POPULARITY
5 episodes with renee diresta
2 episodes with renee diresta
2 episodes with renee diresta
3 episodes with renee diresta
2 episodes with renee diresta
2 episodes with renee diresta
3 episodes with renee diresta
4 episodes with renee diresta
2 episodes with renee diresta
Protests in Southern California and around the country over raids targeting undocumented immigrants played out differently on social media depending on the person or the platform. They're peaceful - look at the carnival atmosphere. They're violent - Los Angeles is in flames. These competing narratives underline the hyper-siloed nature of online discourse and the power of misinformation. Marketplace's Nova Safo spoke with Renee DiResta, Research Professor at Georgetown University about how protest discourse has been playing out online.
Protests in Southern California and around the country over raids targeting undocumented immigrants played out differently on social media depending on the person or the platform. They're peaceful - look at the carnival atmosphere. They're violent - Los Angeles is in flames. These competing narratives underline the hyper-siloed nature of online discourse and the power of misinformation. Marketplace's Nova Safo spoke with Renee DiResta, Research Professor at Georgetown University about how protest discourse has been playing out online.
Enjoying the show? Subscribe to hear the rest of Village SquareCast episodes!
We're making our way through a time of extreme disruption, led by rapid transformation in technology, especially in how we communicate information. According to our special guest Renée DiResta, the way power and influence have been profoundly transformed reveals how a virtual rumor mill of niche propagandists increasingly shapes public opinion. By revealing the machinery and dynamics of the interplay between influencers, algorithms, and online crowds, DiResta vividly illustrates the way propagandists deliberately undermine belief in the fundamental legitimacy of institutions that make society work. Find the program online here. This program is part of the series in partnership with Florida Humanities — “UNUM: Democracy Reignited,” a multi-year digital offering exploring the past, present and future of the American idea — as it exists on paper, in the hearts of our people, and as it manifests (or sometimes fails to manifest) in our lives. The Village Square is a proud member of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Funding for this podcast was provided through a grant from Florida Humanities with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those of Florida Humanities or the National Endowment for the Humanities.
This episode of the Lawfare Podcast features Glen Weyl, economist and author at Microsoft Research; Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director of the Future of Free Speech Project at Vanderbilt; and Ravi Iyer, Managing Director of the USC Marshall School Neely Center.Together with Renee DiResta, Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown and Contributing Editor at Lawfare, they talk about design vs moderation. Conversations about the challenges of social media often focus on moderation—what stays up and what comes down. Yet the way a social media platform is built influences everything from what we see, to what is amplified, to what content is created in the first place—as users respond to incentives, nudges, and affordances. Design processes are often invisible or opaque, and users have little power—though new decentralized platforms are changing that. So they talk about designing a prosocial media for the future, and the potential for an online world without Caesars.Articles Referenced:https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10834https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4178647https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/27/empowering-users-not-overlords-overcoming-digital-helplessness/https://kgi.georgetown.edu/research-and-commentary/better-feeds/https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-algorithmic-management-of-polarization-and-violence-on-social-mediahttps://time.com/7258238/social-media-tang-siddarth-weyl/https://futurefreespeech.org/scope-creep/https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-stifling-free-expression-online/https://www.thefai.org/posts/shaping-the-future-of-social-media-with-middlewareTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
For years, traditional media—newspapers, cable news, and radio—dominated the political conversation. These were the institutions that shaped public discourse, set the agenda, and determined which ideas gained traction. But as the digital ecosystem evolved, a parallel and sometimes overlapping infrastructure emerged—one where influencers, niche content creators, and algorithmically curated feeds have redefined how people engage with information.To understand this evolution, host Aaron Ross Powell sits down with Renee DiResta, an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown and author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. Together they unpack how this shift has upended not just how news spreads but also how political identities are formed, narratives take hold, and, ultimately, how power operates.We hope you enjoy.© The UnPopulist, 2025Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net
Mark Zuckerberg sent shockwaves around the world when Meta announced the end of its fact-checking program in the U.S. on its platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Critics lamented the potential for more mis/disinformation online while proponents (especially conservatives) rejoiced, as they saw the decision as a rollback of political censorship and viewpoint discrimination. Beneath the hot takes lie bigger questions around who should control what we see online. Should critical decisions around content moderation that affect billions of users be left to the whims of Big Tech CEOs? If not, is government intervention any better—and could it even clear First Amendment hurdles? What if there is a third option between CEO decrees and government intrusion?Enter middleware: third-party software that sits between users and platforms, potentially offering a "third way" beyond what otherwise appears as a binary choice between. Middleware holds the potential to enable users to select different forms of curation on social media by third-parties—anyone from your local church to news outlets to political organizations. Could this technology put power back in the hands of users while addressing concerns about bias, misinformation, harassment, hate speech, and polarization?Joining us are Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI, and Renee DiResta, Georgetown University professor and author of "Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turned Lies Into Reality." They break down their new paper, “Shaping the Future of Social Media with Middleware,” on and explore whether this emerging technology could reshape our social media landscape for the better.
In a live conversation on January 30, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke to Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff and contributing editor Renee DiResta about the confirmation hearings of Kash Patel to be FBI director, Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy to be the health and human services secretary.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
When asked if he thought Mark Zuckerberg's effective ending of fact checking was in response to threats that he would “put him in jail for a very long time,” Trump replied, “Probably. Yeah, probably.” A week later, TikTok voluntarily disabled their app for users, then put up an announcement saying that Trump was going to bring them back. Julian talks to digital disinformation expert Renee Diresta about the massive Big Tech realignment with MAGA, which now means Meta, X, and TikTok may become more like TruthSocial. If fact checking is biased, content moderation is censorship, and combating foreign propaganda is anti-free speech, where does that leave us now? Show Notes If you Give A Mouse a Cookie: Renee Diresta Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week's roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike is joined by guest host Renee DiResta, associate research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. They cover:The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight (MSNBC)‘Free Speech' Warrior RFK Jr. Has Been Trying To Censor a Blogger for Years (Who What Why)In motion to dismiss, chatbot platform Character AI claims it is protected by the First Amendment (TechCrunch)Trump Signs Agreement Calling for Meta to Pay $25 Million to Settle Suit (WSJ)Meta's Free-Speech Shift Made It Clear to Advertisers: ‘Brand Safety' Is Out of Vogue (WSJ)X refuses to remove stabbing video watched by Southport killer (Financial Times)This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund. Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast from Techdirt and Everything in Moderation. Send us your feedback at podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com and sponsorship enquiries to sponsorship@ctrlaltspeech.com. Thanks for listening.
Mark Zuckerberg announced major changes in Meta's policies on fact-checking, hate speech, and more. Are these sweeping changes an indication of Zuck bending the knee to Trump and the MAGA movement, or is there more to it? Renee DiResta joins David Rothkopf to break down these changes, consider the challenges of content moderation, and discuss the crisis of trust in information platforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mark Zuckerberg announced major changes in Meta's policies on fact-checking, hate speech, and more. Are these sweeping changes an indication of Zuck bending the knee to Trump and the MAGA movement, or is there more to it? Renee DiResta joins David Rothkopf to break down these changes, consider the challenges of content moderation, and discuss the crisis of trust in information platforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Meta announced it's ending third-party fact-checking on its platforms, calling the decision a return to a "fundamental commitment to free expression." CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the rules had become too restrictive and prone to over-enforcement. Geoff Bennett discussed the implications of this shift with Renee DiResta of the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Hello, Nilay here. We're still on winter break; we'll be back with brand-new Decoder interviews next week, and with our Thursday shows later this month. I'm excited for what we've got in the pipeline. I think you're going to love it. For today, though, we're sharing an episode of Peter Kafka's new show Channels – he's talking to disinformation researcher Renee DiResta about what's going on with speech online in an era where platforms seem less inclined to moderate than ever. Peter's an old friend and Renee is an expert on all this — there's a lot of core Decoder themes in this one. Enjoy, and we'll be back in a bit. Links: Channels with Peter Kafka | Apple Podcasts The Stanford Internet Observatory is being dismantled | Platformer A major disinformation research center's future looks uncertain | The Verge Supreme Court to hear case on how government talks to social platforms | The Verge GOP targets researchers who study disinformation ahead of 2024 Election | NYT She warned of ‘peer-to-peer misinformation.' Congress listened | NYT Disinformation watchdogs are under pressure. This group refuses to stop | NYT Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Callie Wright. Our supervising producer is Liam James. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Danny and Derek speak with Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about her recent article co-authored with Nicole Bibbins Sedaca, "How to Prevent Political Violence". They explore different types of political violence, the connection between online threats and real life action, the rise of political violence in the US since 2015, "violence entrepreneurs", polarization, the role of ideology, and more. Subscribe now for the full episode! Note: This interview was recorded December 3, 2024, i.e. one day before UHC CEO Brian Thompson was shot. Recommended reading: Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality by Renee DiResta
Renée DiResta is the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, a cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching and policy engagement for the study of abuse in current information technologies. Renée investigates the spread of narratives across social and media networks, with an interest in understanding how platform algorithms and affordances intersect with user behavior and factional crowd dynamics. She studies how actors leverage the information ecosystem to exert influence, from domestic activists promoting health misinformation and conspiracy theories, to the full-spectrum information operations executed by state actors. She was a 2021 Emerson Fellow and 2018-2019 Mozilla Fellow, a 2017 Presidential Leadership Scholar, a Council on Foreign Relations term member, and a Truman National Security Fellow. She is the author of The Hardware Startup: Building your Product, Business, and Brand and has degrees in Computer Science and Political Science from Stony Brook University.
Join us on FUTUREPROOF. as we dive deep with Renée DiResta, a leading researcher at Stanford Internet Observatory, exploring the intricate web of online misinformation and its impact on society. Renée brings her extensive knowledge from investigating foreign influence operations, conspiracy theories, and the challenges posed by social media moderation to discuss how digital tribalism and bespoke realities are shaping our world.What You'll Learn:Understanding Misinformation: How misinformation spreads through digital platforms and the psychological factors driving its reach.Impact on Society: The consequences of online echo chambers for public discourse and political polarization.Digital Tribalism: Exploring the concept of bespoke realities and how they threaten societal cohesion.Strategies for the Future: Renée's insights on how social media platforms and policymakers can combat the spread of false information.The Role of Education: The importance of digital literacy in empowering the public to navigate misinformation.Episode Highlights:DiResta's Journey: From battling anti-vaccine misinformation to testifying in front of Congress, hear how Renée's career has evolved alongside the rise of digital misinformation.Case Studies: Renée discusses specific examples of misinformation campaigns and their effects, from election interference to public health crises.Looking Ahead: Gain perspective on what the future holds for digital communication and the ongoing fight against misinformation.Call to Action:Check out Renée's book, Invisible Rulers, for a deeper understanding of the forces shaping our digital landscape. Engage with us on social media to share your thoughts and questions about today's discussion.Subscribe & Share:Loved this episode? Subscribe to FUTUREPROOF. for more insights on technology and society, and don't forget to share this episode with your network to spread the word about the importance of understanding and combating misinformation.
Following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, many are wondering what its influence might be on the Israel-Hamas war, including the fate of the hostages. Former longtime hostage negotiator Gershon Baskin, author of "The Negotiator: Freeing Gilad Schalit from Hamas," joins the show to discuss. Also on today's show: Ali Abbasi, Director, "The Apprentice"; Renee Diresta, Associate Research Professor, Georgetown; actor Gillian Anderson on her new book about female sexuality, "Want" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Thinking past the US 2024 Presidential Election, In part three of the series, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses reducing the impact of propaganda in the future elections with Perry Carpenter, Chief Human Risk Management Strategist at KnowBe4 and host of the 8th Layer Insights Podcast, Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project, and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. Check out Part 1 & 2! Part 1: Election Propaganda Part 1: How Does Election Propaganda Work? In this episode, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses personal defensive measures that every citizen can take—regardless of political philosophy—to resist the influence of propaganda. This foundational episode is essential for understanding how to navigate the complex landscape of election messaging. Part 2: Election Propaganda: Part 2: Modern propaganda efforts. In preparation for the US 2024 Presidential Election, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses recent international propaganda efforts in the form of nation state interference and influence operations as well as domestic campaigns designed to split the target country into opposing camps. Guests include Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. References: Rick Howard, 2024. Election Propaganda Part 1: How does election propaganda work? [3 Part Podcast Series]. The CyberWire. Rick Howard, 2024. Election Propaganda: Part 2: Modern propaganda efforts. [3 Part Podcast Series]. The CyberWire. Christopher Chabris, Daniel Simons, 2010. The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us [Book]. Goodreads. Chris Palmer, 2010. TFL Viral - Awareness Test (Moonwalking Bear) [Explainer]. YouTube. David Ehl, 2024. Why Meta is now banning Russian propaganda [News]. Deutsche Welle. Eli Pariser, 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You [Book]. Goodreads. Kara Swisher, Julia Davis, Alex Stamos, Brandy Zadrozny, 2024. Useful Idiots? How Right-Wing Influencers Got $ to Spread Russian Propaganda [Podcast]. On with Kara Swisher. Nate Silver, 2024. What's behind Trump's surge in prediction markets? [Analysis]. Silver Bulletin. Niha Masih, 2024. Meta bans Russian state media outlet RT for acts of ‘foreign interference' [News]. The Washington Post. Nilay Patel, 2024. The AI election deepfakes have arrived [Podcast]. Decoder. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, 2024. FAIK: A Practical Guide to Living in a World of Deepfakes, Disinformation, and AI-Generated Deceptions [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, 2021. Meatloaf Recipes Cookbook: Easy Recipes For Preparing Tasty Meals For Weight Loss And Healthy Lifestyle All Year Round [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, n.d. 8th Layer Insights [Podcast]. N2K CyberWire. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Robin Stern, Marc Brackett, 2024. 5 Ways to Recognize and Avoid Political Gaslighting [Explainer]. The Washington Post. Sarah Ellison, Amy Gardner, Clara Ence Morse, 2024. Elon Musk's misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials [News]. The Washington Post. Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Staff, n.d. Overview: Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity [Website]. C2PA. Staff, 2021. Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections [Intelligence Community Assessment]. DNI. Staff, n.d. Project Origin [Website]. OriginProject. URL https://www.originproject.info/ Stuart A. Thompson, Tiffany Hsu, 2024. Left-Wing Misinformation Is Having a Moment [Analysis] The New York Times. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Thinking past the US 2024 Presidential Election, In part three of the series, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses reducing the impact of propaganda in the future elections with Perry Carpenter, Chief Human Risk Management Strategist at KnowBe4 and host of the 8th Layer Insights Podcast, Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project, and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. Check out Part 1 & 2! Part 1: Election Propaganda Part 1: How Does Election Propaganda Work? In this episode, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses personal defensive measures that every citizen can take—regardless of political philosophy—to resist the influence of propaganda. This foundational episode is essential for understanding how to navigate the complex landscape of election messaging. Part 2: Election Propaganda: Part 2: Modern propaganda efforts. In preparation for the US 2024 Presidential Election, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses recent international propaganda efforts in the form of nation state interference and influence operations as well as domestic campaigns designed to split the target country into opposing camps. Guests include Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. References: Rick Howard, 2024. Election Propaganda Part 1: How does election propaganda work? [3 Part Podcast Series]. The CyberWire. Rick Howard, 2024. Election Propaganda: Part 2: Modern propaganda efforts. [3 Part Podcast Series]. The CyberWire. Christopher Chabris, Daniel Simons, 2010. The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us [Book]. Goodreads. Chris Palmer, 2010. TFL Viral - Awareness Test (Moonwalking Bear) [Explainer]. YouTube. David Ehl, 2024. Why Meta is now banning Russian propaganda [News]. Deutsche Welle. Eli Pariser, 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You [Book]. Goodreads. Kara Swisher, Julia Davis, Alex Stamos, Brandy Zadrozny, 2024. Useful Idiots? How Right-Wing Influencers Got $ to Spread Russian Propaganda [Podcast]. On with Kara Swisher. Nate Silver, 2024. What's behind Trump's surge in prediction markets? [Analysis]. Silver Bulletin. Niha Masih, 2024. Meta bans Russian state media outlet RT for acts of ‘foreign interference' [News]. The Washington Post. Nilay Patel, 2024. The AI election deepfakes have arrived [Podcast]. Decoder. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, 2024. FAIK: A Practical Guide to Living in a World of Deepfakes, Disinformation, and AI-Generated Deceptions [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, 2021. Meatloaf Recipes Cookbook: Easy Recipes For Preparing Tasty Meals For Weight Loss And Healthy Lifestyle All Year Round [Book]. Goodreads. Perry Carpenter, n.d. 8th Layer Insights [Podcast]. N2K CyberWire. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Robin Stern, Marc Brackett, 2024. 5 Ways to Recognize and Avoid Political Gaslighting [Explainer]. The Washington Post. Sarah Ellison, Amy Gardner, Clara Ence Morse, 2024. Elon Musk's misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials [News]. The Washington Post. Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Staff, n.d. Overview: Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity [Website]. C2PA. Staff, 2021. Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections [Intelligence Community Assessment]. DNI. Staff, n.d. Project Origin [Website]. OriginProject. URL https://www.originproject.info/ Stuart A. Thompson, Tiffany Hsu, 2024. Left-Wing Misinformation Is Having a Moment [Analysis] The New York Times.
In preparation for the US 2024 Presidential Election, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses recent international propaganda efforts in the form of nation state interference and influence operations as well as domestic campaigns designed to split the target country into opposing camps. Guests include Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. References: Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In preparation for the US 2024 Presidential Election, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses recent international propaganda efforts in the form of nation state interference and influence operations as well as domestic campaigns designed to split the target country into opposing camps. Guests include Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. References: Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads.
Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses personal defensive measures that an average citizen, regardless of political philosophy, can take in order to not succumb to propaganda. References: David Ehl, 2024. Why Meta is now banning Russian propaganda [News]. Deutsche Welle. Jeff Berman, Renée DiResta, 2023. Disinformation & How To Combat It [Interview]. Youtube. Niha Masih, 2024. Meta bans Russian state media outlet RT for acts of ‘foreign interference' [News]. The Washington Post. Quentin Hardy, Renée DiResta, 2024. The Invisible Rulers Turning Lies Into Reality [Interview]. YouTube. Rob Tracinski, Renée DiResta, 2024. The Internet Rumor Mill [Interview]. YouTube. Robin Stern, Marc Brackett, 2024. 5 Ways to Recognize and Avoid Political Gaslighting [Explainer]. The Washington Post. Sarah Ellison, Amy Gardner, Clara Ence Morse, 2024. Elon Musk's misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials [News]. The Washington Post. Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Staff, 2021. Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections [Intelligence Community Assessment]. DNI. Staff, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal. Stuart A. Thompson, Tiffany Hsu, 2024. Left-Wing Misinformation Is Having a Moment [Analysis. The New York Times. Stuart A. Thompson, 2024. Elon Musk's Week on X: Deepfakes, Falsehoods and Lots of Memes [News]. The New York Times. Will Oremus, 2024. Zuckerberg expresses regrets over covid misinformation crackdown [News]. The Washington Post. Yascha Mounk, Renée DiResta, 2022. How (Not) to Fix Social Media [Interview]. YouTube. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads.
Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses personal defensive measures that an average citizen, regardless of political philosophy, can take in order to not succumb to propaganda. References: David Ehl, 2024. Why Meta is now banning Russian propaganda [News]. Deutsche Welle. Jeff Berman, Renée DiResta, 2023. Disinformation & How To Combat It [Interview]. Youtube. Niha Masih, 2024. Meta bans Russian state media outlet RT for acts of ‘foreign interference' [News]. The Washington Post. Quentin Hardy, Renée DiResta, 2024. The Invisible Rulers Turning Lies Into Reality [Interview]. YouTube. Rob Tracinski, Renée DiResta, 2024. The Internet Rumor Mill [Interview]. YouTube. Robin Stern, Marc Brackett, 2024. 5 Ways to Recognize and Avoid Political Gaslighting [Explainer]. The Washington Post. Sarah Ellison, Amy Gardner, Clara Ence Morse, 2024. Elon Musk's misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials [News]. The Washington Post. Scott Small, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal Cyber. Staff, 2021. Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections [Intelligence Community Assessment]. DNI. Staff, 2024. Election Cyber Interference Threats & Defenses: A Data-Driven Study [White Paper]. Tidal. Stuart A. Thompson, Tiffany Hsu, 2024. Left-Wing Misinformation Is Having a Moment [Analysis. The New York Times. Stuart A. Thompson, 2024. Elon Musk's Week on X: Deepfakes, Falsehoods and Lots of Memes [News]. The New York Times. Will Oremus, 2024. Zuckerberg expresses regrets over covid misinformation crackdown [News]. The Washington Post. Yascha Mounk, Renée DiResta, 2022. How (Not) to Fix Social Media [Interview]. YouTube. Renee DiResta, 2024. Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality [Book]. Goodreads. Nina Jankowicz, 2020. How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict [Book]. Goodreads. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We'd love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. Take the survey at wbur.org/survey. Israel has launched its first ground invasion into Lebanon since 2006. NPR international correspondent Ruth Sherlock joins us. And, misinformation about the election is spreading online. Renee DiResta joins us to discuss the Stanford institution she helped lead that aimed to fight election disinformation until it also became the target of disinformation. Then, Oct. 1 is Jimmy Carter's 100th birthday. Longtime radio host Diane Rehm interviewed him more than 10 times and joins us to reflect on his legacyLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
Battle of the Titans/Theology/God's Creation/Education Musings Newsletter Podcast
A great twitter space, hosted by Trash Discourse about updates in the Hines v Stamos case which is another Censorship Case similar to Murthy v Missouri, Missouri v Biden however this case is going after the groups like EIP, Aspen Institute, Alex Stamos, Renee Diresta and more This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe
Good morning. Due to some scheduling changes, I don't have a podcast for this week. Thank you for understanding.If you are new to the pod, I recommend you check out the archives. Some of the more popular episodes include:* A conversation with Renee DiResta about her book Invisible Rulers* Dave Willner on the evolution of trust and safety in tech - and use of AI for content moderation* Yoel Roth on making hard tradeoffs and the future of trust and safetyHave a great day and thank you for understanding! Get full access to Anchor Change with Katie Harbath at anchorchange.substack.com/subscribe
Invisible Rulers author Renee DiResta explains how disinformation has reshaped online discourse with real-world consequences — and who benefits from it! What We Discuss with Renee DiResta: The phenomenon of "audience capture" — influencers and content creators becoming more extreme in their views to cater to their audience's expectations and maintain engagement. The concept of "flooding the zone" with multiple explanations or theories to create confusion and make it difficult to determine the truth, often used in disinformation campaigns. The "Liar's dividend" — the ability to deny real events or information by claiming they are fake or manipulated, enabled by the existence of advanced manipulation technologies. The challenges of maintaining a shared reality in the age of social media, where people can easily find confirmation for their existing beliefs and form echo chambers. To combat misinformation and propaganda, we can develop media literacy skills by being aware of our emotional responses to content, taking time to verify information from multiple sources, and learning to recognize common propaganda techniques. By cultivating these skills, we can become more discerning consumers of information and contribute to a healthier online discourse. And much more... Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1054 If you love listening to this show as much as we love making it, would you please peruse and reply to our Membership Survey here? And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally! This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: jordanharbinger.com/deals Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course! Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom! Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!
If you make it trend you make it true says Renee DiResta, the former technical research manager at the Stanford university Internet Observatory. She herself as been the subject of a conspiracy theory gone viral, accused by Republican lawmakers in America of working with the government to suppress conservative speech online. DiResta says conspiracy theories and misinformation thrive because Influencers, algorithms, and crowds shape reality today. She pulls back the curtain to reveal how the new system of persuasion works, how its' altering so much of our lives, and what we can do to understand it. Her book is called Invisible Rulers, The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.
The recent riots in the United Kingdom raise new questions about online free speech and misinformation. Following the murder of three children in Southport, England, false rumors spread across social media about the killer's identity and religion, igniting simmering resentment over the British government's handling of immigration in recent years. X, formerly Twitter, has come under fire for allowing the rumors to spread, and the company's owner Elon Musk has publicly sparred with British politicians and European Union regulators over the issue. The incident is the latest in an ongoing debate abroad and in the U.S. about free speech and the real-world impact of online misinformation. In the U.S., politicians have griped for years about the content policies of major platforms like YouTube and Facebook—generally with conservatives complaining the companies are too censorious and liberals bemoaning that they don't take down enough misinformation and hate speech. Where should the line be? Is it possible for platforms to respect free expression while removing “harmful content” and misinformation? Who gets to decide what is true and false, and what role, if any, should the government play? Evan is joined by Renee Diresta who studies and writes about adversarial abuse online. Previously, she was a research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory where she researched and investigated online political speech and foreign influence campaigns. She is the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality. Read her recent op-ed in the New York Times here.
“If you make it trend, you make it true.” The cycling of new and buzz-worthy information we face on a daily basis is faster than ever before. As new trends in information, politics, and culture are constantly updating, little time is left for critical analysis before the next headline hits the feed. And when those who hold the power to influence audiences and drive opinions in strategic directions stand to benefit, how does the public know what is based on evidence versus algorithm? In her new book Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality, author Renée DiResta sets out to examine the relationship between the people, their government, and the machinations of digital power dynamics. Invisible Rulers details how public opinion has shifted from being based in belief in the fundamental institutions that make society work to being too easily shaped and sensationalized by the interplay between influencers, algorithms, and online crowds. Adaptation is always challenging but has become more time-sensitive as keener eyes are needed in our information landscape. These alternate systems for engaging with societal realities have become swiftly effective and in the swirling fog of who and what to believe, Renée DiResta advocates for not getting swept up in unexamined messaging. Through original analysis and a distinct voice on the subject of media literacy and trust, Invisible Rulers aims to highlight the risks and consequences of failing to critique leaders and propagandists in the age of rapidly shifting digital information. Renée DiResta is a noted writer, researcher, and advisor in the fields of information integrity, media misinformation, and STEM education. She has served as the Director of Research at Yonder, a co-founder of Vaccinate California, and is currently the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She is an Ideas Contributor at Wired and The Atlantic. Her writing and analysis can be found through The New York Times. Buy the Book Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality The Elliott Bay Book Company
I'm just back from the Liberalism for the 21st Century conference in DC which featured a lively discussion about digital misinformation between KEEN ON regular Jonathan Rauch and Renee DiResta, the author of Invisible Rulers. As the former manager of the Stanford Internet Observatory, DiResta has been on the front lines of the disinformation wars and understands the chillingly close relationship between making something trend on social media and making it appear “true”. Her work focuses on those supposedly invisible people, our new ontological masters, who, she believes, turn lies into reality. Given that the 2024 election will be determined by which candidates' version of reality is more ontologically convincing to the American electorate, DiResta's well-informed perspective is an essential guide to how liberalism can not only survive but also flourish in the 21st century. Renée DiResta was the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, a cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching, and policy engagement for the study of abuse in information technologies. Her work examines rumors and propaganda in the digital age. She has analyzed geopolitical campaigns created by foreign powers such as Russia, China, and Iran; voting‑ related rumors that led to the January 6 insurrection; and health misinformation and conspiracy theories pushed by domestic influencers. She is a contributor at The Atlantic. Her bylined writing has appeared in Wired, Foreign Affairs, Columbia Journalism Review, New York Times, Washington Post, Yale Review, The Guardian, POLITICO, Slate, and Noema, as well as many academic journals. bDiResta has been a Presidential Leadership Scholar (a program run by the Presidents Bush, Clinton, and the LBJ Foundations); named an Emerson Fellow, a Truman National Security Project fellow, Mozilla Fellow in Media, Misinformation, and Trust, a Harvard Berkman-Klein affiliate, and a Council on Foreign Relations term member.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
THIS IS A PREVIEW. FOR THE FULL EPISODE, GO TO Patreon.com/worstofall The lads made this episode with their own hands!
Frank Lavin talks with Renee DiResta, Internet disinformation analyst. How does misinformation and disinformation travel so rapidly on the Internet and what steps can be taken to push back? How will this affect U.S. elections or U.S. support for Ukraine? Books discussed include Renee DiResta's Invisible Rulers, Peter Pomerantsev's Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible and Annalee Newitz's Stories are Weapons.
What's the difference between how Americans communicated about politics and policies 20 or 30 years ago and how we do it today? What are the most effective ways to combat disinformation in elections and otherwise? Are the platforms and the rest of us ready for election-related threats in 2024? On the season finale of Season 5 of the ELB Podcast, we speak with Renee DiResta, author of the new book, Invisible Rulers.
Alex and Evelyn sit down with the authors of two recently released books about our online information ecosystem and what to do about it: Annalee Newitz, author of Stories are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind, and Renee DiResta, author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality.
Don't forget to follow us on YouTube!This is the last episode of season 2! Thank you all for listening. I'll be taking a break over the summer and returning with season 3 in the Fall. Between now and then, I might be planning a few summer spectacular episodes, so keep your eyes out.I couldn't have asked for a better person to end the season with. Renee DiResta joins me this week to discuss her background and journey into researching the anti-vaccine movement, the impact of social media on public opinion, and the concept of 'invisible rulers' in her book 'Invisible Rulers.' She also explores the role of influencers in shaping public opinion and the ethical considerations of platform algorithms in content distribution. She delves into the challenges of researching algorithms, the evolution of content control on platforms, and the politicization of her work. Additionally, she shares insights on the importance of engaging in the face of misinformation and the shaping of public opinion.Takeaways* Renee's background spans various roles, leading to her involvement in researching the anti-vaccine movement.* The impact of social media on public opinion and the lack of counter speech and narrative is a significant concern.* The concept of 'invisible rulers' and the role of influencers in shaping public opinion is explored in her book 'Invisible Rulers'.* Ethical considerations of platform algorithms in content distribution, particularly the distinction between free speech and free reach, are important to address. * Challenges of researching algorithms and content control on platforms* The politicization of research work and the importance of engaging in the face of misinformation* Insights on the shaping of public opinion and the impact of algorithms on societyPlease support the curation and analysis I'm doing with this newsletter. As a paid subscriber, you make it possible for me to bring you in-depth analyses of the most pressing issues in tech and politics. Get full access to Anchor Change with Katie Harbath at anchorchange.substack.com/subscribe
We talked to Renee Diresta, when she in the middle of a life-changing crisis. Elon Musk's hand-picked "journalists" were testifying in front of Congress as part of the “Twitter Files.” Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger sounded the alarm about a supposedly vast conspiracy between think tanks, big tech companies, and government intelligence agencies to censor the free speech of conservative Americans. They referred to that conspiracy as the “Censorship Industry Complex," identifying its leader as a shadowy former CIA intern named Renee Diresta. The reality is that Diresta was involved in a 2020 academic project called the Election Integrity Partnership, which studied then gave reports on viral social media content steeped in misinformation. She joins us to discuss her new book, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mexico has a new president. Trump was found guilty and the mainstream is still fully erect over it. The offensive contemplates the meaning of Oligarchy. The EU is worried about the Far Right, while underplaying the far rights concerns. The information war rages on. France thinks Russia is dropping Banksy art around their country. The economy isn’t Biden’s fault, according to one of Biden’s appointees. And its PriDE MONth in the US of A. Art #123- This piece by Robert H. perfectly highlights the rage I feel while talking about the absolute garbage product that is Word Press. Get Bent Wordpress. Fiat Fun Coupon Donations: Wiirdo, Roast Beef Eater Sam S. of Bourblandia Emily the Fed (Not a Fed) Ethan Crawley Hempress Emily M. Top Boosters: Comic Strip Blogger Boolysteed JonMcPain KattyKit Jasper89 Sandesinhgh Shownotes Trump Sentencing Speculation Georgia Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law Information Warfare Firehose of Falsehoods Anne Applebaum married to Radosław (Radek) Sikorski, Member of the European Parliament for his native Kuyavian-Pomeranian region, Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defense (SEDE), he also chairs the Delegation for relations with the United States. Renee DiResta attended Stony Brook University and in 2004 received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science // Political Science.DiResta has stated that as an undergraduate student she worked as an intern for the CIA, but that her association with that agency ended in 2004. Until 2011 she worked in finance, as a trader at Jane Street Capital after which she worked in high tech venture capital firms until 2014. In 2015, DiResta co-founded Vaccinate California, an organization designed to promote vaccination in California. DiResta was Director of Research at Yonder, a company that specialized in information integrity. Yonder was called to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about possible Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Currently, DiResta is Technical Research Manager for the Stanford Internet Observatory. Fauci Fauci on CNN Israel Lebanon ICC Investigator Threatened Oil Price Secret Plot to Keep Oil Prices High WTI Chart Why Biden’s Permit Surge Isn’t What It Seems Pride Sioux Falls Churches Voting Open Primaries in Alaska
Secretaries of State Brad Raffensperger (R-Ga.), Jocelyn Benson (D-Mich.), Al Schmidt (R-Penn.) and Adrian Fontes (D-Ariz.) join a special edition of Meet the Press on threats to democracy ahead of November's elections. Anne Applebaum, author of, “Autocracy Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World,” and Renee DiResta, author of, “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality,” describe the international threats from disinformation and authoritarianism abroad. Peter Baker, Evelyn Farkas, Ben Ginsberg and Amna Nawaz weigh in with the presidential race.
Beneath the race to train and release more powerful AI models lies another race: a race by companies and nation-states to secure the hardware to make sure they win AI supremacy. Correction: The latest available Nvidia chip is the Hopper H100 GPU, which has 80 billion transistors. Since the first commercially available chip had four transistors, the Hopper actually has 20 billion times that number. Nvidia recently announced the Blackwell, which boasts 208 billion transistors - but it won't ship until later this year.RECOMMENDED MEDIA Chip War: The Fight For the World's Most Critical Technology by Chris MillerTo make sense of the current state of politics, economics, and technology, we must first understand the vital role played by chipsGordon Moore Biography & FactsGordon Moore, the Intel co-founder behind Moore's Law, passed away in March of 2023AI's most popular chipmaker Nvidia is trying to use AI to design chips fasterNvidia's GPUs are in high demand - and the company is using AI to accelerate chip productionRECOMMENDED YUA EPISODESFuture-proofing Democracy In the Age of AI with Audrey TangHow Will AI Affect the 2024 Elections? with Renee DiResta and Carl MillerThe AI ‘Race': China vs. the US with Jeffrey Ding and Karen HaoProtecting Our Freedom of Thought with Nita FarahanyYour Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_
What does a functioning democracy look like in the age of artificial intelligence? Could AI even be used to help a democracy flourish? Just in time for election season, Taiwan's Minister of Digital Affairs Audrey Tang returns to the podcast to discuss healthy information ecosystems, resilience to cyberattacks, how to “prebunk” deepfakes, and more. RECOMMENDED MEDIA Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. PageThis academic paper addresses tough questions for Americans: Who governs? Who really rules? Recursive PublicRecursive Public is an experiment in identifying areas of consensus and disagreement among the international AI community, policymakers, and the general public on key questions of governanceA Strong Democracy is a Digital DemocracyAudrey Tang's 2019 op-ed for The New York TimesThe Frontiers of Digital DemocracyNathan Gardels interviews Audrey Tang in NoemaRECOMMENDED YUA EPISODES Digital Democracy is Within Reach with Audrey TangThe Tech We Need for 21st Century Democracy with Divya SiddarthHow Will AI Affect the 2024 Elections? with Renee DiResta and Carl MillerThe AI DilemmaYour Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_
2024 will be the biggest election year in world history. Forty countries will hold national elections, with over two billion voters heading to the polls. In this episode of Your Undivided Attention, two experts give us a situation report on how AI will increase the risks to our elections and our democracies. Correction: Tristan says two billion people from 70 countries will be undergoing democratic elections in 2024. The number expands to 70 when non-national elections are factored in.RECOMMENDED MEDIA White House AI Executive Order Takes On Complexity of Content Integrity IssuesRenee DiResta's piece in Tech Policy Press about content integrity within President Biden's AI executive orderThe Stanford Internet ObservatoryA cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching and policy engagement for the study of abuse in current information technologies, with a focus on social mediaDemosBritain's leading cross-party think tankInvisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality by Renee DiRestaPre-order Renee's upcoming book that's landing on shelves June 11, 2024RECOMMENDED YUA EPISODESThe Spin Doctors Are In with Renee DiRestaFrom Russia with Likes Part 1 with Renee DiRestaFrom Russia with Likes Part 2 with Renee DiRestaEsther Perel on Artificial IntimacyThe AI DilemmaA Conversation with Facebook Whistleblower Frances HaugenYour Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_
Dr. Peter Hotez is a veritable force. He has been the tip of the spear among physicians and scientists for taking on anti-science and has put himself and his family at serious risk.Along with Dr. Maria Bottazzi, he developed the Corbevax Covid vaccine —without a patent— that has already been given to over 10 million people, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Here an uninhibited, casual and extended conversation about his career, tangling with the likes of RFK Jr, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and an organized, funded, anti-science mob, along with related topics.Today is publication day for his new book, The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science.Transcript (AI generated)Eric Topol (00:00):Hello, this is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I'm with my friend and colleague who's an extraordinary fellow, Dr. Peter Hotez. He's the founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and University professor at Baylor, also at Texas Children's founding editor of the Public Library Science and Neglected Tropical Disease Journal. and I think this is Peter, your fifth book.Peter Hotez (00:28):That's my fifth single author book. That's right, that's right.Eric Topol (00:32):Fifth book. So that's pretty amazing. Peter's welcome and it's great to have a chance to have this conversation with you.Peter Hotez (00:39):Oh, it's great to be here and great to be with you, Eric, and you know, I've learned so much from you during this pandemic, and my only regret is not getting to know you before the pandemic. My life would've been far richer. AndPeter Hotez (00:53):I think, I think I first got to really know about you. You were are my medical school, Baylor College of Medicine, awarded you an honorary doctorate, and that's when I began reading about it. Oh. I said, holy cow. Why didn't, why haven't I been with this guy before? SoEric Topol (01:08):It's, oh my gosh. So you must have been there that year. And I came to the graduation.Peter Hotez (01:12):No, I actually was speaking at another graduation. That's why I couldn't be there, . Ah,Eric Topol (01:18):Right. As you typically do. Right. Well, you know, it's kind of amazing to track your career besides, you know, your baccalaureate at Yale and PhD at Rockefeller and MD at Cornell. But you started off, I, I think deep into hookworm. Is that where you kind of got your start?Peter Hotez (01:36):Yeah, and I'm still, and I'm still there actually, the hookworm vaccine that I started working on as an MD-PhD student at Rockefeller and Cornell is now in phase 2 clinical trials. Wow. So, which is, I tell people, is about the average timeframe --about 40 years-- is about a, not an unusual timeframe. These parasites are obviously very tough targets. oh man. And then we have AOIs vaccine and clinical trials and a Chagas disease vaccine. That's always been my lifelong passion is making vaccines for these neglected parasitic infections. And the story with Covid was I had a collaboration with Dr. Sarah Lustig at the New York Blood Center, who, when we were working on a river blindness vaccine, and she said, Hey, I want you to meet these two scientists, New York Blood Center. They're working on something called coronaviruses vaccines.(02:27):They were making vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome and SARS and ultimately MERS. And so we, we plugged their, their, some of their discoveries into our vaccine development machine. And they had found that if you were using the receptor binding domain of the, of the spike protein of SARS and ultimately MERS it produced an equivalent protective immune response neutralizing antibodies without the immune enhancement. And that's what we wrote to the NIT to do. And they supported us with a $6 million grant back in 2012 to make SARS and MERS vaccines. And, and then when Covid 19 hit, when the sequence came online and BioXriv in like early 2020, we just pivoted our program to Covid and, and we were able to hit the ground running and it worked. Everything just clicked and worked really well. And stars aligned and we were then transferred that technology.(03:26):We did it with no patent minimizing strings attached to India, Indonesia, Bangladesh. any place that we felt had the ability to scale up and produce it, India went the furthest. They developed it into Corbevax, which has reached 75 million kids in India. And another 10 million as their, for their primary immunization. Another 10 million is adult booster. And then Indonesia developed their own version of our, of our technology called IndoVac. And, and that's also reaching millions of, of people. And now they're using it as a, also as a booster for Pfizer, because I think it may be a superior booster. So it was really exciting to s you know, after working in parasitic disease vaccines, which are tough targets and decades to get it through the clinical trials because the pressure was on to move quickly goes to show you when people prioritize it. And also the fact that I think viruses are more straightforward targets than complex parasites. And well, so that in all about a hundred million doses have been administered andEric Topol (04:33):Yeah, no, it's just a spectacular story, Corbevax and these other named of the vaccine that, that you and Maria Bottazzi put together and without a patent at incredibly low cost and not in the us, which is so remarkable because as we exchanged recently, the us the companies, and that's three Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax are going to charge well over $110 per booster of the, the new booster updated XBB.1.5. And you've got one that could be $2 or $4 that's,Peter Hotez (05:11):And it's getting, so we're making, we're making the XBB recombinant protein booster of ours. And part of it's the technology, you can, you know, it's done through microbial fermentation in yeast, and it's been in a big bioreactor. And it's an older technology that's been around a couple of decades, and there's no limit to the amount you could scale. The yields are really high. So we can do this for two to $3 a dose, and it'd even be less, it wasn't for the cost of the adjuvant. The C P G, the nucleotide is probably the most expensive component, but the antigen is, you know, probably pennies to, to, you know, when you're doing it at that scale. And, and so that, that's really meaningful. I'd like to get our XBB booster into the us It's,Eric Topol (05:55):Yeah, it's just no respect from,Peter Hotez (05:58):We're not a pharma company, so we don't, we didn't get support from Operation Warp Speed, and so we didn't get any US subsidies for that. And it's just very hard to get on the radar screen of BARDA and those agencies and, 'cause that's, they're all set up to work with pharma companies.Eric Topol (06:16):Yeah, I know. It's, it's just not right. And who pays for this is the people, the public, because they, you know, the affordability is going to have a big influence on who gets boosters and is drivingPeter Hotez (06:27):. Yeah. So, so what I say is we, we provide, you know, the anti-vaccine guys, like the call me a Shill for pharma, not knowing what they're talking about. We've done the opposite, right? We've provided a path that shows you don't need to go to big pharma all the time. And, and so they should be embracing what we're doing. So we, we've, you know, have this new model for how you can get low cost vaccines out there. Not, not to demonize the pharma companies either. They, they do what they do and they do a lot of important innovation. But, but there are other pathways, especially for resource coordination. So we'd love to get this vaccine in, in the us I think it's looking a little work just, just as well, it's, you know, butEric Topol (07:12):You, yeah, I mean, it's not, I don't want ot demonize the vaccine companies either, but to raise the price fivefold just because it's not getting governed subsidy and the billions that have been provided by the government through taxpayer monies. Yeah.Peter Hotez (07:28):Well, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that they did an analysis that, that pharma, I think it was Pfizer and Moderna got 25 to 30 billion Yeah. Dollars in US subsidies, either for development costs for Moderna. I think Pfizer didn't accept development costs, but they both took advanced purchase money, so $30 billion. And you know, that's not how you show gratitude to the American people byEric Topol (07:55):JackingPeter Hotez (07:56):Up the price times for, I think I said, guys, you know, have some situational awareness. I mean, do you want people to hate you? Yeah.Eric Topol (08:04):That's what it looks like. Well, speaking of before I get to kind of the anti-science, the, THE DEADLY RISE OF ANTI-SCIENCE, your new book, I do want to set it up that, you know, you spent a lot of your career besides working on these tropical diseases, challenging diseases, you know, Leischmania, and you know, Chagas, and the ones you've mentioned. You've also stood up quite a bit for the low middle income countries with books that you've written previously about forgotten people, Blue Marble Health. And so, I, I, before I, I don't want to dismiss that 'cause it's really important and it ties in with what the work you've done with the, the Covax or Covid vaccine. Now, what I really want to get into is the book that you wrote that kind of ushered in your very deep personal in anti-science and anti-vax, which I'm going in a minute ask you to differentiate. But your daughter, Rachel, you wrote a book about her and about vaccines not causing autism. So can you tell us about that?Peter Hotez (09:11):Yeah. So as you point out, my first two books were about these, what I would call forgotten diseases of Forgotten people. In fact, that's what the first book was called, forgotten People, forgotten Diseases, which my kids used to call Dad's Forgotten book on Forgotten people, Forgotten Diseases, all the, all the, now it's in his third edition. So, but it talks about, you know, the, how important these conditions are. It's just that they're widely prevalent. It's just that they're occurring among people who live in extreme poverty, including people in poverty in the United States. That's why we set up our School of Tropical Medicine on the US Gulf Coast. I didn't do it for the summer weather which is these days in this heat dome. It's like, well, living on planet Mercury right now, in here, here in Texas.(09:58):But then, so that, that's what, that's how I started learning how to advocate, you know, for people and for diseases through neglected diseases. But, you know, when we came to Texas, we saw this very aggressive anti-vaccine movement, and they were making false claims that vaccines cause autism. And, and I said, look, I'm, you know, I'm a vaccine scientist here in Texas. I have a daughter with autism, Rachel, with an, an intellectual disabilities. And so if I don't say something who does, and, and then wrote the book, vaccines did not cause Rachel's Autism, which unfortunately made me public enemy number one or two with anti-vaccine groups. but you know, it, it, it does a deep dive explaining the science, showing there's absolutely no link between vaccines and autism, but also an absence of plausibility because what we know about autism, how it begins in early fetal brain development through the action of autism genes.(10:54):And we actually did whole exome genomic sequencing on, on Rachel and my wife Ann and I, and we found Rachel's autism gene, which is like many of them in, involved in early neuronal communication and connections. It was actually a neuronal cytoskeleton gene, as are many, in this case, a neuronal spectrum. And that one hadn't been reported before, but other neuronal cytoskeleton genes had been reported by the Broad Institute at Harvard, m i t and others. And, and that was important to have that alternative narrative because the refrain from always was, okay, doc, if vaccines don't do it, what does cause autism? And, and being able to have that other side of the story, I think is very compelling.Eric Topol (11:37):What was it, the, the fabricated paper by Andrew Wakefield and the Lancet that, that got all this started? Or did it really annotate the ? There wasPeter Hotez (11:47):Something before in the eighties about the DPT, the diptheria, pertussis tetanus vaccine claiming it caused, you know, seizures and then could lead to neurodevelopmental difficulties. But it really took off with the Wakefield paper in 1998, published in The Lancet. And that claimed that the MMR vaccine, a live virus vaccine, had the ability to replicate in the colon of kids. And somehow that led to pervasive developmental disorder. That was the term used back then. And I was Rachel's diagnosis. And it never made sense to me how something, 'cause the reason it's pervasive is it's, it's global in, in the central nervous system in, in the brain. And how, how could something postnatally do something like that? I mean, there is, there are epigenetic underpinnings of autism as well, and that's fun. Eric, you ever talk to, ever try to talk to lay audience about epigenetics? That's a tough one. That's, that's a tough one. You start talking about microRNAs and DNA methylation, histone modification. The, the lights go out pretty quickly, butEric Topol (12:46):Chromatin and histone modification. Right? Bye-bye. Yeah, you got that one.Peter Hotez (12:51):That, so that's,Eric Topol (12:52):But that, that was your really, you knowPeter Hotez (12:55):But that's when, you know, I started going up against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And, and, and all that was, that was pre-pandemic.Eric Topol (13:03):That was in 2018, right?Peter Hotez (13:05):2017 Trump came out and said, you know, it was about to be inaugurated and, and RFK Jr said he was going be appointed to run a vaccine commission by the Trump administration. And, and I actually was sitting, you know, in my office and my assistant said Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci are on the phone. Do you have time to talk with us ? And I said, yeah, I think so. And they arranged, they had arranged for me to, because I have a daughter with autism could articulate why vaccines don't cause out arranged for me to speak with RFK Jr threw it through a mediator and, and, and it didn't go well. He was just really dug in and, and soEric Topol (13:49):He, he was just as bad then as now.Peter Hotez (13:52):Yeah. I mean, it was just, you know, kept on, you know, as I say, moving the goalposts, you couldn't pin him down. Was he talking about MMR? Was he talking about the am Marisol, was he talking about spacing vaccines too close together? He just, that always kept on moving around and, and then it was not even autism at times. You were talking about it was something called chronic illness, you know, you know, what do you do with that? Mm-hmm. . So I, and that's one when I was challenged by, you know, Joe Rogan and Elon to debate RFK Jr, one of the reasons I didn't want to do it, because I, I knew, you know, doing it in public would be no different from doing this in, in, in private, that it would not be a productive conversation.Eric Topol (14:39):Yeah, no, that I can, I do want to get into that, because that was the latest chapter of kind of vicious anti-science, which was taking on covid and vaccines and the whole ball of wax whereby you were challenged by Joe Rogan on his very big podcast, which apparently is, you know, bigger than CNN various cable news networks,Peter Hotez (15:07):Which I had done, I had been on his show a couple of times. Yeah. And that was, and that was okay. I mean, I actually liked the experience quite a bit. AndEric Topol (15:15):And he challenged you to go on with RFK Jr. And then Elon Musk, you know, joined and, you know, basically Peter Hotez (15:21):Actually, he started before then, about the week before, or a few days before, Steve Bannon publicly declared me a criminal. And you know, which I said, wow, that's, that's something. And then Roger Stone weighed in. So it was this whole sort of frontal attack from, well, people with extremist viewpoints. And there'sEric Topol (15:41):Been a long history, and a Tucker Carlson in the book, you quote, he referring to Hotezis a misinformation machine constantly spewing insanity. Speaking of projecting things, my goodness. Yeah.Peter Hotez (15:54):Yeah. Well, he did that. You know, he, that was the, that was in 2022. It was, he went on his broadcast the evening after the evening of the, in the, during that day I, with Maria, I was, we were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And I guess, and I don't know if the two are related or not, I think it may have driven him off the edge, and then he just went on this rant against me. And, you know, claimed I have no experience anything about Covid. I mean, we had made two covid vaccines, right. And transferred the technology nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and just, you know, omitted all of that. But this is how these guys work. It's, it's all about asserting control. And, and it seems to come from an extremist element of the, of the far right.(16:39): and, and, and it's not that I'm a very political person at all. I mean, you know, I've been here in Texas now for 12 years, and I've gotten, you know, I've gotten to know people like Jim Bakker and his wife Susan Baker and, and you know, a lot of prominent Republicans here in Texas, that that wasn't an issue. This is something sort of weird and, and twisted. And, and the point that I make in the book is, and it's not just a theoretical concern or a construct, it's the fact that so many Americans lost their lives during the delta and BA.1 omicron waves in 2021 and 2022, after vaccines were widely and freely available because they refused a vaccine. so vaccines were rolled out in 2021. we started strong and then vaccination rates stalled. And then we didn't get very far by this after the spring because there was this launch of an, of, of a wave of what I call anti-vaccine or anti-science aggression, convinced that deliberately sought to convince Americans not to take a covid vaccine.Eric Topol (17:56):Chapter, yeah. Your chapter in the book Red Covid. Yeah, gets into it quantifies it, hundreds of thousands of lives lost. And I know you've seen some of the papers whereby studies in red states or states like Ohio and Florida showing the, the, the connection between this.Peter Hotez (18:15):Yeah, I, I relied heavily on this guy Charles Gaba, who has a, a website called ACA signups. And he did some really in, you know, strong analysis showing that the, that the people who were refusing covid vaccines and losing their lives were overwhelmingly in red states and could even show the redder the county as measured by voters, the lower the immunization rate and higher the death rates. And the term Red Covid came from David Leonhart of the New York Times wrote an article about Charles Gaba's work, and he called it Red Covid and did a lot of updates. And the data is so strong. I mean, so much so that one person at the Kaiser Family Foundation wrote, if you wanted to ask me whether or not a person was vaccinated, and I can only know one thing about them, you know, she said, the one thing I'd want to know is what political party they're affiliated with.(19:09):It was, it's, it's that strong. And it's, and it's not that I care about your politics, even your extreme views, but somehow we have to uncouple this one from it, right. Because somehow not getting vaccinated been added to the canon of stuff that you're supposed to believe in. If you are, if you're down that rabbit hole watching Fox News every night, or, or listening to Rogan Podcasts and that sort of stuff. And somehow we have to uncouple those two, and it's the hardest thing I've ever had to do. First of all, it's unpleasant to talk about, because all of, you know, your training, Eric mine as well is, you know, said you don't talk about politics and you're, you know, we're supposed to be above all that. But what do you do when the death and dying is so strong on, on one side?(19:58):And, and I, I was in east Texas not too long ago, giving grand rounds at a new medical school in East Texas and Tyler, Texas, and very conservative part of the state. And, you know, basically everyone you talked to has lost a loved one mm-hmm. because they refused a Covid vaccine and died. I mean, that's, that's where you really start to see that. And then, and these people are wonderful people. I gave you know Bob Harrington at oh yes, at at Stanford Medicine, now he's going be the Dean of Cornell. He, he invited me with Michelle Berry to, to give grand rounds, medical grand rounds at Stanford. And I said, look, if, if my car had broken down and the flat had a flat tire, and you, and I can't fix, I'm, I'm a disaster at fixing anything.(20:49):So if you said, okay, where you had the choice, where, where do you want your car broken down in Palo Alto, California, or Stanford is, or very wealthy enclave or East Texas, I'd say I'd pick East Texas in a second. 'cause in East Texas, they'd be fighting over who you know, is going to rush to help you change your tire. Right? And these are, you know, just incredible people. And they were victims. They were victims of this far right. Attacks from, from Fox News. And one of the things I do in the book is, you know, the documentation is really strong media matters. The Watchdog group has looked at the evening broadcast of Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram, and, and Hannity, and, you know, can I, you know, actually identify the anti-vaccine content with each broadcast during the summer and fall. And then our a social science research group out of ETH Zurich, the Federal University of Technology of Zurich, where Einstein studied, actually, you know, one of the great universities did another analysis and showed that watching Fox News is one of the great predictors of refusing a vaccine.(21:52):And, and so that, those were the amplifiers, but those generating a lot of the messages were elected leaders coming out of the House Freedom Caucus, or Senator, you know, Johnson's conservative senate that, I don't even like to use the word conservative, because it's not really that they're conservative, they're extremists. And yeah, a Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, or Rand Paul, you know, of, of Kentucky, you know, all the physician know what Yeah. And know physician and the CPAC conference of conservatives in Dallas, in 2021, they said, first you're gonna, they're going to vaccinate you, and then they're going to take away your guns and your Bibles. And as ridiculous as that sounds to us, people in my state of Texas and elsewhere in the South accepted it and didn't take a covid vaccine and pay for it with their lives. And, and how do we, you know, begin walking that back?(22:45):And, and the point of writing the book said, well, the first step is to at least describe it so people can know what we're talking about. Because I think right now, when you look at the way people talk about anti-vaccine or anti-science stuff, they, they call it misinformation or the infodemic, like it's just some random junk that appears out of nowhere on the internet. And it's not any of those things. It's, it's organized, it's well financed. It's politically motivated, and it's killing Americans on, on a massive scale. So I said, look, you know, I, I went, I'm did my MD and PhD in New York at Rockefeller and Cornell. I devoted my life to becoming a vaccine scientist. You know, the motto of Rockefeller universities to be the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research translates to science for the benefit of humanity. And, and I believe making vaccines is one of the high expressions. And I think most physician scientists believe, I think you believe that too. And that's why you're, you're in this as well, you know, not vaccines, but you know, other lifesaving interventions. And, and so I said, well, now making vaccines is not enough. 'cause now we have to counter all of this anti-vaccine stuff, and there's, there's nobody better, you know, in terms of my training and my background going up against anti-vaccine movements because of Rachel to do this. So I, I've done it and yeah.Eric Topol (24:11):Well, you've done it. All right. you,Peter Hotez (24:14):That's my wife. Ann says you've done it. Alright, .Eric Topol (24:17):Well, as I wrote in your, with your book of blurb about you are a new species, the physician scientist warrior, and you are Peter, because you're the only one of all the physicians. We're talking about a million docs almost in this country who has stood up and you've put your life at risk, your family at risk, you've had death threats, you've had the people you know, come right to your house. and so what you've described this kind of coalescence of political will of extremists, media, of course, amplification because it benefits them. They, they're selling more you know, they get more viewers, more the spots for commercials and more they can charge. And then you're even, as you described in the book, so well, is you even have outside interested parties like Russia as part of this organization, of this coalescence of forces that are taking on the truth, that are promoting anti-science, that are winding up, people are dying, or, yeah. Or having a, you know, serious morbidity,Peter Hotez (25:26):Right? Yeah. In the case of, in the case of Russia, , it's a slightly different motivation. What they're doing is they're filling the internet and social media with both anti-vaccine messages and pro-vaccine messages. Because they have a different agenda. Their agenda is destabilized democracies. So what they're doing is they're cherry picking certain issues that they can use as a wedge to sow discord. And so when they saw the stuff about vaccines, yeah, they'll flood it with both pro and anti-vaccine message. And you see the stuff on Twitter, so much of it is computer generated, and it's just repeats the same stuff over and over again. And, and a lot of that are, you know, some of that not only, only Russia, I think China's doing it, North Korea, Iran's doing it, but particularly Russia. And that was documented by a colleague of mine, David Broniatowski who's a computer scientist at George Washington University, has really done a deep dive in that. So so'sEric Topol (26:22):I think a lot of people are not aware that's what your book, book brings to light of how organized, how financed, you know, how this thing is a machine from coming from many different domains, you know, and for different interests as you, as you just summarized, it's, it's actually scary. And besides you standing up and facing, you know, the really ultimate bravery with the, all of the, these factions attacking you, literally ad hominem, you know, personally attacking you, then you have you know, this continues to get legs throughout the pandemic, and there's no counter as you've, as you've touched on what is going to be done. You can't stand up alone on this.Peter Hotez (27:09):Well, there's, there's a couple of things. First of all, it's not only attacking the science, it's attacking the scientists. Right, right,Eric Topol (27:15):Right.Peter Hotez (27:16):Exactly. It's, it's portraying and you get get it too, as well. I mean, it's basically portraying scientists as enemies of the state. which I think is so dangerous. I mean, as I like to say, you know, this is a nation that's built on science and technology, right? The, you know, the strengths of our research universities and institutions like Scripps, like Baylor, like Rockefeller, like MIT and Stanford, and University of Michigan and University of Chicago. This is what, you know, helped us defeat fascism in World War II as evidenced by the Oppenheimer movie, right. Or, and or allowed us to achieve so many things, why people so admire our nation. When I served as US Science Envoy and the Obama administration, the State Department, and the White House. I mean, that's where people loved our country, is they all wanna study at our research universities, or they want their kids to study at our research universities.(28:10):And, and by attacking not only science, but the scientists, I think it's weakening our stature globally. And, and, and, and I think that's, that, that's another aspect. I think the other problem is we, we don't get the backing that I think we should from the scientific societies in the Times, even the National Academies. I think they, they could be out there more. exactly why, you know, I think part of it is they see, they see how I get beat up and they say, well, what's that? Right? Yeah. And I, and I understand that, but I think also, you know, they, they depend on, oftentimes on government funding. And I think they're worried that, you know, if they're, again, it's this idea that you have to be politically neutral, even if it favors the torment or the aggressor to paraphrase Desmond Tutu, that's part of it as well.(29:09):I mean, it, I mean, I do find it meaningful. It's scary at times, and I, but I do find it meaningful to ha to have this role. But getting, getting more help and backing, I mean, we're our, our university, I mean, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital has been pretty good. You know, Stan, you know, having my back, it's not that way at every, and I know Scripps has been really strong with what Kristian Anderson's had to deal with around you know, all the phony bologna around covid origins. But, but not all academic health centers are that way. And, and I think we need our university presidents to be more vocal on this issue. And, and too often they're not as well as our academies and our, our scientific societies, because this is, I believe, going to do irreparable harm to, to science. Well, yeah.Eric Topol (30:04):You know, in my experience too, we, we've actually seen, you know, academic physicians who have basically, you know, supported conspiracy theories who have detracted from evidence and science, you knowin a major way. Some of the leading universities here as you, as you mentioned. And when I've contacted and others, their leadership, they say, well, freedom of speech, freedom of speech. 'cause they're afraid to confront them because, you know, all the different things. We've, we, you've mentioned social media, but no, the universities don't want to get attacked on social media. They're afraid of that. They're afraid of, of calling out, you know, one of the people, faculty members who are deliberately, you know garnering a lot of, yeah. And,Peter Hotez (30:56):And the point is, is it's not just, you know, freedom of speech in the sense of espousing you know, crazy views. It's the fact that they're going on the attack against mm-hmm. . I mean, I don't attack these guys, but they attacked me with, with impunity and Yes. Say terrible thing, untrue things about me. I mean, where's there's, isn't there something called professionalism or, or ethics, yeah. Right. That don't, don't, don't, don't we, aren't we supposed to be in instilling that in our, in our faculty and, and that that doesn't seem to happen.Eric Topol (31:28):So that'sPeter Hotez (31:28):Troubling asEric Topol (31:29):Well. They're, they're making credible scientists who are doing the best they can into pinatas Right. And attacking them. And with, and it can't, it can't be reciprocated because that's, that's beneath professionalism. I mean, just as you say. So, you know, you just keep, they just keep going at it. So what you have is now we've added all these different entities and all add more. One more is ai, which is going to further blur the truth.Peter Hotez (31:59):Yeah, Renee DiResta at the Stanford Internet Observatory, I don't if you know Renee, she does fabulous work. And she's written about, you know, what happens when, you know, all of the anti-science, anti-vaccine stuff is now imbued with ai, and, you know, it's going become even more sophisticated and more difficultEric Topol (32:17):To No, there's, there's gonna be a video of you saying that, you know, these vaccines are killing people but don't get a booster and it'll be just like you with your voice. Yeah.Peter Hotez (32:28):Well, they already, they already have. Now these, there's these few things on YouTube that, that claim, I'm secretly Jack Black, the actor . And that the CIA has arranged it so that Jack Black plays this fictional character named Dr. Peter Hotez. And they do all these things like, you know, focus in on my eyes and do like eye identification. It's just, it's just nuts. I mean, what, what's out there?Eric Topol (32:54):Well, has there been a time in these months where you were very scared you, you're for yourself or your family because of all the incredible density and, and what appears to be very serious threats and duringPeter Hotez (33:08):, during, during the day, during the day, I'm okay. I mean, in, you know, when the, when the, when the Steve Bannon in stuff and Joe Rogan stuff, then I had the stalking at the house, and, you know, I had to have a Houston Police Department officer parked in front of my house or a Harris County Sheriff that, that was troublesome. But it, it's more of during the day, I am fine. I'm working, I'm talking, you know, to people like you and in lab meetings, doing what scientists do, writing grants and throwing pencils at the wall when you get a paper with a major review or, or a major revision or rejection. But, but it's, I think at night, you know, wake up in the middle of the night and the, it's, the stuff does start to mess with your head at times. And it'sEric Topol (33:54):Well, and you travel a lot and you, you've, I think expressed that, hey, you could be given a talk in an innocent place and somebody could come, you know, attack youPeter Hotez (34:04):There. Yeah. So I have to, I have, I have security now at, in major venues when I speak. and, you know, I had an, there was an incident at the World Vaccine Congress in Washington. There were protesters out in front of the, out in front of the convention center waiting for me that that wasn't fun. And so, even, you know, we've got, we'll see what happens with the, when the, you know, I'm doing a number of events around the book in Washington DC and New York and elsewhere. We'll, we'll see how that goes. soEric Topol (34:38):Well take it. You, you're, I know you well enough to know that you're an optimistic person. I mean, you've been smiling and we've been laughing during this and discussing some very heavy, serious stuff. What gives you still optimism that this can someday get on track?Peter Hotez (34:57):Well, I think it could get worse before it gets better, first of all. And, and two fronts. One, you know, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Tedros, the World Health Organization Director, general of World Health Organization towards the end of last year. And to say this could be the warmup act in the sense that now it's globalizing. I'm anticipating spillover all childhood immunization rates. And, you know, you're starting to see the same US style of anti-vaccine rhetoric now, you know, even in low and middle income countries on the African continent in South Asia. So I worry about, you know, measles and polio, both in the US and, and globally. I think that's, that's, I'm worried about that. The other is, you know, a lot of this is heating up, I think because of the 2024 presidential election. I think one was that with, with our, our mutual friend and colleague Anthony Fauci, now that he's out of government he's not as visible as he was.(35:58):I think they're, the, the extremists are looking around for another, they need a monster right. To, to galvanize the base. And I think I've become that monster. You know, that's, that's one thing I'm worried about. But also you with, I talk to probably someone you've seen on Twitter. and I've gotten to know her somewhat, I'm very impressed with her. Molly Chong Fast, who's a commentator on c n at M S N B C, and she, you know, put out there, and she told me privately and put it out in public that, you know, one of the reasons why things are so vicious around RFK Jr, as they see him as a third party candidate that could take Biden votes away and help create a path for Trump being elected. So by, you know, by having me debate him, it, it kind of elevated in, in its own way, elevated his stature and made him seem like a more serious person. Right, right. And my refusal, you know, popped their bubble. And that, that's one of the reasons why, why they're so angry. So this is very much tied, I think, to the 2024 presidential look. And that's what you're having seen with the House subcommittee hearings too, portraying scientists as enemies of the state. It's all for, I mean, I don't know if you've seen this, the, that House Subcommittee Twitter site, it actually says something like, we're selling popcorn, you know, we'reEric Topol (37:18):Yeah, I know. I mean,Peter Hotez (37:20):They're, they're not, they're not even pretending it's anything, theEric Topol (37:23):PoliticalPeter Hotez (37:23):Theater for Fox News soundbites. So I think we're gonna see they're the word.Eric Topol (37:27):Alright. Yeah.Peter Hotez (37:28):Yeah. And, and, but, you know, but the attacks on biomedical science, I think are gonna be, you know, have a long-term effect. If for no other reason, I think people are gonna think twice about wanting to do a PhD in biomedical scientist or become an MD PhD scientist when they see that, you know, we'reEric Topol (37:47):. Well, that's what you, you also covered that really well in the Yeah. In the book. But when you think about where we are now with climate crisis, or we're facing future pandemics, not just the one we're still working through here where is the hope that we can counter this? I mean, we need armies of people like you. We need, as you say, the scientific establishment and community all stand up. That, that gets me to one of the things that makes you differentiates you from most physicians and scientists. You write books, you are active on social media. You, you appear on the media. Most scientists grew up to have their head do the work, do good science, get their stuff published, and get grants and, you know, try to advance the field and physicians doing that, are taking care of patients, same kind of thing. What prompted you in your career to say, Hey, you know, that's not enough. I got another dimension. And why, how can we get millions of clinicians and scientists to rally to do what you'rePeter Hotez (39:01):Doing? Well, in my, in my case, I, it's not that I was deliberately seeking to be a public figure or what some call a public intellectual. It was more the case, the issues that I was most interested in, nobody was talking about. Mm. And nobody was going to talk about it. So if I didn't talk about it, it wasn't gonna be talked about. So neglected tropical diseases, you know? Yeah. For guard people was, and, and I had two colleagues in the uk, Alan Fannick and David Mullen, who felt the same way. And so we began be, we became the three Musketeers of the neglected tropical disease space. And I found that extremely meaningful and interesting. And it was the same with vaccines. So although I, I'm often in the, you know, doing a lot of public engagement, if you notice, I don't try to be like some people who do it very well, like as Sanjay Gupta or, or some others that will, or Megan Rainey that will talk about, you know, just about any health issue.(39:56):I, I don't try to do that. I sort of stay, it's a wide lane, but I try to stay in my lane around infectious, neglected diseases and, and, and vaccines. And I think that's very important. Now, in terms of, you know, the statement, most scientists or physician scientists wanna keep their head done, write their grants and paper. I think that's perfectly fine. I don't think you people should be forced to do it, but I think there's enough of us out there that wanna do it, but don't know how to get started and don't feel safe doing it. I, and so I think we need to change that culture. Mm-hmm. I think we need to offer science communication to our graduate students in their PhD programs or in MD PhD programs for those who wanna do it, or in residency training or fellowship training. And so that, because there, there are things you can learn.(40:46):I mean, we had to do it by trial and error, and in my case, more error than trial. But, but, but there is a, there is, there are things you can learn from people who do this professionally. So I think that's important. I think the other is we need to change the culture of the institutions. You know, I, I get evaluated just like you do like everybody, like any, you know, senior scientist or professor at university, and, you know, what do they ask me about? They ask me about my grants and, and my papers preferably in high impact journals, and they ask me, and I don't see patients anymore, so they don't ask me about my clinical revenue, but they ask me about my grants and papers and my grants and papers, and my grants and papers. There's not even any place on my form, my annual evaluation from, to put in the single author books. I've written much less, you know? Yeah. The, the opinion pieces I've written, or certainly not social media or even, or even the cable news channel. So, so it basically, the academic health center is sending the message. And I don't think that's unique. I think that's probably the rule in most places. I think the, the culture of academic health centers is they're basically, they're sending a message just saying, well, we don't consider that stuff important, and somehow we have to make it important. I think for those who wanna do itEric Topol (42:08):AbsolutelyPeter Hotez (42:09):To send that message,Eric Topol (42:10):You're, you're, you're pointing out a critical step that has to be undertaken in the future. it'll take time to get that to gel, hopefully, but if it's promoted actively, I certainly promote that. I know you do. Yeah. I think,Peter Hotez (42:23):I think most, most offices of communications at academic health centers, as I said, Baylor and Texas Children's is pretty good, better than most, but most, you know, don't even like their docs and scientists speaking out. Yeah. Right. They wanna control the message. It's all about, you know, they're very risk averse. They're protecting the reputation of the institution. They only see the risk side. They don't, you know, you know, you wanna speak about social justice or, or combating anti-science. Well, you know, we guess we can't stop you, but they sort of cringe at, at the idea. And then, you know, they say, well, you know, ultimately you're a professor or a scientist here, you have academic freedom.com, but don't screw this up. Right. And don institution at risk. Right.Eric Topol (43:07):Ab you're describing exactly how university communications worked.Peter Hotez (43:12):Yeah. ButEric Topol (43:13):ThePeter Hotez (43:13):Point is, and so you do it with the sort of Damocles over your head, and, and you know, as you know, and as anyone knows, if you do enough, you will screw it up eventually, right? Everybody does. And, and you know, you're gonna make mistakes. That's how you learn. You make mistakes and you, you auto correct. But, but you have to have that freedom to be able to make mistakes and Yeah. And right now that's not there either.Eric Topol (43:35):What, what you're driving at though altogether is that we're defenseless. That is, if you have an organized finance coordinated attack on science, and also of course on vaccines, and you have no defense, you have, I mean, it's hard for the government to stand up because they're part of what's the conspiracy theory is, is, is against, and you, and, and the scientific community, the clinician community is, you know, kind of handcuffed as you are getting at. And also, you know, that's not the culture that's unwilling, but something's gotta give. And this is one thing I think you're really reinforcing that, that should a pathway to countering. I mean, we can't clone you. You know, we can't, we need lots of warriors. We need, you know, thousands and hundreds of thousands of points of light who support data and evidence, you know, as best that they can. And we don't have that today.Peter Hotez (44:36):Yeah. And we, we need to cultivate that. So I'm in discussions not only with people like yourself, but other colleagues about should we try to create, whether it's a nonprofit of 5 0 1 C three or C four the climate scientists are ahead of the game on this. Yeah. Yeah. I, I talk to Michael Mann every now and then, and, you know, they've got a climate science defense fund. They, they seem to be, 'cause it, they've, they've experienced this for longer than we have. You know, the, this all started a decade before with tax against climate scientists, you know, should, in the book I talk about, should we create something like a Southern Poverty Law Center equivalent to, to protect science and scientists? And, and I think we need that because the existing institutions don't seem willing to, to create something like that. It's somehow seen as too edgy or too out there and Right.(45:30):And it shouldn't be. But, but again, this is a I think a, a great opportunity for college presidents to, to step up and, and they're not doing that. They're, they're also pretty risk averse. So I think, you know, getting, getting the heads of the academic health centers, getting the college president, university presidents to say, Hey, this is important because otherwise science is at risk. And, and you're already starting to see some crazy stuff come out of the N I h now about doing international research. They're trying to put in rules to say they want, you know, if you have international collaborators, you're supposed to collect their notebooks and translate the how are you gonna do that? That's, that's completely, IM it's important. I mean, it's, and who's gonna review it and who's gonna sign off in general legal counsel at the university on, that's basically gonna halt international research. And we have to recognize that we need this because the threats are coming. Right? I mean,Eric Topol (46:33):CliPeter Hotez (46:34):Climate change is real, and pandemic threats are real. We're gonna see another major coronavirus pandemic possibly before 2030 or a flu or an arbovirus. And, and we're, we're, we need, this is a time we need to be reinforcing our, our virology research and our infectious disease research, not a time to, you know, start dismantling it, which is what totally the house hearings are, are meant to do, and what some of these new n i h rulings are meant to do. So it's gonna take a lot of strong players and, and, and government and at universities to stand up to this.Eric Topol (47:14):Well, if we ever need to be vaccinated or immunized, it's against this. And I hope that something will give to start to provide an antidote to what is a relentless progression of united science that you so elegantly eloquently in, in your book, Peter. So thanks for writing that. thanks for joining today. I know we'll have, as we do every week conversations yeah. You,Peter Hotez (47:41):You've been a, you've been an amazing friend and colleague, Eric, and I've learned so much from you. And, andEric Topol (47:46):No, no. I, I feel I can't tell you thank you. I, I, I think it's completely reciprocal from what you bring to this table of trying to make this a better place for advancing science search for, for the truth of what's really going on out there, rather than having to deal with wacky, you know, extremists that are advancing things for various purposes that are, that are nefarious in many cases. So, appreciate it. we'll be talking some more and this has been a really for me, an enriching conversation.Peter Hotez (48:21):Same, same Eric. And thank you so much for giving this attention and the dialect to be continued.Thanks for listening, reading and subscribing to Ground Truths!Please share if you found this podcast worthwhileFull video link Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe
Renee DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory on the latest attempts to retcon Russia's election interference
Sam Harris speaks with Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger, and Renee DiResta about the release of “the Twitter files” and the loss of trust in the institutions of media and government. They discuss Bari and Michael's experience of participating in the Twitter files release, the problem of misinformation, the relationship between Twitter and the federal government, Russian influence operations, the challenges of content moderation, Hunter Biden's infamous laptop, the need for transparency, platforms vs. publishers, Twitter's resistance to the FBI, political bias at Twitter, J.K. Rowling, the inherent subjectivity of moderation decisions, the rise of competitive platforms, rumors vs. misinformation, how Twitter attempted to control the spread of Covid misinformation, the throttling of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the failure of institutions to communicate Covid information well, the risk of paternalism, abuses of power, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe. Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.
In Episode 288 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Renee DiResta about the recent revelations stemming from the Twitter Files, why we should care about them, and what we can do to fix the problems of unaccountable censorship and misinformation on social media. Renée is the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, where she investigates the spread of narratives across social media and how actors leverage these networks to exert influence. She has advised Congress, the State Department, and other academic, civic, and business organizations, and has studied disinformation and computational propaganda in the context of pseudoscience conspiracies, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare, which makes her the perfect person to speak to about this incredibly important and timely topic. For those who are unfamiliar with this story, Elon Musk, who recently purchased Twitter for 44 billion dollars invited Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and several other journalists to look into the Twitter archives. What they found has confirmed many of the pre-existing beliefs of the American right, who see the published internal Twitter communications as evidence that partisan executives took deliberate actions to limit access to information and voices that could damage Democrats. The most salient argument here is that Twitter put its thumb on the scale by removing certain prominent accounts from trending, through suppression of both search and amplification. Even if the intent wasn't partisan, the impact was. At least, that's the way the right sees it. On the left, the Twitter Files are being dismissed as a “nothing burger,” or at least as not revealing anything that we didn't already know about for years. Defenders note that Twitter's terms of service say that the company limits the reach of certain posts in select cases and that Musk himself advocates for a similar policy. Indeed, Musk recently suspended the accounts of several journalists on the platform, including Lenett Lopez, whose social media account he raided four years ago. These defenders add further that Weiss provided anecdotes, rather than a comprehensive investigation, so it's impossible to conclude that such limitations were slanted in one direction or another. Demetri wanted to use this opportunity to shift the conversation away from politics and towards something more constructive by speaking to both sides of the political spectrum. In their conversation, Kofinas and DiResta discuss a wide range of social, philosophical, and policy issues related to social media, including ways of bringing more transparency and accountability to these technology platforms. If you want access to the second hour of today's conversation, you can subscribe to our premium content and gain access to our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you want to join in on the conversation and become a member of our Hidden Forces genius community, which includes Q&A calls with guests, access to special research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners, you can do that through our subscriber page as well. If you have further questions, feel free to send an email to info@hiddenforces.io, and Demetri or someone else from our team will get right back to you. If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following: Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | YouTube | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | CastBox | RSS Feed Write us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Subscribe to our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe & Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.io Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 12/15/2022
Megyn Kelly is joined by David Sacks of Craft Ventures and co-host of All-In, to talk about President Biden's inflation crisis, the odd job market situation, whether we're in a recession currently, hiring ramifications, why the working class is moving from the Democratic party to the Republican party, the issues that matter most to Americans, Biden's efforts to cozy up to the Saudis, the significance of the Dutch farmers protest, and more. Later, Renee DiResta, technical research manager at Stanford and disinformation expert, joins to discuss the reality of bots on Twitter, Elon Musk's bot bottle, the truth about the Russian troll farm operation, how the social media feedback loop is keeping us divided, push notifications and the battle for attention, the challenge of balancing social media suppression and reliable information, and more. And Todd Henderson, law professor at the University of Chicago, breaks down the legal battle between Twitter and Elon Musk, whether Twitter can really force Musk to buy it, what to expect next, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow
Renee DiResta is an expert on tech policy, influence operations, and algorithms, managing research at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She joins Jon to break down Elon Musk buying Twitter, explaining his envisioned reforms and making the case that Elon Musk fundamentally misunderstands free speech on the internet. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, go to crooked.com and Offline. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
My guest today is Renee DiResta. Renee is the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She led a multi-year investigation into the IRA, Russia's fake news factory, and she's advised Congress. She's also an ideas contributor at Wired and The Atlantic. In this episode, we talk about the difference between misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. We talk about public health messaging, hashtags, and trending topics and the effect they can have on the real world, the increasing power of influencers and independent content creators like myself. We also discuss censorship and algorithms on big tech platforms like Twitter and Facebook and how Wikipedia can act as a source of accurate knowledge. We go to speak about how one should do research on topics one cares about in a context where one can't always trust mainstream sources, how to avoid audience capture as a content creator, and whether math is racist. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
