0:00

This is the BBC. Ryan

0:12

Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. With the price

0:14

of just about everything going up during inflation,

0:16

we thought we'd bring our prices down. So

0:19

to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is

0:22

apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. Ready to get

0:24

30, ready to get 30, ready to get 20, 20, 20,

0:26

ready to get 20, 20, ready to

0:29

get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15

0:31

bucks a month. Sold! Give it

0:33

a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45

0:36

up front for 3 months plus taxes and fees. Promote for new

0:38

customers for a limited time. Unlimited more than 40GB per month.

0:40

Slows. mintmobile.com. BBC

0:45

sounds music radio podcasts. Hi

0:47

everybody. It is Sarah here

0:50

with the Monday edition of America

0:53

star America answers because it's when we

0:55

respond to your questions I'm in New York

0:57

City for yet another date

0:59

in the Trump legal calendar and

1:01

we've got with us Miles Taylor in Washington

1:04

Good morning, and Katie

1:06

Hill is in Los Angeles. Good

1:09

morning, everyone And it's me

1:11

Marianna in the worldwide headquarters in London and

1:13

it's actually my first time ever on the

1:15

Monday episode so it's brilliant to meet you

1:18

Mars and Katie and We've

1:20

got lots of questions and particularly about

1:22

actually our last episode of America's where

1:24

me and Justin Chatter to Don Lemon.

1:26

He's the former CNN journalist and it

1:28

was all about his interview with Elon

1:31

Musk which ended in quite an eventful

1:33

way and Maybe unsurprisingly,

1:35

we've had quite a lot of messages from people

1:37

who are feeling a bit pessimistic about social media.

1:39

Welcome to my world We've

1:42

got this question which is about the kind of

1:44

difference between social media and the traditional media from

1:47

Steve in Rochester in the UK Hi,

1:49

America's team I always enjoy the show

1:51

and was fascinated by the conversation about

1:53

the Don Lemon and Elon Musk interview

1:56

Marianna and Justin were talking about the fear that

1:58

because of the social rise of social media

2:00

platforms, people are increasingly

2:02

only hearing voices and views that

2:04

reinforce their existing beliefs. While

2:07

I agree with that, hasn't it always been like that

2:09

to a degree? I'm referring to

2:11

the print media. Surely people

2:13

generally choose a publication because it

2:15

panders to their existing prejudices. That's

2:17

a very good question Steve and it's

2:19

something I get asked quite a lot

2:21

because disinformation and polarisation, they're not new

2:23

things, they definitely predate social media. I

2:25

think what's interesting though is actually looking

2:27

at your use of the verb to

2:29

choose which I think is what's a

2:31

bit different about social media and that's

2:33

because algorithms, the computer-generated systems that

2:35

exist, they recommend you stuff that they think

2:37

you might like but you don't necessarily have

2:39

to seek out yourself. You don't have to

2:42

go to the shop and say oh I

2:44

quite fancy having a read of this. It's

2:46

content that's being actively promoted into your

2:48

feed and so for me that's perhaps

2:51

the crucial difference between existing prejudices and

2:53

bias and all of that kind of

2:55

stuff that's always existed. I think the

2:57

problem is that algorithms kind of further

3:00

entrench those biases to the point where

3:02

people are so siloed it's impossible for

3:04

them to even encounter content that doesn't

3:07

already agree with what they say

3:09

and it's even harder to kind of challenge it and have

3:11

a conversation about it. I mean the other good thing in

3:13

some ways about a newspaper or publication is you might go

3:15

and pick it up, you might be reading it at

3:17

home or in a cafe, you might start to

3:19

have a conversation with other people who don't necessarily

3:22

entirely agree with you. Online you tend to encounter

3:24

people who often have

3:26

similar views to you or agree with you and that's

3:28

why you're existing in the same

3:30

social media spaces. So I think

3:33

that's a big part of the problem. I don't know

3:35

what you guys think if anyone else thinks anything about

3:37

the difference between perhaps 20 years ago papers and the

3:39

media and then social media polarization

3:41

now. Yes Miles and

3:43

Katie and Marianne is asking us that

3:45

because 20 years ago she was not

3:48

consuming social media or broadcast

3:50

news or newspaper. Actually Sarah, 20 years ago.

3:53

Almost exactly 20 years ago I was first

3:56

using the internet using the Barbie website. So

3:58

there we go. Well,

4:00

things have come full circle for you, Mary Anna. It

4:06

must have been a killer year for you last

4:08

year with Barbie coming. I know. Me

4:10

and Sarah love to talk about Barbie. I mean,

4:12

I would just say this and I'd be curious

4:14

what Katie has to say. I think

4:17

of it like shards of glass now is

4:19

that the media ecosystem

4:22

used to be a couple of panes of glass

4:24

in a window. You could look through the pane

4:26

that you wanted, but it shattered now and the

4:28

shards are all over the place and they're

4:30

disconnected from each other. And that's

4:32

the thing is you can go

4:34

into your own micro ecosystem of

4:37

podcasters who share a viewpoint, websites

4:39

with a viewpoint, blogs with a

4:41

viewpoint, and they all stay within

4:43

that ecosystem. And you never have

4:45

to be exposed to other things.

4:47

I mean, even with legacy media

4:49

where certain papers had a particular

4:51

bent, you were still exposed to

4:53

stories and opinions that didn't perfectly

4:55

align. So I do think

4:58

we are going into that period of different

5:00

realities and different realities

5:02

translates into social

5:04

and political divisions that I think are much

5:06

sharper than we've seen in the past. So

5:09

not to destroy the analogy, but those shards

5:11

of glass are pretty sharp for our civic

5:13

life. I think that it's really,

5:16

it's a great metaphor, first of all, the shards

5:18

of glass, I think, especially because

5:20

they are extremely sharp right now. The

5:23

suppression of information and the fact that

5:25

everything comes down to how sensational

5:27

it is, how many views you can get or

5:29

how many likes and so on and so forth,

5:32

how much traffic it generates. And

5:34

I have particular concerns about it for young people

5:36

because as we've seen, you know, with,

5:39

I mean, look, the TikTok debate is its

5:41

own thing. But

5:43

across the board, young people are just not

5:45

exposed to vetted media, right? It's just whatever

5:47

happens to show up on their feeds and

5:50

it's pretty scary. We've

5:52

got a great question from Richard

5:54

in Northern Ireland who asks, certain

5:56

US politicians seem happy to disseminate

5:58

malicious AI content. from any

6:00

source if it appears to discredit their

6:03

opponents and benefit themselves. Is there any

6:05

direct evidence that the major US political

6:07

parties are actively using these AI tools

6:10

to generate their own beneficial fake content?

6:12

If so, do they run any risk of

6:14

prosecution? So I actually helped run

6:17

a think tank in Washington DC called

6:19

the Future US and we've been meeting

6:21

a lot with federal officials to

6:23

talk about the anticipated explosion of

6:26

deepfakes in the 2024 election

6:29

and there was a meeting that we

6:31

had, I won't say with what agency

6:33

because I don't want to call them

6:35

out, but we had a briefing where

6:38

we presented this presentation we've been using

6:40

a lot about the explosion of deepfakes

6:42

and we talked about a specific controversy

6:44

that happened in the United States of

6:46

a local teen who put out a

6:48

deepfake of someone streaking into high school.

6:51

And you know we went through

6:53

the details and you know the police arresting

6:56

the student and were the police in the

6:58

wrong or you know was the student in

7:00

the wrong and we get to the end

7:03

of the presentation and what we reveal to

7:05

them after we had these officials expressed opinions

7:07

about the case we reveal that the entirety

7:09

of the case was made up. The student

7:12

was fake, the headlines were fake, the controversy

7:14

was fake and we

7:16

said to those officials look we created

7:19

this story in 10 or 15 minutes

7:21

and we managed to fool you, the

7:23

people who are responsible for election security.

7:25

If you can be fooled Americans

7:28

are going to be fooled and so

7:30

it's something we've been working with them

7:33

a lot on. There is legislation being

7:35

proposed right now in Congress to make

7:37

it a federal crime to

7:40

portray someone who's running

7:42

for elected office using

7:44

AI without their permission either

7:47

to fundraise or to affect the

7:49

vote. Now it's unlikely I think

7:51

that that legislation gets passed before

7:54

election day but there has been a flurry

7:56

of bills starting to pop up to deal

7:58

with this issue. And

8:01

I worry that something going wrong close

8:03

to the election is what's actually going

8:05

to give those needed reforms the

8:08

lift to get through Congress. Yeah,

8:10

and one of the things we've been thinking

8:12

about actually, because I imagine that there will

8:14

be lots more questions about AI and about

8:17

social media and algorithms and everything else, is

8:19

that I can, on Mondays at least,

8:21

on the Monday episode, become your designated conspiracy

8:23

theory agony answer. If

8:25

there's something you want to ask us, whether it's about social

8:28

media or whether it's about maybe someone you

8:30

know who's fallen quite deep into conspiracy theories and

8:32

you want to know what to do about it,

8:34

you're worried about the election coming up and conversations

8:36

that you want to have, do reach out to

8:39

us and I'll attempt to provide you some

8:41

advice, if I can. Well, that's

8:43

going to keep you busy, Marianne. I'm looking forward to the

8:45

conspiracy theory clinic that you're going to be running. And

8:48

in the meantime, we have had

8:51

some really thoughtful engagement with an episode we

8:53

recorded a couple of weeks ago about the

8:55

Sentinel epidemic when we had the journalist Ben

8:57

Westhoff on as a guest. And Lisa's been

8:59

in touch with a question. She's

9:01

recommending to listeners in America, there's another

9:03

Radio 4 programme called A Reckoning with

9:05

Drugs in Oregon, which of course is

9:07

where they've had a very progressive drugs

9:09

policy. And she's got this question. Given

9:12

the legalisation of cannabis in some states,

9:15

even though it can be

9:17

more carcinogenic than tobacco causes, psychosis increases

9:19

the chances of developing schizophrenia, why is

9:21

none of that talked about when the

9:24

subject of legalising cannabis is raised? Now,

9:27

Katie, on the wider topic of drugs, I know

9:29

you've got experience, professional and

9:32

personal, about this. Can you tell us

9:34

a little bit about that? My

9:37

whole career has been working in homeless services,

9:39

aside from that brief stint in politics, and

9:41

obviously substance abuse has a lot to do

9:43

with homelessness, although not as much as people

9:45

sometimes play it out as. But

9:47

it hit my own family very

9:50

personally. My brother had struggled with

9:52

addiction for several years. He

9:54

got clean, he went to rehab, we sent

9:56

him, you know, and it seemed

9:59

like things were really important. really on the right track. But

10:01

then about two months after everything happened with

10:03

me and I resigned from Congress, my

10:07

mom was in the hospital having brain

10:09

surgery. He was staying with me and

10:11

long story short, he overdosed

10:14

downstairs on the couch and I

10:16

found him, did CPR. And

10:18

it turns out, of course, you don't find

10:20

out until later what happened, but he had

10:22

done some cocaine and the cocaine

10:25

was laced with fentanyl, which is becoming more and

10:27

more of a common problem. That was in January

10:29

of 2020 and the occurrence of such situations

10:33

has become the norm. I

10:35

mean, it's happening to families across

10:38

the country, it's staggering rates.

10:41

So obviously it's very personal to me. I

10:44

think that it is not an issue

10:46

that we have good answers for period.

10:48

So you can see in the attempts

10:51

at legislation, whether it's in Oregon or

10:53

elsewhere, we don't know how

10:55

to solve it. And even as somebody who I would,

10:57

I mean, you know, I'm often considered

10:59

an expert in substance abuse issues and certainly

11:02

the organization I work for is, we

11:04

really focus on harm reduction, on trying to

11:06

prevent people from dying because that's right now

11:09

the biggest priority. We can't necessarily figure out

11:11

how to solve for it otherwise, but we

11:13

certainly know enough to help prevent those kinds

11:15

of deaths. That's a really,

11:18

really sad story Katie. I'm sorry about

11:20

that. But of course, as you say, it

11:23

is now the case that so

11:25

many families in America have that

11:27

experience that so many people know somebody

11:29

quite close to them who's either struggled

11:31

with opioid addiction or has

11:33

a family member or a close friend die.

11:36

I would say that Katie's story

11:38

unfortunately is all too

11:40

common because of whether it's

11:42

illegal drug abuse or prescription drug abuse in

11:44

the United States and there

11:47

really is an awareness issue here.

11:49

Even cannabis, which is,

11:51

you know, considered not nearly

11:53

as hard of a drug and

11:56

is being of course widely legalized

11:58

across the United States, We're learning

12:00

more and more every year about some of

12:02

the downsides. I mean, one of the things,

12:05

there was another study recently that just showed

12:07

a tight correlation between cannabis

12:09

use and early stage dementia. So,

12:11

you know, and I will say

12:14

personally, I'm in favor of relaxing

12:16

federal laws around substances in the

12:18

United States. I think it's a

12:20

personal responsibility issue. But

12:22

if we're going to entrust people to

12:24

use things responsibly, they

12:27

really need to be aware

12:29

of the implications. And

12:31

what I worry about with cannabis

12:33

legalization is that people think that

12:36

because something is legalized, that means

12:38

it just inherently is safe. But

12:41

we know that not to be true. I mean, look at alcohol. We

12:45

know alcohol, when people binge drink,

12:47

is not safe. So

12:49

just because it's legal doesn't mean it can

12:52

be used. And that's something I think that we're

12:54

going to spend a lot of time working on

12:56

here in the United States once full

12:59

legalization has happened, which seems likely eventually

13:01

at the federal level on cannabis, there's going

13:03

to be a lot of public education to

13:05

do. And we can see from alcohol, it's

13:07

taken decades to get people to understand the

13:10

health ramifications. Two things when

13:12

we're talking about cannabis. One is that

13:14

if it's regulated properly and the enforcement

13:16

occurs properly, then the shops

13:19

that sell it, that are licensed to sell it,

13:21

you know, there's a certain amount of clarity

13:24

that there's not going to be other

13:26

substances in it. Right. But

13:28

if there's an underground market, if there's a black market, which

13:30

has not been completely eradicated by any means,

13:33

then you don't know. You don't have nearly those

13:35

kinds of guarantees. So

13:37

I'm also very much in favor of regulating

13:40

and legalizing it. And

13:43

frankly, I think we should be looking at that further

13:45

for other substances as well, not to

13:47

suggest that it's healthy by any means, but

13:49

because we have the ability to actually

13:51

ensure some degree of safety. Also,

13:55

there's been a real

13:57

limitation on us studying the negative.

13:59

negative effects of cannabis because the

14:01

federal regulations having it classified

14:04

as a Schedule I drug, that means that there

14:06

have been policies and regulations on research

14:08

into the health harms of cannabis. And

14:10

I think in, you know,

14:13

as we march towards a broader

14:15

acceptance of it and eventually at the

14:17

federal level, the full decriminalization, hopefully

14:20

those restrictions will be lifted and we can

14:22

have better research. And in the same way

14:24

that we do with tobacco, those kinds of

14:26

warnings so that people are informed when they

14:29

decide to use substances. Thanks so

14:31

much for sharing that, Katie. It's really moving to

14:33

hear that about your brother. And I'm sure, you

14:35

know, some people listening will be able to really

14:38

relate to what you've said there. I'd really

14:40

recommend people go back and listen to that fentanyl episode

14:42

because I also think it really helps you understand what's

14:44

going on right now and how many people are being

14:46

harmed and affected by what's unfolding in

14:48

the States in particular. On to another set

14:50

of questions on a different topic now. And

14:52

something I get asked a lot is about

14:54

foreign influence operations and the way they could

14:56

affect the election in 2024. And on that

15:00

note, we have this question from Caroline.

15:02

I'm currently reading the book, A Very

15:04

Stable Genius. And I've

15:06

been struck by how much of

15:08

the Trump presidency was dominated by

15:10

investigations into Russian interference in the

15:13

2016 election. What

15:16

measures have been put in place since to

15:18

prevent such interference and how much

15:20

will it be a real or a perceived issue

15:22

in 2024? Thanks. Miles,

15:25

do you want to jump in first? Yeah, I'm

15:27

happy to jump into this and spend a

15:29

lot of time in the trenches on this

15:31

issue. When the Russians first

15:34

started to interfere in US elections in 2016,

15:36

I was on the receiving end

15:38

of the classified briefings from the Obama

15:41

administration as there was a flurry of

15:43

activity to try to figure out what

15:45

to do. We had never experienced that

15:48

level of interference in the modern age.

15:51

The good news is in the wake of

15:53

Russia's interference in 2016, a whole range

15:56

of things were implemented to increase security across

15:59

the United States. United States. So

16:01

I then went over to the Department of Homeland

16:03

Security and we stood up a range of election

16:05

task forces to do everything

16:07

from better share intelligence more quickly

16:10

with different agencies and relief information

16:12

to the public about interference all

16:15

the way down to monitoring the

16:17

cyber networks of election districts around

16:19

the country. In fact, more than

16:21

99% of

16:24

voting districts around the country now

16:26

have essentially federal tripwire monitoring so

16:28

that if foreign adversaries are trying

16:30

to meddle in those networks or do

16:34

something like mess with vote tallies, we

16:36

can see it as it's happening in

16:38

real time. Really just extensive work. Here's

16:41

the catch. The thing that we did

16:43

not anticipate in 2020 is that the

16:45

biggest threat to our elections wouldn't be

16:47

the Russians. It would come from the

16:49

inside. It would come from inside the

16:51

House and it would be the president

16:53

himself. That is something that the

16:55

system did not contemplate. Fast

16:58

forward to 2024 and putting domestic

17:00

politics aside and whatever Donald Trump may or

17:02

may not do to question

17:04

the integrity of the votes, I

17:06

do think we are better positioned

17:08

than we were before against foreign

17:10

interference from Russia or other governments.

17:12

However, the thing that we talked

17:15

about earlier today about artificial intelligence

17:17

and deep fakes in our democracy,

17:19

that is the big question mark.

17:21

I travel all around the country

17:23

meeting with federal, state, and local

17:25

officials about election security. This is

17:27

the thing they are most panicked

17:29

about and they feel most

17:31

unprepared to deal with is they

17:34

don't know what to do when

17:36

the deep fakes start coming, whether

17:38

they are interactive robo calls pretending

17:40

to be polling places, telling people

17:42

don't show up because there's attacks

17:44

and there's physical security threats, or

17:46

whether they are images, for instance,

17:48

of people allegedly destroying

17:50

ballots that could lead to controversies

17:53

over something that didn't actually happen.

17:56

These sort of episodes are what

17:58

election officials are fearing. And right

18:00

now, federal agencies are really scrambling

18:02

to figure out how they're going to deal with

18:04

it. One of the things

18:06

that we have to remember is that

18:09

their whole effort, right,

18:11

at interfering into elections has

18:13

been to just spread misinformation

18:15

and disinformation. And there is no,

18:18

in my opinion, there has been no

18:20

real regulatory decisions or

18:23

changes that can make that

18:25

less possible, especially when you talk about how

18:27

X is now, you know, it's

18:29

the entire conversation that happened with non-women, right? We

18:32

don't have an actor in place that is

18:35

going to do any form of moderation. And

18:37

that moderation is exactly what we have

18:39

to rely on to reduce the spread

18:41

of misinformation and disinformation. So

18:44

whether it's AI, whether it's generated images,

18:47

just like Miles was suggesting, or if

18:49

it's just the boosting of false information,

18:51

it's going to be an issue. And

18:54

again, like I said, I'm very concerned

18:56

about it for young people as well.

18:59

What I think we're looking at heading

19:01

into this election is a combination

19:03

of what you described in both 2016 and

19:05

2020, which is foreign

19:07

influence operations in their 2016 form,

19:10

you know, bot networks that are automated.

19:13

And if we're honest with ourselves, quite easy

19:15

to spot now and less influential. But what

19:17

is effective is using real people, real people

19:19

who believe this stuff, perhaps even start these

19:21

conspiracy theories or spread this content, or who

19:23

at least are vulnerable to sharing this kind

19:25

of content if it's, you know, sent to

19:27

them via message and someone says, oh, you

19:29

might want to post this meme, this looks

19:31

great. Or you might want to post this

19:33

audio clip, have you heard it? It's those real

19:35

people that I think could become key vectors of

19:38

information. We have to think about this kind of

19:40

influencer economy now on social media. You know, there

19:42

are people who are very good at building very

19:44

active online audiences, mainly who agree with what they're

19:47

saying, but sometimes who disagree, too. And it means

19:49

that they are the perfect kinds of people. If

19:51

you were running a foreign influence operation or just

19:53

an influence operation anywhere, you'd want to tap those

19:56

people up and encourage them to share content because

19:58

it becomes a lot of fun. it's not

20:00

harder to figure out where that content has come

20:02

from. It's not necessarily, you know, Bob 737 who's

20:04

posting lots of things that make you think, oh,

20:07

hang on, I don't think this is a real

20:09

person. It's someone who's convincing and can persuade an

20:11

audience. And I think for me, that's definitely what

20:13

I'm sort of looking out for. And it's really

20:15

hard to look out for everyone else with ourselves

20:17

because real people don't tend to want to admit

20:20

either that they've perhaps shared stuff that was otherwise

20:22

sent to them by different parties. And

20:24

of course, it all comes at a

20:27

time when confidence in American elections is

20:29

quite low. We know really large numbers

20:31

of the electorate actually believe Donald Trump's

20:33

completely false claim that the 2020 election

20:35

was stolen and that he won more

20:37

votes than Joe Biden did. So,

20:40

you know, you're trying to tell people

20:42

already, don't believe all of the stuff that

20:44

even the main candidates tell you, but also be

20:46

aware to look out for lies

20:48

or AI generated propaganda that's coming at you

20:50

through your social media feed. Just, you know,

20:53

this is going to be the first presidential

20:55

election that's been held since we

20:57

had one in which the result was disputed

20:59

by one of the two candidates. And so

21:02

it's being held at a strange time anyway.

21:04

And if there's going to be a lot

21:06

of misinformation coming either from inside America or

21:09

from foreign actors, it's a

21:11

dangerous time in terms of people's confidence in

21:13

the vote. Unfortunately, that is all we've

21:15

got time for today. But particularly if you're

21:17

an America based here in the UK, you

21:19

can actually hear our takeover of Five Live

21:22

this coming Wednesday with Nagam and Chetty, which

21:24

is very exciting, which means you can call

21:26

in live to ask us a question. You

21:28

don't just have to send us a voicemail

21:30

or something in writing and you can reach

21:32

Five Live by text on 85058. You

21:35

can call or WhatsApp on 08085909693 or

21:40

you can tag them on social media via

21:42

at BBC Five Live. And of

21:44

course, we'll be back next Monday with more

21:47

America answers. So do please get in touch

21:49

with those more numbers coming. I'm afraid you

21:51

can WhatsApp America on plus 44 330

21:54

1239 480. Email us America at BBC and

22:01

we're hashtag America on social media and

22:03

discord. Remember you'll always hear

22:05

America's first and in full as a podcast on

22:08

BBC sounds. But until then, we'll

22:10

see you later. Bye-bye. Bye

22:13

friends. Bye-bye. America's

22:17

from BBC News. Thanks

22:19

for listening to America's from BBC News.

22:22

You can subscribe to this podcast on

22:24

the free BBC sounds app, which is

22:26

now available worldwide. Selling

22:35

a little or a lot. or

22:38

a lot. Shopify helps

22:40

you do your thing however you chiching.

22:42

Shopify is the global commerce platform that

22:45

helps you sell at every stage of

22:47

your business. From the launch your online

22:49

shop stage to the first real-life store

22:51

stage, all the way to the did

22:54

we just hit a million orders stage,

22:56

Shopify is there to help you grow.

22:58

Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers

23:00

with the Internet's best converting checkout. 36%

23:03

better on average 36% better on average compared

23:05

to other leading commerce platforms. Because

23:07

businesses that grow, grow with Shopify.

23:09

Get a $1 compared to other leading commerce platforms. per

23:11

month trial period at shopify.com.

23:15

shopify.com. slash work.