Ken Larsen's website - Sacha Baron Cohen speech to ADL on November 21, 2019
Here is an awesome speech that Sacha Baron Cohen gave to ADL
(Anti-Defamation League) on November 21, 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
Sacha's 25
minute speech nails it!
Here's my transcription:
(0:45) This is the first ever time
that I've stood up and ever given a speech as my least popular
character, Sacha Baron Cohen, and I have to confess, it's
terrifying.
(1:08) At times some critics have said that my comedy
risks reinforcing old stereotypes. The truth is that I've been
passionate about challenging bigotry and intolerance throughout my
life. As a teenager in England, I marched against the Fascist
National Front and to abolish apartheid. As an undergraduate I
traveled around America and wrote my thesis about the civil rights
movement with the help of the archives of the ADL, and as a comedian
I've tried to use my characters to let people let down their guard
and reveal what they actually believe ... including their own
prejudices.
(1:45) I'm not going to claim that everything that
I've done has been for a higher purpose. About half of my
comedy has been absolutely juvenile ... and the other half
absolutely puerile. [laughter]
(2:05) I admit that there was
nothing particularly enlightening about me as Borat of Kazakhstan
... the first fake news journalist ... running through a conference
of mortgage brokers while I was completely naked, but when Borat was
able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing, "Throw the Jew down
the well.", it did reveal people to be indifferent to anti-Semitism.
(2:29) When, as Bruno, the gay Fashion reporter from Austria, I
thought of kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas ... nearly
starting a riot ... it should the violent potential of homophobia.
(2:42) ... and when disguised as an ultra-woked developer, I
proposed building a mosque in one rural community ... prompting a
resident to proudly admit "I am racist against Muslims.", it shows
the growing acceptance of Islamaphobia.
(3:00) That's
why I really appreciate the opportunity to be here with you.
(3:02) Today, around the world demagogues appeal to our worst
instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are
going mainstream. It's as if the age of reason ... the era of
evidential argument ... is ending ... and knowledge is being
de-legitimized, and scientific consensus is dismissed.
(3:27)
Democracy, which depends upon shared truth is in retreat, and
autocracy ... which depends on shared lies ... is on the march.
Hate crimes are surging as are murderous attacks on religious
minorities.
(3:43) Now what do all of these dangerous trends have
in common? I'm just a comedian and an actor and not a scholar,
but one thing is pretty clear to me: All of this hate and
violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies
that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
[applause]
(4:09) Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter, and others
reach billions of people. The algorithm these platforms depend
upon deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users
engaged. Stories that appeal to our basic instincts and
trigger outrage and fear. It is why YouTube recommended videos
by the conspiracies Alex Jones billions of times. It's why
fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that
lies travel faster than truth, and it's no surprise that the
greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest
conspiracy theory in history: the lie that Jews are somehow
dangerous.
(4:57) As one headline put it, "Just think what
Goebbels
could have done with Facebook."
(5:03) On the internet
everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the
BBC. The fictitious protocols of the elders of Zion look as
valid as an ADL report, and the ranting's of a lunatic seem as
credible as the findings of a Noble Prize winner.
(5:24) We have
lost the shared sense of basic facts ... upon which democracy
depends.
(5:30) When I as the want to-be gangster Ali-G asked
astronaut Buzz Aldren "What was it like to walk on the sun?"
[laughter] the joke worked, because we, the audience, shared the
same facts.
(5:47) If you believe that the moon landing was a
hoax, the joke doesn't work.
(5:54) When Borat got that bar in
Arizona to sing, "Jews control everybody's money, and they never
give it back." the joke works because the audience shares the fact
that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory
originating in the Middle Ages. But, when, thanks to social
media, conspiracy takes hold, it is easier for hate groups to
recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere with
our elections, and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit
genocide against Rhranga. [?] [applause]
(6:39)
Now it's
actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking
into violence.
(6:42) In my last show (Who's in America), I found
an educated normal guy who was holding down a good job, but who, on
social media, repeated many of the conspiracy theories that
President Trump using Twitter has spread more than 1700 times to his
67 million Twitter followers.
(7:06)
The President even tweeted
that he was considering designating Antifa (anti-fascists who march
against the far right) as a terror organization.
(7:19)
So,
disguised as an Israeli anti-terrorism expert I told me interviewee
that there's a women's march in San Francisco and that Antifa is
plotting to put hormones into babies' diapers in order to make them
transgender. [laughter] And, this man believed it.
I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at
the march, and explained that when he pushed a button he'd trigger
an explosion and that would kill them all. They weren't real
explosives, of course, but he thought they were. I wanted to
see would he actually do it. The answer was "yes". He
pushed the button and thought he actually killed three human beings.
Voltaire was right when he said
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities."
(8:20)
Social media lets
authoritarians
push absurdities to billions of people.
(8:24)
Now in their defense, these social media companies have taken some
steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, but
these steps have been mainly superficial.
(8:36) I believe our
pluralistic democracies are on a precipice. In the next 12
months the role of social media could be determined. Now
British voters will go to the polls while online conspiracists
promote the despicable theory of the "Great Replacement" that white
Christians are being deliberately replaced by Muslim immigrants.
(9:03) Americans will vote for President while trolls perpetuate the
disgusting lie of an Hispanic migration, and after years of YouTube
videos, they're calling Climate Change a hoax. The United
States is on track
a year from now to formally withdraw from the
Paris Accords.
(9:25) A sewer of bigotry and foul conspiracy
theories threaten our democracy and to some degree our planet.
This cannot possibly be what the creators of the internet had in
mind.
(9:37) I believe that it's time for a fundamental rethink
of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies, and lies.
[loud applause]
(9:54) Last month Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook
delivered a major speech that not surprisingly warned against new
laws and regulations on companies like his. Well, some of
these arguments are simply bullshit. Let's count the ways.
(10:14) 1. Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as "choices
around free expression." That is ludicrous. This is not
about limiting anyone's free speech. This is about giving
people ... including some of the most reprehensible people on earth
the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet.
(10:40)
Freedom of speech
is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists,
misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers, but I think that we
can all agree that we should not be giving bigots
and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target
their victims. [applause]
(11:00) 2. Mark Zuckerberg claims that
new limits on what's posted on social media would be to "pull back
on free expression". This is utter nonsense.
The first
Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of
speech; however, this does not apply to private businesses like
Facebook.
(11:22) We're not asking these companies to determine
the boundaries of free speech across all of society. We just
want them to be responsible on their platform.
(11:33) Now if a
Neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts
threatening other customers and says he wants to kill other Jews,
would the owner of the restaurant (a private business) be required
to serve him an elegant eight course meal? Of course not.
The restaurant owner has every legal right ... and indeed I
would argue a moral obligation to kick that Nazi out, and so do
these internet companies.
(12:05) 3. Mark Zuckerberg seems to
equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of the most
repressive societies. Incredible! This is from one of
the six people who decide what information so much of the world
sees. Zuckerberg is Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Google, Larry Page
and Sergey Brin of Google's parent company Alphabet, Brim's
ex-sister-in-law Susan Wojcicki of YouTube, and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
These are the "Silicon Six".
(12:20) They are all billionaires.
They are all Americans who care more about boosting boosting their share
price than about protecting democracy. [applause]
(12:55)
This is ideological imperialism ... six
unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the
rest of the world ... unaccountable to any government and acting
like they are above the reach of law. It's like we're living
in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar ... at least that
would explain his haircut.
[laughter]
(13:20) Now here is an idea: Instead of letting the Silicon six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives ... voted for by the people of every democracy in the world ... have at least some say.
(13:47) 4. Zuckerberg speaks of "welcoming a diversity of ideas", and last
year he gave us an example. He said that he found posts denying the
holocaust deeply offensive, but he didn't think Facebook should take
them down, because "I think that there are things that different people get
wrong." At this very moment there
are still holocaust deniers on Facebook, and Google still takes you to the
most repulsive Holocaust denial sites with a simple click. One of the
heads of Google, in fact, told me that these sites just show both sides of
the issue. This is madness.
(14:20)
To quote Edward R. Murrow, one
cannot accept that on every story there are equal logical sides to
an argument.
We have unfortunately millions of pieces of
evidence of the Holocaust. It
is an historical fact. Denying it is not some
random opinion.
(14:35)
Those who deny the Holocaust aim to encourage another one.
[applause]
(14:50)
Still Zuckerberg says that "people should decide what is credible ... not
tech companies" ... but
at a time when 2/3 of Millennials say that
they haven't even heard of Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know
what's credible? How are they suppose to know that the lie is
a lie?
(15:13)
There is such a thing as "objective truth".
Facts
do exist.
(15:19) And, if these internet companies really do want to make a
difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor.
Work closely with the ADL and the NAACP. Insist on
facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms.
[applause]
(15:40) 5. When discussing the difficulty of removing content,
Zuckerberg asks "Where do you draw the line?"
(15:53) Yes.
Drawing the line can be difficult, but here is what Zuckerberg is
really saying: "Removing more of these lies and conspiracies
is just too expensive. These are the richest companies in the
world, and they have the best engineers in the world. They
could fix these problems if they wanted to.
(16:13)
Twitter could
deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacy hate speech, but
they have reportedly haven't, because it would eject some very prominent
politicians from their platform. [laughter]. Maybe that
wouldn't be such a bad thing. [laughter and applause]
(16:40) The truth is that these companies won't fundamentally
change, because their entire business model relies on their
generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement
than lies, fear, and outrage.
(16:54) So, it is finally time to
call these companies what they really are: the largest
publishers in history. Here is an idea for them: Abide
by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines,
and TV news do every day. We have standards and practices in
television and the movies. There are certain things we cannot
say or do. In England I was told that Ali G could not curse
when he appeared before 9 PM.
(17:22) Here in the U.S. the Movie
Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see.
I've had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide by those
standards.
(17:35) Now if there are standards and practices for what cinemas and
television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to
billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices,
too. [applause]
(17:50) Now take the issue of political ads ... on
which Facebook has been resolute.
Fortunately, Twitter finally banned them.
I read today that Google is making changes, too. But, if you pay them,
Facebook will run any political ad you want even if it's a lie, and
they will even help you micro-target those lies to their users for
maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were
around in the 1930s it would have allowed Hilter to post 30 seconds ads on
his solution to the Jewish problem.
(18:30)
So, here is a good standard and
practice: Facebook: Start check political ads
before you run them. Stop micro-targeted
lies immediately, and when the
ads are false, give back the money and don't publish them.
[applause]
(18:55) Here's another good practice: Slow down!
Every single post does not need to be published immediately.
Oscar Wilde once said "We live in an age when unnecessary things are
our only necessity.", but let me ask you, is every thought or video
posted instantly online ... even if it's racist or criminal
murderous ... really a necessity? Of course not. The
shooter who massacred Muslims in New Zealand live streamed his
atrocity on Facebook ... which then spread across the internet ...
and viewed likely millions of times. It was a snuff film
... brought to you by social media. Why can't we have more of
a delay? ... so that this trauma inducing filth can be caught
and stopped before it's posted in the first place. [applause]
(19:53) Finally, Zuckerberg said that social media companies
should live up to their responsibilities, but he's totally silent
about what should happen when they don't. By now it's pretty
clear that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
(20:18) As with the industrial revolution, it's time for regulation
and legislation to curb the greed of these high tech
robber barons. [applause]
(20:26) In every other industry a
company can be held liable when their product is defective.
When engines explode or seat belts malfunction, car companies
recall tens of thousands of vehicles at a cost of billions of
dollars. It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter,
"Your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it no matter how
much it cost and no matter how many moderators you need to employ."
[applause]
(21:03) In every other industry you can be sued for
the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel.
People can be sued for defamation. I've been sued many times.
[laughter] I'm being sued right now by someone whose name I won't
mention, because he might sue me again, but social media companies
are largely protected from liability for the content that users post
no matter how indecent it is by section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act. It's absurd.
(21:50)
Fortunately, internet
companies can now be held responsible for pedophiles to use their
sites to target children.
(21:57) So, I say, we ought to hold
these companies responsible for those who use their sites to
advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or
religion and maybe find enough enough. Maybe it's time to
tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies, "You've
already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our election,
you've already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar. Do it
again, and you go to jail. [applause]
(22:38) In the end, it all
comes down to what kind of world we want? In his speech,
Zuckerberg said that one of his main goals is to uphold as wide
a definition of "freedom of expression" as possible. It sounds
good, yet our freedoms are not only an end in themselves, they're
also the means to another end ... a you say here in the U.S. "the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but today
these rights are threatened by hate, conspiracies, and lies.
(23:21) So, allow me to leave you with a suggestion for a different
aim for society. The ultimate aim
of society should be to
make sure that people are not targeted, not harassed, and not
murdered because of who they are, where they come from, who they
love, or how they pray. [loud applause]
(23:44) If we make
that our aim ... if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over
prejudice, empathy over indifference, and experts over ignoramuses,
then maybe ... just maybe ... we can stop the greatest propaganda
machine in history. We can save democracy. We can still
have a place for free speech and free expression and most
importantly, my jokes will still work. Thank you very much.
[loud applause]