wake of the horrific murders of Alex Preti and Renee Good by ICE agents, Democrats like Chuck Schumer and mainstream media pundits have been calling for more body cameras. After Christy Noem announced that all federal agents would begin wearing body cameras on patrols, many progressives online celebrated. As was the case with the police before ICE, body cameras are increasingly being. presented as a technological fix to deeply rooted institutional problems. But while they might seem like a good idea, body cameras actually have the opposite effect of what many in the media claim. Alec Karakasanas is a lawyer and the author of the

Starting point is 00:00:43 fantastic book Coppaganda. Today he's joining me to talk about the history of body cameras in policing and how body cameras will only strengthen Isis power, obscure accountability, and divert attention away from deeper structural and ethical questions about immigration issues. Alec, welcome to free speech Friday. Thanks for having me back. Yeah, it's great to have you back. And I know this is something that we talked about actually last time you were on, but I wanted to dive deeper into it today because I feel like this conversation around body cameras

Starting point is 00:01:09 has just kind of gone so off the rails. And a lot of people aren't actually familiar with the history of the role of body cameras and what they actually do. So to start off, can you tell me a little bit about when body cameras first emerged and how they were used? So body cameras first emerged for police more than 15 years ago. And in the early years, they were really exciting for police forces, especially police leaders and officials. Obviously, the multi-billion dollar police surveillance industry was very excited about their product. They had a problem, though.

Starting point is 00:01:41 They were having trouble getting the funding to support rolling out these essentially mobile surveillance cameras that the police would control. And they couldn't get people to fund them because they were pitching them as something that the police desperately wanted. And we know they desperately wanted them from their own internal communication. and marketing documents that I've collected in my research when I studied this issue and wrote about it, right? And also because they were so desperate for them that they were seeking and getting private donations to fund body cameras.

Starting point is 00:02:12 So like the LAPD, for example, got private donations from people like Steven Spielberg to fund body cameras for the police, okay? Why did the police back then want it so badly? So body cameras were an extension of this technology that police had started to really like. So the dash cam videos that police started putting on their patrol cars and certain forms of surveillance cameras they were putting up around cities. It was part of a program to get as much of the public on video as possible, what they call total information awareness around communities.

Starting point is 00:02:43 And it's very important for the police that they be the ones that control these cameras, where they're placed, what they shoot, when they're turned on, when they're turned off, right? Things like that. It's not just police, though. You have to understand the major players in this. And each of them has slightly different incentives. So a huge proponent of body cameras were actually prosecutors. Prosecutors in our society have a huge problem. No society in the recorded history of the modern world has tried to arrest in jail and prosecute so many people.

Starting point is 00:03:12 Okay. So the scope of this, you know, over 10 million arrests every year, the system would completely break if all of those people got their constitutional rights. If you got a right to an attorney and an investigator to look into your case to file a month. If you had to get a jury trial for all those arrests, especially all the low-level misdemeanor cases that are prosecuted, it would completely shut down the entire system. And every one of us would be in jury duty every day. Right. So the system relies on coercing people into giving up those rights into pleading guilty. And the important thing in that process is leverage. So what prosecutors wanted was especially for very low-level cases. So a lot of the prosecutions around the U.S. are for very low-level misdemeanor. like an unhoused person trespassing somewhere they're not supposed to be, or somebody possessing some drug or something like that, right? So these are the use cases where the body camera really thrives, because it creates really strong evidence that the police can control

Starting point is 00:04:11 that coerces people instead of fighting their case, and well, now there's a video of it so they can plead guilty more quickly. So for prosecutors, it was a huge boon, and everybody understood, both prosecutors and police, that because the police controlled the cameras and because of the nature and the way they're used, they would almost never be used against police. And that's what the data has shown. A body camera evidence is almost never used against the police,

Starting point is 00:04:32 but it's used every single day in every courtroom around the country, basically, to prosecute very poor people for very low-level crime. So prosecutors really wanted that. It's so interesting that you say that they already had some of this surveillance infrastructure in place. Like, I didn't even think about the role of dash cams and how much of that footage was being normalized around this time. I feel like, I mean, in the early 2010s and I guess late odds to, camera technology was just really advancing.

Starting point is 00:04:56 This is when you start to see the rise of the content creator industry too. And, you know, the iPhone launches in 2007, which has a camera on it. It's just easier and easier to, like, record video, I guess. So it makes sense that the police would want to lean into that and dominate the ability to record video, you know, in these kind of like police interactions. Why was someone like Steven Spielberg giving all this money for body cameras? Like, was there some like entertainment tie in? Like, why were all these other donors getting involved?

Starting point is 00:05:20 Are they just super pro police? I can't speak to Spielberg himself, but there's some incredible academic research. out there on the very shadowy world of private police foundations, and they raise huge sums of money from some of the most wealthy and powerful interests in our society, including individuals, but also large corporations like Target, other big corporations. So the police are very successful at raising money for charity, which, you know, is their police foundation, that they then use for equipment, military equipment, surveillance technology, sort of what they see is cutting edge stuff that they can't get public approval to purchase.

Starting point is 00:05:55 They purchase it kind of through that sometimes. They also get donations from the Defense Department and the military industrial complex more generally. So they want this stuff. But in body cameras in particular, the police wanted them for different reasons, for surveillance, right? Because what they saw coming was this world in which they could outfit hundreds of thousands, maybe up to a million police officers around the country with a mobile surveillance camera that they control. They thought it could protect themselves from liability and they could create doubt about what happened through the strategic use of their camera. This is one of the reasons whenever you see a body camera video,

Starting point is 00:06:28 you always hear the officers saying something like, stop resisting, stop resisting, stop resisting, right? Also, the cameras are positioned on their chest. There's a reason why movies are not filmed like that, right? Movies are filmed very still, right, with like a tripod, and they're filmed at a little bit of a distance, so you can actually see what's going on, but these are from the perspective of the officer's chest. So one of the things they try to do is they're very bumpy and shaky and chaotic, and they make every interaction seem like at some kind of chaos-inducing high-speed moving situation where the police had to do what they had to do. And all the other officers are shouting these same things they're trained to shout, right?

Starting point is 00:07:03 So they're able to use them to generate confusion about what's happening. And also they don't capture the officer themselves. They capture what the officer is looking at. There was some tweet a while ago. It was something like, yeah, I can't believe that people thought that giving every police officer, basically the ability to produce 24-7, like Blair Witch style footage, you know, of like the people that they're arresting would help the people that they're arresting. And I think that there's something to that, like,

Starting point is 00:07:27 visual anxiety that you get watching, even the most benign interaction through that type of a camera, like, it is very, like, jarring and anxiety inducing. But still, I mean, like you were saying, it seems like it wasn't an overnight thing. This wasn't something that police officers just got. It seems like they had to lobby for them for years. And certainly this wasn't some widespread thing back in 2010.

Starting point is 00:07:50 When did things start to change? And when did, I guess, people in power? or politicians or the people that control these police budgets start to say, okay, well, maybe this is technology that we should start to fund. Well, so even at the early years, there were some frontline officers who actually didn't like them because they didn't fully understand how helpful they would be. It was the higher-ups and the officials and the companies that really foresaw a lot of this, plus the prosecutors.

Starting point is 00:08:17 And lying cops sometimes opposed them. They didn't want to add something else to their uniform. They were a little worried about, like, well, what happened, what if we, you know, don't control when this is turned on or whatever. And I think it's just really crucial as you walk through from the 2008-2009 era to the moment Michael Brown is killed in Ferguson when the body camera craze explodes. There was a lot of experimentation and there was a lot of convincing that the police establishment leadership and the companies did of frontline officers.

Starting point is 00:08:47 And one of the things that was really important in convincing them was the incredible value that body camera videos could be used for propaganda purposes. So you can see on the news now, if there's a body camera video of, let's say, an undocumented immigrant committing a crime, that video is up on Fox News or the New York Post website in an hour, right? But if there's a video like the Chicago police killing unarmed black teenager, Lequan McDonald. Yeah, we're never getting that footage. So if it's not helpful for the police, they can hide that video for years or forever. We may never see it. Ferguson and the rest of the country. sort of exploding with outrage about what happened to Michael Brown. But it was also one of those

Starting point is 00:09:26 incidents where there was no video. The public was desperate to know what happened to Michael Brown. And there were these conflicting eyewitness accounts. So it was actually a perfect opportunity for the police surveillance industry to shift their marketing tactic. And to their credit, they came up with a brilliant idea. Instead of pitching body cameras as something that police and prosecutors and surveillance technology companies really want, they said, what if we pitched it to Democrats and liberals as accountability and transparency? These two words, accountability and transparency then became the buzzwords. When I studied nine years of mainstream media reporting on this,

Starting point is 00:10:05 they were mentioned in virtually every single article about police body cameras. The history that I just talked about about the police in the police surveillance industry and prosecutors actually wanting body cameras for their own purposes was entirely erased when this was sold to liberals. Now, when surveillance technology like this is sold in other countries, they don't bother to have that nice explanation for liberals in more authoritarian societies. It's just understood that when you give agents of the state surveillance technology, that they're going to use it for their own ends and for surveillance, not to help reduce their own size and power and hold themselves accountable. How delusional are these liberals that believe this? Like, this is crazy. But, I mean, I guess we see it even today.

Starting point is 00:10:46 But like you're saying, it's just this sort of stark rebrand. Can you explain a little bit more about that, like, effective marketing switch? Because I feel like body cameras, at least when I started to sort of pay attention to when they were being used, they were being used to document protesters around the Black Lives Matter. I was covering like Ferguson in that era. And I feel like there was just a lot more of like police using video footage back then to actually indict protesters or track them. One of the key elements in this period is that Barack Obama proposed hundreds of millions of dollars for body cameras in the wake of Michael Brown.

Starting point is 00:11:19 The Democratic Party officials across the country had their own incentives, and they had their own interest in this period. So the police wanted them for their own reasons. The police were getting more and more interested in how they could even be used to document protesters, right? In addition to all the other reasons they wanted them, but the Democratic Party was really interested

Starting point is 00:11:37 in portraying themselves as doing something about this issue that the public was outraged about. But they also understood that this would be an easy one because they wouldn't get any resistance from police. And not only that, they would be celebrated by the policing industry for doing this. So it was kind of a win-win from the perspective of the Democratic Party. I used that term kind of ironically because, of course, win-win is the phrase that Eric Holder used when selling this to liberals,

Starting point is 00:12:04 because he said it was a win for liberals because they would get accountability and transparency, and it was a win for society because we would know what would happen. It was portrayed as that rare, elusive reform, which is just good for, everyone. Why were so many liberals on board with this, though? I mean, it does seem like the expansion of mass surveillance in a really dangerous way. Like, why were so many liberal constituents so easily swayed by this? I mean, wasn't there any sort of pushback from these digital rights groups or anything like that saying, hey, this is like going to be really bad? So anyone who was skeptical of this technology was essentially erased from the mainstream news

Starting point is 00:12:40 media in those early years. When I went back and studied the history of mainstream news reporting about this. It's astonishing to see how the people who were warning about the dangers of this and who were trying to make the point that the solution to police brutality and violence is not giving the police more money for surveillance technology were essentially erased from the mainstream news discussion. And instead, something very nefarious happened that I document in my work, which is select people were chosen from progressive or mainstream or liberal nonprofit organizations and universities to be quote. quoted in the news as saying, these are a win-win, these are great, these are going to help

Starting point is 00:13:19 accountability and transparency. And so the average person in the public is being bombarded, right? They're being told that these are great. The police want them, so that's good. And from the supposed left, they're being told, don't worry, actually. We don't see any concerns here. This is a win-win. So unless you were really steeped in this stuff and you really knew how to probe underneath

Starting point is 00:13:39 all of this, if you're just like a mainstream news consumer, you're kind of thinking, well, this sounds great. Oh my God. It's so reminiscent of what we're seeing right now with the expansion of mass surveillance with these identity verification systems and biometric data harvesting and stuff as well where you have these like fake progressive groups and people kind of planted to like, yeah, try to sell it as like cracking down on big tech or something to the left. And it's like, of course, that's completely untrue. But who were some of these people who became mainstream voices to the left or to progressives selling this technology? Some of the most prominent people that I talk about in my work are NYU professor Barry Friedman, who is a crucial voice in selling this to what I would call sort of the educated liberal elite, but who are uninformed about these kinds of issues. And Jay Stanley, who was an employee of the ACLU. The ACLU? That's what made it so damaging. You know, they had this, even this ACLU employee who was out there telling people it's a win-win.

Starting point is 00:14:36 Please tell me this man does not still work for the ACLU. I think he does, actually. I haven't checked recently, but I think he does. That is terrifying. So it seems like this kind of rolls out and is mass adopted. And even in 2020, when we had all these conversations about policing, abolish the police, obviously that didn't happen. But was there any rollback at all of this technology once it was rolled out or has it only basically just grown in use since? It has grown exponentially. And as it has grown, the police and the policing industry have come up with even more frightening.

Starting point is 00:15:10 frightening ways of using it. So one of the most important uses which has emerged in recent years is their ability to control news virality through the use and manipulation of these videos. So if you take, for example, Los Angeles, which is one of the places that we've looked at it the most closely, the L.A. Sheriff alone has 42 full-time PR employees as of a few years ago. LAPD has another 25. So just the top two police departments in L.A. I'm not even talking about the dozens of other police departments or the feds or the prosecutors or or whatever, just those two police departments have 67 full-time PR people. Might have been counting the officers doing it part-time or the unions, right? So one of the things they specialize in is social media. They also have editing teams that can subtly manipulate these videos in ways that change how they seem. And they understand something really important, which is if you can stop a video from going viral,

Starting point is 00:16:04 you can prevent tens of millions of people from seeing it. Or if you want a video to get out there, you can make it go viral. by releasing it right away and editing it in certain ways, right? And so they're constantly producing this stuff for social media using the body cameras. That was something that really wasn't as sophisticated 10 years ago. But now that's been integrated into the public relations industrial complex for the police. And it's something that I think we're seeing it in real time play out now across the country in departmental budgets where they just pay people to edit and post these videos. It's wild.

Starting point is 00:16:38 And then, you know, as you mentioned earlier, this. body camera footage and a lot of this edited footage is also repackaged and amplified by right-way influencers, liberal influencers, local news channels, like viral Twitter accounts. It's terrifying. One other thing that's happened since then is it's become clear just how much money we're talking about. There are tens of billions of dollars now in contracts. It's not just the cameras, which themselves are relatively cheap. It's that every camera carries with it the need to train someone. You need to train someone on the footage. They need to buy software licenses to edit and review all of this stuff, to pay people to review the footage.

Starting point is 00:17:18 And then these cloud computing contracts to store unprecedented amounts of data, right? And then updating all of that, right? And so these are perpetual contracts. The market capitalization of the companies involved in this went up tens of billions of dollars as the body camera movement exploded. And so now 10 years after, 12 years. after Michael Brown, this is a huge industry that's going to be very, very difficult to ratchet back. Well, it's also so intertwined with big tech. And, you know, you mentioned like these cloud competing services or like, I mean, Amazon Web Services. There's all these big tech companies

Starting point is 00:17:53 that have government contracts or that do work with the police or, you know, like you said, they're profiting directly from these systems. It seems like impossible that it'll be rolled back. Not to mention the tech industry is increasingly interested in militarism and defense technology. and making, you know, police technology for the government. I think what's particularly scary is that they're just getting started. The amount of data they're collecting from all of these police officers and agents across the country filming everything that they see and do enables them to train various algorithms, including facial voice recognition algorithms.

Starting point is 00:18:28 It enables them to collect all of that information and to put it in predictive policing databases, which other companies are selling to police. And it is going to be used in ways that we do. don't even understand right now that these companies are developing. And the thing that we're going to be worried about in four or five years is going to be some totally new thing that's not even public right now, probably. And so this is the story of how AI and big tech, the control of them is being centralized in repressive institutions and among the wealthiest people in our society. And they don't have a track record of using that wealth and power and technology in

Starting point is 00:19:02 ways that benefit all of humanity. Yeah. You're talking about this like constant filming, the facial recognition, scanning faces, recording voices, trying to figure out kind of like social networks. And I feel like the group that we sort of most associate that with right now is ICE. We've seen ICE out with their videographers, you know, they're scanning people's faces, adding them to watch lists, et cetera. As ICE's activity has escalated and as they've, you know, engaged in more and more egregious and frankly illegal behavior, you've seen a lot of liberals. This is like their new thing, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, all these people is like their thing

Starting point is 00:19:35 is like, we just need better training and better technology. If they had body cameras, you know, things would be better. And I've seen a bunch of liberal pundits making this argument for body cameras on ice. And so can you talk to me about that? Because it seems like we're seeing it all over again what we saw with the police, where like it is really liberals leading the way on pushing a lot of this messaging. It's even worse now, too, because now we have over 10 years of data. We have overwhelming evidence.

Starting point is 00:20:04 This is even the position. of the federal government's DOJ. Okay. Body cameras do not make police less violent. They do not reduce police misconduct. So we know that, right? So in the early years, the companies and others tried to do some studies that would show that there was some benefit to body cameras.

Starting point is 00:20:22 But now there's so much overwhelming research that even the federal government has to admit, body cameras actually don't reduce police misconduct. So what we're seeing now from Jeffries and Schumer is kind of like climate science denial. Nobody who knows anything about this thinks that these cameras are. are going to reduce the violence that ICE is committing. And it's also ironic in this situation because the people who killed Renee Good and Alex Preti both were filming themselves at the time.

Starting point is 00:20:46 And then were celebrated by their bosses, right? So the other kind of big lie behind what Schumer and Jeffries are saying is in addition to the fact that we know cameras don't actually improve these issues that they say they care about, is that what ICE is doing is intentional. It's not some kind of lack of training or lack of preparation or failure to have the best technology. They're executing the orders that they've been given,

Starting point is 00:21:10 and they're doing so in ways that their superiors continue to celebrate, and nobody is being held accountable for. And so this whole charade that we're somehow going to stop them by giving them more video cameras makes absolutely no sense. And training is very similar. Nobody who understands what police and ICE training is like would ever recommend that they get more of it. This is where they're learning these tactics.

Starting point is 00:21:34 This is where they're learning to be violent. The person who shot Renee Good was a trainer, according to the news reports. So it's very disheartening to see certain key members of the Democratic Party leadership, still advocating more body cameras and more training when they advocated the same thing in 2020. And police killed more people in 2021 than they did in 2020. And more people in 2022 than they did in 2021. And more people in 2023 they did in 2022. And so on and so forth.

Starting point is 00:21:59 Yeah. I mean, it's not even just these political leaders. It's liberal pundits as well. It seems like this is something that is just becoming more and more part of the mainstream conversation where body cameras are almost offered as like a compromise to progressives where it's like, oh, well, listen, guys, you know, we can't abolish ice. That would be crazy. But we can do body cameras as if that's some sort of like concession to progressives. I think because body cameras, as you mentioned when they were rolled out, were sold as this progressive accountability thing. And they're still to this day not. But I think it's, It's like positioned that way. And you see it in places like the New York Times or other outlets that cover this news. It seems like that's how they kind of write about this stuff as well. It's even more nefarious than that because what this does is it distracts and co-ops people

Starting point is 00:22:48 who are getting outrage and angry and who want to do something about this. And then they're being diverted to this thing that actually the people committing this stuff actually want this. So you saw Kirstie Noem and come out yesterday and say her and Tom Homan were really excited. Now they're going to have ICE using body cameras in Minneapolis. What's so nefarious about body cameras in the policing context and ICE is it also, it focuses our attention on individual actors and individual situations. Like, was this person a bad cop or a good cop? Or was this person a bad protester or a good protester? Did they do something that merited this?

Starting point is 00:23:26 And we're not asking them fundamentally deeper questions. Like, why is this particular group of armed agents in this name? neighborhood at this moment right now looking for these people, right? And the failure to focus on the deeper questions leads the Democratic Party, for example, to be demanding things like training and body cameras when they literally just tripled the ice budget from its already record high last year. So now they're saying you can keep that tripled budget if you also spend more money on surveillance cameras. I mean, it really makes no sense. And it's distracting people away from the fundamental questions about, like, is this the kind of society that we want to live in? Is this

Starting point is 00:24:06 the kinds of repressive forces that we want in our communities? Is this the kind of approach we want to human beings that come from other countries? It's really incredible to see the lack of moral and strategic leadership among the Democrats, because even if setting aside the moral issues strategically, this focus makes absolutely no sense because you're taking this groundswell of public outrage that you could use to transform some of these systems and to do things that are more popular and you're funneling them into things that actually won't work and that will actually give your opponents more money and power. Alec this is exactly exactly what's happening with social media right now where we have these people that are so outraged rightfully so

Starting point is 00:24:50 at big tech companies right these are not good actors in the space and they want quote unquote like regulate big tech you know doda dot crack down big tech and they're is this sort of like popular sentiment to say like, hey, we want a different internet. We don't like the way the internet feels. We don't like the way that social media today feels. And instead of passing laws that would actually data privacy reform and things that would actually affect the business model of these companies and create a less profit-driven internet and create an internet that was not as, you know, divisive and insidified, I guess. It is all being redirected by the Democrats to surveillance laws. You know what's going to make the internet better is mass censorship.

Starting point is 00:25:27 no one under the age of 18 able to post. Everybody has to tie their biometric data to every single thing that you read and consume online. Like that is what they're pushing. And they're pushing it kind of exactly as what you're saying. It's like they're diverting the energy that people have for real change where we could really, for the first time, like really affect our tech landscape in a really positive way and have more privacy protections, consumer protections, have a less profit-driven social media environment.

Starting point is 00:25:52 And it's all being driven to surveillance. And it sounds like it's the same thing with body cameras and police tech. Like, it's all being diverted to surveillance. And as you said, rewards for these terrible big tech companies, rewards for the worst actors, rewards for ICE. I mean, in the tech legislation stuff, it's like rewards for meta, rewards for Google because they're excited to harvest all this biometric data on children. So it's just, it's wild to like think of the parallels there. One of the common features in both that context and in this context and in a variety of other propaganda related contexts is the Democratic Party establishment. and liberal academic establishment

Starting point is 00:26:31 and many actors within the nonprofit industrial complex, they play a very important propaganda role. They co-opt public anger, outrage, consciousness, interest, and they direct them away from things that could transform these systems into things that the systems are generally pretty happy with, if not things that the system already wants with a new label. This is what makes them so nefarious. because they're portraying themselves as deeply caring about the very problems that everyone is outraged by,

Starting point is 00:27:04 but they're taking people who don't know any better because there's so many things I don't know about, right? I don't have time to learn about all these other things. Everyone is like that, you know, and this is, people don't have the time and capacity, the ability to become experts on all these things. So in each issue area, they're taking well-meaning people who care about something, and they're selling them snake oil. And that's what makes them so harmful because they're exploiting, the fact that we don't have the capacity any one of us to become experts in all these issues.

Starting point is 00:27:34 And that's what I think I try to do in my book is really show people how that process works, at least with respect to police, crime, prisons, jails, prosecutors, and courts. But it's equally applicable to what you were just talking about and to a wide variety of other areas where we constantly are getting policies that are just not solving the problems that we all care about in our lives. Right. And then we all get more and more angry. And then we have more and more of these, you know, nonsense non-profits or as you mentioned, these like Democrat actors that just take that anger and redirect it to something that makes everything even worse. And then they profit from it, of course, during this whole time.

Starting point is 00:28:11 That's the kicker. You know, there's, the thing is that there's, there's so much money to be made. And when there's that much money to be made, you can essentially find people to play this propaganda role for you, whether it's donations to universities or donations to nonprofits. or donations to political candidates. There's just so much money that you can funnel into all these ways of laundering this policy. And there's all these validators that will step up and they're willing to sell their credentials. They're willing to say, well, I'm a civil liberties advocate and I think body cameras are okay. Or they're willing to say, I'm a professor and I study, you know, data for a living.

Starting point is 00:28:47 And I think there's no problem here. It's going to take a really organized effort among people of goodwill to establish trustworthy institutions and really, really, research and channels of distributing that research to make it more accessible to really fight against this. It's a pretty relentless propaganda strategy among the people that are profiting from the existing way that we do things in our society. Well, Alec, thank you so much for joining me today and chatting about all this. I appreciate your work so much. Thank you so much for having me back. All right. That's it for the show. Please support my work on Patreon via the link below or buy a paid subscription to my tech and online culture newsletter at usermag.com.

Starting point is 00:29:25 that's usermag.co. This show is entirely 100% funded by people like you. As you can imagine, covering these issues does not exactly win you advertising deals. I currently have no long-term advertising partnerships. So seriously, every single dollar of your support makes such a difference. On my Patreon, I do bonus episodes, a monthly Q&A live stream, and more. You can also get my biweekly tech and online culture newsletter at usermag.com, where I send a roundup of everything that I'm reading and seeing that week. Or you can get my newsletter on my Patreon, again, linked below. I'll be back next week with a brand new episode of Free Speech Friday. See you then.

Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - The Body Camera Propaganda Playbook

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.