There is no doubt in my mind that former President Barack Obama is one of the most malevolent manifestations of evil that has done significant damage to America and its citizens. It is not so much what he says because he has been known to tell the truth; if only to distract you from what he is doing behind the scenes.

So, I  find it helpful to examine his keynote speech presented at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center on behalf of the non-profit Obama Foundation.

Sometimes, the progressive communist democrats tell the truth…

(1)  It’s a different world.

(2)  The traditional mainstream media is dying, and we are surrounded by on-demand information.

(3)  You are most likely to consume the content you agree with, reinforcing your understanding and prejudices.

(4)  The new content distribution/consumption model presents a vulnerability to influencing individual and group behavior, especially after fatigue weakens our critical thinking.

Today, of course, we occupy entirely different media realities, fed directly into our phones. You don’t even have to look up. And it’s made all of us more prone to what psychologists call confirmation bias, the tendency to select facts and opinions that reinforce our preexisting worldviews and filter out those that don’t.

So inside our personal information bubbles, our assumptions, our blind spots, our prejudices aren’t challenged, they’re reinforced. And naturally we’re more likely to react negatively to those consuming different facts and opinions. All of which deepens existing racial and religious and cultural divides.

It’s fair to say then that some of the current challenges we face are inherent to a fully connected world. Our brains aren’t accustomed to taking in this much information this fast, and a lot of us are experiencing overload. But not all problems we’re seeing now are an inevitable byproduct of this new technology. They’re also the result of very specific choices made by the companies that have come to dominate the internet generally and social media platforms in particular. Decisions that, intentionally or not, have made democracies more vulnerable.

(5)  This vulnerability can be weaponized.

People like Putin and Steve Bannon, for that matter, understand it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe.

Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won. And as Putin discovered leading up to the 2016 election, our own social media platforms are well designed to support such a mission, such a project.

I have a plan, even if it is to call for more government control over the instruments useful to disseminate the regime’s narrative and to stifle dissent…

So I want to make some general suggestions for what that work might look like. But before I do, let me offer a few stipulations so we don’t get bogged down in some well-worn, not always productive arguments.

Number one, media companies, tech companies, social media platforms did not create the divisions in our society, here or in other parts of the world. Social media did not create racism or white supremacist groups. It didn’t create the kind of ethnonationalism that Putin’s enraptured with. It didn’t create sexism, class conflict, religious strife, greed, envy, all the deadly sins. All these things existed long before the first tweet or Facebook poke.

[OCS: These are expressions of human behavior, and exploited by the progressive communist democrats to divide America into classes which can be manipulated to accrete political power. Using the basic division of oppressors versus the oppressed to refocus discontent on the opposition rather than the regime in power; to create a coalition whose numbers will yield an electoral majority or plurality, and to promise the disaffected redress for their real or imagined grievances in return for their political support.]

Solving the disinformation problem won’t cure all that ails our democracies or tears at the fabric of our world, but it can help tamp down divisions and let us rebuild the trust and solidarity needed to make our democracy stronger. And to take on anti-women mentalities, and deal with racism in our societies and build bridges between people. It can do that.

[OCS: This assumes that there exists an objective truth that is not capable of being manipulated or interpreted by partisan factions to support their self-interests. This is not always possible as reasonable individuals can disagree on many subjects based on their upbringing, education, experience, environment, peers, and overall worldview. The question is simple: what is disinformation and who is the ultimate arbiter of the debate?]

Second, we aren’t going to get rid of all offensive or inflammatory content on the web. That is a strawman. We’d be wrong to try. Freedom of speech is at the heart of every democratic society in America those protections are enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. There’s a reason it came first in the Bill of Rights.

[OCS: These are true statements offered by a deceptive individuals to obfuscate the underlying truth. The hidden truth is that Obama and his cadre of progressive communist democrat acolytes have no respect for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and true free speech which challenges their regime’s narrative. In fact, Obama was awarded PolitiFact’s 2013 liar of the year award for his outright lie, “if you life your plan, you can keep your plan” in promoting the Affordable Care Act which was never affordable.]

I’m pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist. I believe that in most instances the answer to bad speech is good speech. I believe that the free, robust, sometimes antagonistic exchange of ideas produces better outcomes and a healthier society.

[OCS: This is a bald-faced lie which can be proven by a simple examination of the lengths to which the Obama Administration used government agencies to intimidate individuals and silence their free speech.]

No Democratic government can or should do what China, for example, is doing, simply telling people what they can and cannot say or publish while trying to control what others say about their country abroad. And I don’t have a lot of confidence that any single individual or organization, private or public, should be charged or do a good job at determining who gets to hear what.

[OCS: Another demonstrable lie proven by the Biden regime’s public-private alliance that censors information and cancels dissident access to the social media platforms.]

That said, the First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by The New York Times or Fox News. Never has. Social media companies already make choices about what is or is not allowed on their platforms and how that content appears, both explicitly through content moderation, and implicitly through algorithms.

[OCS: Journalistic standards, where a free press was able to speak truth to power, rarely exist in today’s corporate media environment. And it is deeply problematical when private companies act as de facto agents of the regime.]

The problem is, we often don’t know what principles govern those decisions. And on an issue of enormous public interest, there has been little public debate and practically no democratic oversight.

[OCS: We very well know the principles that should govern those decisions. What we really don’t know is the motivation of those institutions and individuals who make those decisions. The democratic oversight comes from the marketplace where consumers can chose to believe and act in their self-interests. No government oversight required.]

Three, any rules we come up with to govern the distribution of content on the Internet will involve value judgments. None of us are perfectly objective. What we consider unshakeable truth today may prove to be totally wrong tomorrow. But that doesn’t mean some things aren’t truer than others or that we can’t draw lines between opinions, facts, honest mistakes, intentional deceptions.

[OCS: What’s this “we” bullpucky? We let the marketplace decide, not government, not non-profits, not foundations, not partisan hacks, or others. This is a subtle call for oversight and censorship. Asking the public to say, "maybe" instead of, "hell no!"]

We make these distinctions all the time in our daily lives, at work, in school, at home, in sports, and we can do the same when it comes to Internet content, as long as we agree on a set of principles, some core values to guide the work. So, in the interest of full transparency, here’s what I think our guiding principles should be.

[OCS: There is no “we.” The guiding principals are: the U.S. Constitution and its freedoms including freedom of speech, and the rule of law. All ideas are debated and are discretionary, not defined and mandated .]

The way I’m going to evaluate any proposal touching on social media and the Internet is whether it strengthens or weakens the prospects for a healthy, inclusive democracy, whether it encourages robust debate and respect for our differences, whether it reinforces rule of law and self-governance, whether it helps us make collective decisions based on the best available information, and whether it recognizes the rights and freedoms and dignity of all our citizens.

[OCS: The internet was envisioned as an open platform for information exchange without monitoring or censorship. No proposed rules are necessary for this self-governing apolitical body.  To impose control over the internet is to diminish or destroy the rights, freedoms, and dignity of all participants.]

Whatever changes contribute to that vision, I’m for. Whatever erodes that vision, I’m against, just so you know.

[OCS: Consider Obama’s words carefully. He is telling us that whatever changes contribute to his progressive communist democrat agenda he is for. And, since our Constitution, capitalist system, and American exceptionalism erodes that vision, he is against it.]

To read the transcript in full and in context, or watch the video, it can be found on the website of Tech Policy Press, a nonprofit media and community venture intended to provoke new ideas, debate, and discussion at the intersection of technology and democracy.

Bottom line…

Obama is evil, the serpent trying to sell Americans on despotism and slavery on behalf of the regime governed by elites like Obama. The king of scandals who lies about everything. 

Obama lecturing America on disinformation is a slap in the face. They need censorship and cancellation to prevent the upcoming electoral disaster. They are terrified about Musk taking over Twitter and allowing the Americans to learn the truth.

We are so screwed.

-- steve