The Big Tech Critic Trump Is Trying To Deport

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Big Tech Critic Trump Is Trying To Deport"

Offline with Jon Favreau — Episode 224 (February 28, 2026)
Guest: Imran Ahmed (Center for Countering Digital Hate)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features Jon Favreau in conversation with Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The discussion centers on the outsized impact of Big Tech on democracy, the spread of digital hate and misinformation, the consequences of Section 230, and Imran’s personal story, including why the Trump administration attempted to deport him after research he published about X (formerly Twitter) angered Elon Musk.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. Imran Ahmed’s Work and the Trump Deportation Attempt

• CCDH Mission: Founded in 2019, the CCDH adopts a broad and systematic approach to tech accountability, researching the harms of social media on individuals, kids, and democracy at large.
• Notable Research:
  • Disinformation Dozen: Found that 12 individuals produced 65% of pandemic disinformation.
  • Deadly by Design Study: Discovered TikTok often serves self-harm content within minutes of a fake account mimicking a 13-year-old girl ([05:07]).
• Elon Musk’s Reaction & Lawsuit: CCDH’s research led to significant media coverage and advertiser loss for Musk’s X platform. Musk sued CCDH for $10 million, claiming damages ([06:36]; [24:47]).
• Deportation Announcement:
  • US State Department attempted to deport Imran and four other Europeans, allegedly due to their advocacy hurting American companies, specifically after criticism of Musk/X ([04:56]; [08:16]).
  • Imran was prepared with legal support before the official notice went public via tweet on December 23 ([10:04]; [13:03]).
• Family Reaction: Imran’s wife’s support was crucial. Memorable quote:
  • “She came down ... and left a post it note on my desk ... it said, ‘I love you. Fuck these guys.’” ([11:33])

---

2. Crisis Management and Legal Response

• Legal Action: Filed for a restraining order and injunction to prevent detention and deportation.
• Judicial Optimism:
  • Imran praises the “unbelievable kindness” of the judge who protected his rights:
    • “A judge, an unbelievable kindness to spend Christmas Eve staying up, working to protect the constitutional rights of someone he'd never met...” ([13:07])
• Optimism About America:
  • “People ask me like, do you think like, oh, America is a terrible place, look at what's happening to you. And I'm like, no, look at what's happened to me. It's a great place.” ([14:15])

---

3. The Broader Culture of Big Tech & Power

• Impunity and Sociopathy in Tech:
  • Imran and Jon highlight the moral detachment of tech billionaires:
    • “These guys do not care about us as human beings. They see us as NPCs in a game in which they are the lead character.” (Imran, [02:41]; repeated [43:30])
• Disconnect from Community:
  • Lord David Young’s lesson: traditional business leaders cared about standing in the community. Tech leaders often surround themselves with “a country club with a membership of one” ([41:33]).
• Corruption and Money in Politics:
  • Both agree the corrupting influence of big money, especially from Big Tech, undermines democratic accountability ([38:26]; [36:45]).

---

4. Section 230 and Tech Accountability

• Section 230 as "Cancer":
  • Imran: “Section 230 is actually the cancer that's...infected the rest of our society. I think it's metastasized... and the impunity that creates...” ([21:42])
• Proposed Reforms:
  • Calls for reform, not repeal, of Section 230—emphasizes liability for harm knowingly facilitated by platform design, especially algorithms ([50:53]; [52:37]).
  • Strong bipartisan momentum for a bill that would sunset Section 230, giving tech companies two years to negotiate a new liability framework ([52:15]; [51:20]).
  • Analogies to food safety regulation: “There is more regulation of a deli that serves you sandwiches than there is of platforms that our kids spend 4.7 hours a day on...” ([50:53])
• Public Demand for Accountability:
  • Imran recounts focus group with libertarian dads angry about Section 230, emphasizing accountability and fairness:
    • “So I can sue you ... but I can't sue a social media company if they make my kid kill themself. That's un American.” ([53:33])

---

5. Lawsuits, Harassment, and Resilience

• Legal Intimidation by Tech Titans:
  • Lawsuits are used to drain organizational resources, sow doubt, and intimidate partners/customers ([28:43]).
  • Imran: “They're designed to terrorize people. They're designed to make people not want to talk to you...” ([28:43])
• SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP Success:
  • CCDH successfully used anti-SLAPP statutes in California to recover costs and discourage meritless lawsuits from Musk ([28:58]).
• Congressional and Political Pressure:
  • Following the lawsuit, Republican members like Jim Jordan and Stephen Miller ramped up government scrutiny and subpoenaed CCDH, alleging foreign influence and improper conduct—none substantiated ([30:25]; [31:03]).

---

6. Tech Platforms and Democracy

• Big Tech’s Threat to Democracy:
  • Tech sector’s indifference and immunity infect public life, foster anti-democratic attitudes, and cultivate a culture of arrogance ([16:30]).
• Algorithmic Amplification vs. Content Moderation:
  • Imran explains the shift from focusing on “bad actors” to recognizing structural harm “by design,” with platforms knowingly persisting in harmful practices for profit ([46:12]).
  • Jon notes content moderation has become less viable; focus needs to be on core design elements—algorithms that amplify real harm ([45:03]).

---

7. Real-World Impact: The Human Cost

• Personal Stories:
  • The tragic example of Molly Russell, who died by suicide after exposure to self-harm content, dramatizing Big Tech's role and the urgent need for enforceable accountability ([56:16]).
  • Quote:
    • “They had to physically pry his arms off her because he wouldn't put her down so they could declare her dead…” (about Molly’s father, Ian Russell, [56:16])
• Imran’s Motivation:
  • “Every time I meet [parents], a little chip comes out of my soul. And now I am close to broken by how many times I have met people who have suffered immeasurably because of the business decisions taken by greedy plutocrats who run social media companies...” ([12:23])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Tech Billionaires:
  • “These guys do not care about us as human beings. They see us as NPCs in a game in which they are the lead character.” (Imran Ahmed, [02:41]; [43:30])
• On Section 230:
  • “Section 230 is actually the cancer that's...infected the rest of our society.” (Imran Ahmed, [21:42])
• On Legal Threats:
  • “They're designed to terrorize people. They're designed to make people not want to talk to you...” (Imran Ahmed, [28:43])
• On Public Service vs. Selfishness:
  • “They don't understand the nobility and the immense pull of public service.” (Imran Ahmed, [15:33])
• Family Support:
  • “She came down ... and left a post it note on my desk ... it said, ‘I love you. Fuck these guys.’” (Imran Ahmed, [11:33])
• On US Democracy:
  • “America...that believes that we can run ourselves with checks and balances ... that's where things have gone wrong. Like we allow checks and balances to wither.” (Imran Ahmed, [21:42])
• On American Litigiousness:
  • “It's an interesting aspect of being in America. Like ... how sort of much litigation is seen as ... a normal tool used by powerful people to terrorize smaller people and nonprofits and others.” (Imran Ahmed, [29:36])
• On the Dehumanization by Tech:
  • “...members of a country club with a membership of one... they don't have any connection to the lives of us.” (Imran Ahmed quoting Lord David Young, [41:38])

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 04:56 | Imran introduces CCDH and explains Trump’s attempt to deport him | | 08:09 | Imran describes being notified of deportation by tweet | | 11:33 | Imran recounts his wife’s supportive note after the deportation news | | 13:07 | Winning the restraining order thanks to a judge’s work on Christmas Eve | | 14:15 | Imran’s optimism about America despite his ordeal | | 21:42 | Section 230’s far-reaching negative impact (“cancer” analogy) | | 24:47 | CCDH’s research on hate speech leads to major press coverage and Musk’s anger | | 28:43 | The lawsuit’s intent to terrorize and silence critics | | 30:25 | Congressional harassment (Jim Jordan, Stephen Miller) post-lawsuit | | 41:33 | Story of Lord David Young, contrast between past and present business leaders | | 43:30 | The dehumanizing perspective of tech billionaires | | 46:12 | Evolution in harm analysis: design choices, not just individual content | | 50:53 | Roadmap to accountability: transparency, algorithmic recommendations, Section 230 reforms | | 53:33 | Focus group takeaway: fairness and accountability drive public anger at Big Tech | | 56:16 | Story of Molly Russell and the emotional burden of tech-enabled youth suicides |

---

Closing Thoughts

Imran Ahmed’s story illustrates the personal and societal costs of unchecked tech power: from legal intimidation campaigns by billionaires to systemic failures in digital accountability. The episode moves the conversation from simply decrying “bad actors” online to urgently advocating for legal, social, and cultural frameworks that can rein in the design impunity of Big Tech—primarily through transparency and liability reforms. Throughout, Ahmed’s personal resilience and deep public service motivation shine, as does his optimism for American democracy.

---

For more in-depth discussions on tech, democracy, and digital life, listen to future episodes of "Offline with Jon Favreau."

Transcript

[Jon Favreau]

Offline is brought to you by Quint's A well built wardrobe is about pieces that work together and hold up over time. That's what Quint does best. Premium materials, thoughtful design and everyday staples that feel easy to wear and easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. Quince has the everyday essentials I love with quality that lasts. You got organic cotton sweaters, Polos for every occasion, lighter jackets that keep you warm in the changing season. The list goes on. Quint works directly with top factories and cuts out the middlemen so you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. Everything's built to hold up to daily wear and still look good season after season. Plus they only partner with factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Love Quints. Got some of those Mongolian cashmere sweaters over the winter, but now it's getting warm so probably could use some polos, maybe a lighter jacket here and there. Love Quints. Going to go on the website soon. Check out what they got for the spring. Refresh your wardrobe with quint. Go to quint.com offline for free shipping on your order and 365 day return. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com offline, free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com offline well, that's it. Late night talk shows are dead. Not the Adam Friedland show is breathing new life into the talk show format with weekly episodes featuring some of the biggest stars on planet Earth. Utilizing his razor sharp wit and non traditional good looks, Adam Friedland goes beyond the surface level routine of the average interview program and digs into the core of who people really are. People like. Hmm, let me think. Ever heard of Zoran Mamdani? How about Sarah Jessica Parker? Alec Baldwin? Ring a bell? Jeez, Adam. See you didn't mention me. Jon Favreau. Were you on the show? Also on the show.

[Imran Ahmed]

Oh, you were on the show.

[Jon Favreau]

Me and Clavicular.

[Imran Ahmed]

Uh huh.

[Jon Favreau]

Just on the same. The same program. Anyway, new episodes every Tuesday. Subscribe to the Adam Friedland show on YouTube or anywhere you get your podcasts.

[Imran Ahmed]

You know what they say. Early Bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at

[Jon Favreau]

the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks.

[Imran Ahmed]

Well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with Vrbo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only. And I do think about, like, Mark Zuckerberg sitting in the back of a blacked out limo, being driven, you know, around San Francisco, driving past homeless encampments and just thinking, these are a subspecies to me.

[Jon Favreau]

Now he's in a bunker in Hawaii. Exactly.

[Imran Ahmed]

In a nuclear bunker. Or watching January 6th happen and thinking, well, you know, oh, gosh, I guess the plebs are rebelling. Maybe I should dial it down a little bit. That's where the sort of the sinister and sociopathic element of move fast and break things becomes so clear to me. These guys do not care about us as human beings. They see us as NPCs in a game in which they are the lead character.

[Jon Favreau]

I'm Jon Favreau and you just heard from today's guest, Imran Ahmed. Imran runs the center for Countering Digital Hate, an organization that does lots of excellent research on social media platforms and lots of work to hold tech companies accountable for the harm they're causing. He's the kind of guest we've talked to on the show many times before. But what makes Imran unique is that Donald Trump is trying to deport him. Imran is a legal permanent resident of the United States. He's married to an American citizen. He's the father of an American child. And the only reason the State Department announced in December that he's no longer welcome in this country, his country, is because he published research about X, the hellscape formerly known as Twitter, that made Elon Musk angry. That's it. I talked to him about his fight to stay in America, as well as the very important work he's doing at the center for Countering Digital Hate. We also talked about reforming Section 230, the legal statute that protects social media companies from being held accountable for the things posted on their platforms, how Big Tech has destroyed our trust in democracy and where he actually sees potential to change Big Tech's influence on our politics. It was a great conversation and one that made me very thankful that Imran is out in the world doing this work. Here's Imran Ahmed. Imran, welcome to offline.

[Imran Ahmed]

Nice to be here, John.

[Jon Favreau]

So you run a tech accountability organization called the center for Countering Digital Hate, which has been doing fantastic work since 2019. I believe before that you worked as a strategist in British politics for the Labour Party. But a lot of people heard about you for the first time a few months ago when the Trump Administration suddenly tried to deport you.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Even though you are a legal permanent resident of the United States who's married to an American citizen with an American child and another on the way.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

What happened?

[Imran Ahmed]

So it's not really just a story about an attempt to deport me. For the last six years I've been running an organization that uses data, science, communications, public advocacy and you know, and lobbying to try and persuade the world that we have a serious problem with social media that is creating a range of harms. We were one of the first organizations to sort of approach this not from a tech perspective, but from a look, these are the systemic wide harms and try to catalog impact on our kids, impact on individuals, impact on communities, impact on our democracy and then show them in really vivid ways. And we've been really successful in doing that. I mean, some people will have heard of us through our work like Disinformation Dozen, which showed that 12 people produced 65% of the disinformation that was spreading during the pandemic. Some people will have seen our study Deadly by Design, which showed that 2.6 minutes after opening an account as a 13 year old girl on TikTok, our researchers were being served self harm content after 8 minutes, eating disorder content every 39 seconds on average in the first 30 minutes of opening an account. So, you know, those sorts of research studies get huge amounts of attention and that pisses off some really powerful people. So Elon Musk sued us a few years ago and we beat him. He sued us for $10 million saying that we'd cost him $100 million. We made all of his business relationships fall apart, which is something I'm very proud of.

[Jon Favreau]

Also something that, I mean, you can take some credit for. But he did a good job making those business relationships fall apart himself.

[Imran Ahmed]

It's so funny, the way I described it was our job is to hold up a mirror to these platforms. And you and I, when we see ourselves in the mirror and we don't like what we see, brush our teeth, you know, brush our hair, whatever it is, you know, go and get some Botox. But like what he did was soothe a mirror and say, no, I don't look like that, I'm much better looking. And then so we've had this sort of, you know, there's been systematic attempt, opposition to CCDH and our work from big tech. But then what changed on December 23rd was that a new escalation in that. So we see this as really about big tech and the big money that They've been spending in Washington that image of them lined up on the days behind the President after spending millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, on trying to influence politics. And I got a text message linking to a tweet. I clicked on it and it said, we are banning five Europeans from entering the United States because of their work on tech accountability. And only one of those five lived in the United States. And as you say, I'm what's called a green card holder. I'm married to an American, she's from Oklahoma. So she's, you know, American American. Fast cars and guns. That's kind of her. Her two hobbies. And my children are American. So that has been.

[Jon Favreau]

That was my Christmas via tweet. Yeah, State Department.

[Imran Ahmed]

It was a tweet. You know, that's how things work. Right?

[Jon Favreau]

What was their argument for why you and the four others were banned from the United States?

[Imran Ahmed]

So, I mean, a junior political appointee in the State Department has been out talking about this quite extensively and her rationale for it is you wouldn't allow someone to enter the country if they said that they were trying to hurt an American company. And so why would we let someone stay here? Now, let's leave aside that that's nonsensical. And this is the same political appointee who, when Grok went crazy over Christmas, was in Britain explaining that a little bit of discomfort for women in being forcibly nudified is the acceptable price of freedom. Those are taken from her words on this show.

[Jon Favreau]

It's a State Department official.

[Imran Ahmed]

This is a State Department official. So, I mean, you know, you've got this extraordinary situation where they're confidently asserting we're going to deport someone because we don't like their advocacy. And I mean, what was lucky for me was that two weeks earlier they'd already trailed this because whoever's behind this is relatively undisciplined. They'd briefed Zateo, you know, Mehdi Hasan's online left wing news site, and said, we're going to expel this guy because he criticized X specifically. And the five people that they targeted had all had entanglements with Mr. Musk. And that's where we can see his fingerprints all over this. But they said, we're going to deport him. But so I'd already assembled a team of lawyers. So I have Roberta Kaplan, who won US versus Windsor, leading to the defense of gay marriage. Thanks to Roberta Kaplan, Chris Clark, who's a really, really well known litigator in New York, the ACLU Sir Anthony Romero sort of brought his team on board. And Norm Ison and Democracy Defenders.

[Jon Favreau]

Love Norm.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

So like, good friend.

[Imran Ahmed]

We have a great team together for this. And so when it came in, we just kind of went, okay, let's fight.

[Jon Favreau]

What was going through your mind in the hours and days after you found out, like, what was. And what was your family's reaction?

[Imran Ahmed]

You will know, like, having worked, you know, both of us have worked in politics and we've both worked for people in senior leadership positions. You in the ultimate leadership position. And there's no drama really, when crisis, and certainly not for me. You don't get to those positions by being someone who falls apart in the moment of cris. So I'm personally wildly compartmentalized. I'm somewhat dissociative, which means that I just, I was very calm. I went downstairs to my office, I started calling people, I made arrangements, I told my wife what was happening. I took her aside and said to her, I think the only moment which I really felt a deep sense of responsibility and fear was when I asked her, if you want, if you think it's best for the family, my first job is to you. And so if you want me to resign today and beg for forgiveness from Elon Musk, I will. And she said, I don't think so, but let me think about it. And I went downstairs, carried on making calls, and then she came down at maybe an hour later and left a post it note on my desk, which I kind of vaguely spied. And then I finished a meeting with some lawyers and I looked at it and it said, I love you. Fuck these guys. That's awesome. So, you know, I married very, very well.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, you did. Yes, you did.

[Imran Ahmed]

And that gave me my permission to do what I had to do, which is to put together a team and to get working on it. So that night I stayed at home. The next day, we filed in the Southern District of New York for a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, and for an injunction to stop the government from. See, our fear was, John, that their plan was to actually break down my door, to physically detain, arrest me, detain me and transport me to Louisiana or another favorable jurisdiction where they've got good judges and they have in the past detained people for months, still are away from their friends, their family, their support

[Jon Favreau]

networks, legal residents, green card holders.

[Imran Ahmed]

Exactly.

[Jon Favreau]

Citizens in some cases, and law abiding

[Imran Ahmed]

green card holders physically detaining them for months on end before they even bring a notice to appear before an immigration court. So we knew that was a possibility. And what was most important, what's always been important to me and is that we must never let the bullying get in the way of doing the job. I am genuine, you know, I'm extremely motivated. Just a few weeks ago I was on the Hill lobbying on the sunsetting section 230bill with Joseph Gordon Levitt and senators from both parties, but also parents who've lost their kids to social media. And every time I meet them, a little chip comes out of my soul. And now I am close to broken by. How many times I have met people who have suffered immeasurably because of the business decisions taken by greedy plutocrats who run social media companies and their indifference, their sociopathic indifference to the harm that they cause in their zeal to move fast and break things, you know, the things they break are our kids, our democracy. And so, you know, I'm very, very motivated. And we filed at 7pm on 24 December. At 12.49am on Christmas Day, I'd forgotten to put my phone onto silent. I got a text message from our lawyers saying, we got it. So a judge, an unbelievable kindness to spend Christmas Eve staying up, working to protect the constitutional rights of someone he'd never met, would never meet again, but was a law abiding, legal permanent resident of the United States. So I'm, you know, I, people ask me like, do you think like, oh, America is a terrible place, look at what's happening to you. And I'm like, no, look at what's happened to me. It's a great place.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean that is a kind thing to say and an optimistic thing to say. And look, I'm biased because my father in law is a federal judge, but I do think in the last year the number of federal judges, especially in the district level, who have stood up and in some of their opinions just stood up for the rule of law. And not just in a quiet way, but in a very committed way and been very verbal about how they feel about this. And even like people, you know, judges appointed by Trump, by Bush, by all the, it has been one of the inspiring few inspiring parts of the reaction of last year.

[Imran Ahmed]

It's really interesting to me that like, so, you know, people like Elon Musk and some of their advocates keep asking like, what motivates this guy, like who's behind him. They keep thinking there's a conspiracy theory, like there's one that's been flying around that I'm a secret Intelligence Intelligence Service agent, an MI6 agent, and yes, I am quite good at wearing suits, but. But I'm also incredibly talkative and really indiscreet. So, like, I would make a terrible spy. I know and I know I would. But you know, they keep wondering and, and I think it's because they don't understand the nobility and the immense pull of public service.

[Jon Favreau]

They don't.

[Imran Ahmed]

Of doing the right thing of serving your community and your country, putting yourself at the service of other people. And so when judges do that, every single judge has signed up to be in public service. It is the impunity and arrogance of social media giants, some of the biggest companies on this planet, some of the richest human beings to have ever existed. And I think that that's infected the rest of our economy. It's infected, infected our politics. It's infected our perceptions of what's normal and admirable in behavior. And it's so sad because actually the nobility is found in the magistrate working in a small community whose job it is to make sure that the right decisions are taken to protect that community, to protect the individual, to protect victims, to balance these different rights. That is the absolute core of what I think is good about, you know, democracy. America, people.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. Offline is brought to you by Sundaes. We all love the idea of feeding our dogs real fresh food. But the reality is that fresh dog food usually means taking up freezer space, time to thaw and prep, then a lot of mess when you serve it. Get the good without the hassle with sundaes. Sundaes was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Tori Waxman, who got tired of seeing so called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. So she designed sundaes air dried real food made in a human grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. Every bite of sundaes is clean and made from real meat, fruits and veggies with no kibble. That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers. Compared to kibble or other brands out there, Sundaes invests 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality. Because your dog deserves food made with care, not in the interest of cost cutting. And the best part, you just scoop and serve. No freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess. Just nutrient rich clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days so you more of them to share together. Leo loves Sundays. We've had the other dog food where you have to. It's sort of messy and you Put it in the in the fridge and the freezer and you thaw it out and it's just a real pain in the ass. And Sundays is not only easy to serve for your dog, they also love it. And it's healthy too. So make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for dogs.com offline50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code offline50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com offline50 Sundaysfordogs.com offline50 or use code offline50 at checkout. Offline is brought to you by Delete Me. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Deleteme knows your privacy is worth protecting. Sign up and provide Delete Me with exactly what information you want deleted. And their experts take it from there. Deleteme sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it and what they removed. Deleteme isn't just a one time service. Deleteme is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. The New York Times Wirecutter has named Deleteme their top pick for data removal services. Someone with an active online presence. Privacy is really important to me because I don't know you want all your sh t on there. A lot of your is going to be on there anyway, so you might as well try to delete as much as possible. Have you ever been a victim of identity theft, harassment, doxxing? If you haven't, you probably know someone who has. Deleteme can help take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com offline and use promo code offline at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com offline and enter code offline at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com offline code offline. So the restraining order expires in March?

[Imran Ahmed]

No, it expires once the case is over.

[Jon Favreau]

What happens next?

[Imran Ahmed]

So we're currently exchanging papers, you know, like they're filing, we're filing and We've got a judge in New York who will hear the case, and we're pretty confident of prevailing. There is a fundamental constitutional. In fact, some of the most sacred protected speech is advocacy, is public policy advocacy. So we're pretty confident that they will find that our First Amendment rights are being breached. And then, you know, it's possible that they will still bring a case against me to deport me, and then we'll have to fight that separately. So this is just about preventing detention. You know, an attempt to put me into a fetid immigration detention center for months on end. Then there is a separate process of protecting my ability to stay in the country. And I love America. I've been here for six years. My wife's American, my children are American, my child is American. And in a few days, my children are American. And so I want to stay and I want to continue to contribute to society. I think I do so in a really positive way. You know, we employ dozens of people at ccdh, and I think that we're working on behalf of the public. And I know that from the reaction that we get from the people that we seek to serve, from parents from vulnerable communities who are subject to hate speech on social media, from people who are victims of scams. We do an enormous amount of work on how scams are being accelerated on platforms. You would have heard recently that 10.1% of Meta's revenues, according to their internal estimates, are actually from scams and illegal content. So that kind of stuff. So I want to stay, and I'm going to fight to make sure that I can, and eventually I hope to become a citizen, because I worked in politics, I think, in these sorts of ways. I come from a country with kings and queens. I've always really admired a country that believes that we can run ourselves with checks and balances. And I think, you know, we can come back to this. But I think that that's where things have gone wrong. Like we allow checks and balances to wither.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes.

[Imran Ahmed]

On social media. And I think it's actually social media that has. And, you know, this is an abstruse sort of point of law, but I think Section 230 is actually the cancer that's actually infected the rest of our society. I think it's metastasized. And the impunity that that creates, the sense of you don't have to be responsible for your negative externalities of the harm that you cause. I think that's infecting all of society now, because if the wealthiest among us enjoy this special protection under the law. Then everyone else is thinking, well, why don't I? Why can't I behave like them? And I, that that is what's caused that. So I'm really looking forward to working to reestablish those checks and balances in this country that I deeply admire at a basic philosophical, constitutional level.

[Jon Favreau]

I do want to get to 230 and some of the work you've been doing. Before that though, how did you get on Elon Musk's radar? Tell me about that lawsuit, how that all came about.

[Imran Ahmed]

So the structure of CCDH is we have a research team. They are a team of data scientists, investigative researchers, and then we have a comms team that goes and turns that research into stuff that we can communicate to the public through the media, through, directly through, you know, we have like celebrity influencers that we work with. And then we have a public affairs division that goes and educates Congress, governments around the world about what we're finding and what sort of solutions might help to avert those problems in the first instance. So how we can reform the system, create transparency in checks and balances, accountability, etc. And our research division does a lot of like long form projects, these really big projects. We've got one coming out next week which is a study of chatbots and whether or not chatbots will help you plan a violent attack. Spoiler alert.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, I was gonna say it's not

[Imran Ahmed]

good news for you guys, it's not good news for society. But then about three years ago, when Musk took over X, I told the team, look, let's have a look and see if these changes that he's made. So he said, I'm gonna make this a free speech zone. He also told advertisers, don't worry, I'm not gonna get rid of all the rules. He said, I don't wanna turn Twitter into a hellscape, a free for all, where anyone can say anything horrible to anyone else, because that would actually, he recognized that would impede the rights of, you know, if you're, for example, if you're Muslim or an African American, and if Twitter was full of hate speech against Muslims, hate speech against black people, you wouldn't feel comfortable going there. Which is what we found actually through the hellscape that he created. So we wanted to quantify has there been an increase in hate speech on the platform. So we actually, we took a tool called, I think it was brand Watch that we used. We put in a number of racialized hate terms, the N Word as an example. And then we said, has the prevalence of those, has the number of times they're used on a daily basis increased or decreased since he took over the platform? And we found that there was a quadrupling in use of the N word on his platform.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, I think I remember the story. This got a lot of publicity.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yes. It was on the front page of the New York Times. So, like, you know, this research study was really, really well received, and it was just really stark because it showed this big increase in anti women's speech, anti LGBTQ speech, ant African American speech, anti Jewish speech and hate terms and the use of those hate terms. And, you know, we're quite good at branding these things. We called it the Musk Bump. It went on the front page of the New York Times and it led to him losing $100 million in advertising because advertisers were like, well, Elon, you said two different stories. Now we know which one to believe.

[Jon Favreau]

So he got mad.

[Imran Ahmed]

He got real mad. And his Trust and Safety Council resigned. So he got real mad. And then he started tweeting about me. He said, you know, this guy's a rat. He's evil. And I was like, all right. And he kept asking, who's funding him? Who's behind this guy? And so I was in la and I was like, I thought, I think I'm just gonna screenshot this. I'm just gonna tell people that it's you, the public, who fund us. And I got a few celebrity friends to sort of amplify it. And it got a lot of views, raised us a lot of money. And the next day he called. This is really funny. I'm 47 years old. He called the chair of my board and he was like, I need to speak to you about Imran Ahmed. The chair of my board's like, I'm not his dad. I'm the head of governance for his 501C3 for his dad.

[Jon Favreau]

Cancel culture.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah. So he's like, I need to fix this. Like, can you maybe restrain your child? And he was like, no, talk to my. Talk to him. He's a grown up man. And so I was like, hey, Elon, why don't you just talk to me directly instead of, like, calling the chair of my board? And I was having coffee with a journalist, and they amplified it and he saw it. And the next day, he then threatened to sue us. He said, I'm gonna sue you under the Lanham Act.

[Jon Favreau]

What is that?

[Imran Ahmed]

The Lanham Act's Federal Trademark Act. And he said, I think you're secretly funded by Meta. You're Mark Zuckerberg's best pal. Mark Zuckerberg absolutely despises me. And so Alex Spiro sent us a letter, and that was the first time I'd ever had to call a litigation lawyer. So I called Robbie Kaplan, who I'd never met before, and I said, I hear that you're quite good at suing billionaires. And she was like, yep. I'm like, would you like to help me defend myself against one? She went, which one? I went, the biggest one. She said, yeah, she's my spirit animal. She's basically sort of, you know, just absolutely brutal and up for any fight. And she wrote back to them and said, this is absolutely ludicrous. And we press released that and we sort of. We let the world know that. That the free speech absolutist Elon Musk is trying to sue a small nonprofit for their speech. And then he actually filed a different lawsuit against us, which was saying that we had violated the terms of service of X by essentially using data we'd found there for research purposes, and that the terms of service say that you can't take small amounts of data for research because that's scraping, you know, how AI platforms, like download your entire thing. He was basically accusing us of the same thing. He said, it cost us millions of dollars to deal with you downloading these small amount of data to find out what had happened on my platform. And I mean, that took us a year. I mean, it cost us over a million dollars to fight it. And that's the thing with these lawsuits. They're designed to do that. They're designed to cripple you. They're designed to terrorize people. They're designed to make people not want to talk to you, because then people start thinking, well, maybe you've done something. And the truth is that, you know, this is maybe a little bit too much of how you make the pie. But your funders, your staff, your partners all think, well, crumbs. I'm not sure if I should be visibly doing business with Imran, because what if we get drawn into this, right?

[Jon Favreau]

Is it really worth the hassle and the money?

[Imran Ahmed]

He's the world's richest man, John. I mean, like, he can. And he could really screw you up. But, I mean, it didn't work because we beat him in court. We got an anti slapp ruling in California where he sued us.

[Jon Favreau]

And anti slapp ruling is so slapp.

[Imran Ahmed]

It's this brilliant aspect of American law that a Lot of states have got anti SLAPP statutes where strategic litigation against public participation, which is a lyrically named rule which says that when powerful people sue little people like me to try and silence them, there are actually rules in place so that the little person can get their costs back, because that's the most crippling aspect of it.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, that's good.

[Imran Ahmed]

In the rest of the world, if I sued you and I lost, I have to pay your costs. But you don't have what's called cost shifting in the US and so that

[Jon Favreau]

we love a frivolous lawsuit encourages litigation.

[Imran Ahmed]

I mean, it's an interesting aspect of being in America. Like, it's a, you know, when you move here because you've watched movies, like I was like, it's basically going to be ET Like I'm going to find a little alien in my, in my neighborhood. It's going to be so great. Are we going to be best friends? And it's not like it's a radically different culture. And one of them is, you know, how sort of much litigation is seen as a, as a normal tool used by powerful people to terrorize smaller people and non profits and others. Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And so you won that lawsuit. But like, then you were on his radar and then I think I heard you say that then like Republicans in Congress started send subpoenas your way. And yes, so it wasn't like. So it wasn't just like a one and done with Elon and then the deportation attempt. You've now been dealing with this over several years.

[Imran Ahmed]

Well, curiously, a few days later, Jim Jordan, he was chair of the House Judiciary Committee's Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee trying to stop the government being used for illegitimate means, decided to use the government to demand all of our internal emails, any email that we'd ever sent to a social media company or the executive branch of the US Government. He had a conspiracy theory that we were secretly funded by the federal government or by social media companies.

[Jon Favreau]

That doesn't make much sense.

[Imran Ahmed]

We've heard that conspiracy theory before, though, a few weeks earlier. And so we were like, okay, here you go. And we gave him everything and there was nothing there. But every six months we'd get a new subpoena. Then he deposed me for several hours and I had to sit opposite him and explain painstakingly, I just want transparency and accountability. Is that really. And he was nodding. I remember, like, I remember I used it like a focus group of like, can I get Republicans to agree in my policy platform? So I was like, so this is our STAR framework. Safety is transparency, accountability and responsibility. Section 230 reform transparency on, you know, Algorith, on content enforcement decisions, on advertising. And he was nodding. And I was thinking, I think he might actually agree with me, even though he's spent the last two years harassing me, of course. And then, you know, we've had other things happen as well. Stephen Miller wrote to the Department of Justice demanding we be prosecuted for FARA violations, the Foreign Agents Registration act, saying that we were secretly part of the British government. Again, like, you know, I'm sure he thinks I'm a secret Intelligence service spy as well, which I am not. But that wasn't true. And, you know, the DOJ cleared us. And then the FTC are currently investigating a bunch of nonprofits, including ccdh, for whether or not we are at the heart of a sort of a criminal antitrust. So basically, he thinks that we control the world's biggest advertisers and that we've been telling them not to give X money. And I'm like, I'm pretty sure Bob Iger doesn't know who I am. And I'm pretty sure they made their decision because Elon's kind of a dick and because, you know, it's not great advertising to have, you know, Mickey Mouse next to a dude doing a Nazi salute by the Brandenburg Gate.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Imran Ahmed]

It's not kind of, you know, on. It's not on brand.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, Elon's argument that he has floated over the last several years that, like, the law should be able to compel advertisers to spend their money on certain platforms. Like, it's insane. It's.

[Imran Ahmed]

I mean, this is literally a First Amendment violation.

[Jon Favreau]

I know.

[Imran Ahmed]

That's the freedom of association. It's. What's so odd is that they're really upset about the First Amendment existing.

[Jon Favreau]

They hate it.

[Imran Ahmed]

They really hate that we can speak freely. They really hate that advertisers can decide where to spend their money. They really hate that advertisers might listen to the market, their customers, normal people who are horrified by the way that these social media platforms behave and that

[Jon Favreau]

they could be criticized and that they can be criticized and they could be criticized in a way that persuades other people to take action with their wallets or with, like, what platforms they use. That is the worst thing for them.

[Imran Ahmed]

So, you know, I do think about this thin skin thing a lot. And, you know, I'm personally not a religious person. My family's Muslim. We're Pashtun, Afghan from generations ago. But still, like, you know, that's where my family comes from. And I get all this racial abuse, this religious abuse. Like he's a jihadist who's come here to destroy our country. And I'm like, dude, like, I'm like, I'm an atheist and I'm super British. Like I'm wearing a suit in California. I'm clearly extremely British. In fact, like the only thing I did was like not wear suspend as a shirt and tie today. I was like, I'm going to be very, very Californian. I will wear a T shirt under my suit very soon. So you know, I find it very odd but like we've taken all of this battering, we continue to just get on with our jobs. Like we always say that when someone attacks us, just deal with the attack at a technical level, manage it. But our job is to make sure that we are focused on achieving the change that we want. And so be focused, be driven. But these guys, they get distracted by every insult and then go full nuclear. And it is this kind of thin skinned, incredibly painfully childlike, vulnerable, kind of pathetic from an adult behavior that you see from them where they can't tolerate any criticism. And I will do this again in this recording, but like I will go back to 2:30. I think that the sense that they got of legal impunity where they weren't able to be held accountable under the law for their business decisions and for the harm that they cause, they have translated into moral immunity too. And then they've said also you can't criticize us. And it is this sense of both entitlement but also immunity from the laws. The mores, the norms that govern normal human behavior. They are something beyond us.

[Jon Favreau]

At the most fundamental level it is anti democratic. It is why they have found an ally in Donald Trump. It is what Donald Trump is all about. It is the idea that like, like I have the power, I am rich, I have worked really hard to. You know, they say that in their own mind. Worked really hard to get where I am. And I wanna make the rules and I get to decide and you don't get to decide because. And also, you know, the whole democracy thing, everyone having a voice, it's very messy. They don't run their companies that way, right? So that's all very messy to them. And they are smarter and they know what they're doing. So they get to make the rules and you have to shut up.

[Imran Ahmed]

I don't mean to be combative here, but I think it's more than just one President. I think that this is a problem, you know, and I think it affected the Obama presidency too, that the cozy relationship between big money, you know, big tech, including, you know, big tech. I think the first time they had a cozy relationship with government was under the Obama administration, for sure.

[Jon Favreau]

We also didn't know that the harms at that point.

[Imran Ahmed]

No, you didn't until the end. And then, you know, and I remember the encounter between the president and Mark Zuckerberg where Zuckerberg walked away and he was like, you know, screw this guy. But I think that that cozy relationship and this is the impact of a politics that to me, again, like as a Brit, is really extraordinary. Of the sheer amount of money that flows through that city that I live in, Washington, D.C. is terrifying. It's terrible. It is corruption. There's no other word for it. And it is fundamentally vitiating the clarity of the voice of the people being heard in Washington. If money and the enormous sort of both magnetic power that it has, but also the megaphone that it has in Washington is drowning out the voices of normal people. I think you know about things like the AI preemption rules that were tried to be put through all of our polling shows again and again and again that Republican voters are incredibly concerned about AI. And so I do think that it is about big tech, big money, and the corrupting influence it's having in Washington. And I think it's something that we really, really need to fix. And my thesis, as, you know, someone that runs a nonprofit is the best way that we can fix that is actually there is one number that's more important than dollars in Washington, and that's the number of votes. And so what we have to do is make sure that we elevate and a clear understanding of what causes it and how we could fix it to as many people as possible. I need to make this electorally salient to counteract the corrupting effect of money in Washington.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, the corrupting effect of money is absolutely at the heart of this.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Between caring for others and managing daily life, your own needs can easily be overlooked. This International Women's Day, we invite you to prioritize yourself. Therapy is more than a resource. It's a space designed for your growth and healing. There are women everywhere. There are women around the world. And maybe you're a woman, or maybe you're not. Either way, you still need therapy. Here's the thing.

[Imran Ahmed]

There are women that need therapy, and

[Jon Favreau]

there are women that need therapy because there are Men that need therapy. Honestly, a lot of the women need therapy because the men need therapy. So everybody needs therapy. When you think about it, everyone needs therapy and everyone knows a woman. That's right. That's right. Close your eyes. Close your eyes. Picture a woman. Picture a woman. Better Help's quality therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored wrecks. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform having served over 6 million people globally. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Your emotional well being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% [e-mail] offline. That's betterhelp.com offline. Even if you took the money out of is the personalities of some of these people who have the money and who have this power that they want to make the rules. You know, and look, and I, I

[Imran Ahmed]

completely agree with you.

[Jon Favreau]

It's our system too, I think, like, cause when you're in government and when you're in the US government, like there is this, you want to get stuff done, you want to get stuff done that you promised that you would get done for people and you try to do it and you get blocked at every turn and you get blocked by Congress and you get blocked by the lawyers, you get blocked by this and you're like, boy, it would be easy if there weren't all these checks and balances and rules, wouldn't it be right? And look what they're doing in China. They're building railroads all over the place they don't have to worry about, right? So there is this push and pull with our system here. And I think like I watched Obama be frustrated by that, you know, and like didn't get to do all the things he wanted to do. But then you have to balance that frustration with the sort of slow, frustrating nature of democracy. But it's important to have checks and balances and give people a voice. And I think that the reason that we have not just Trump here, but authoritarians rising all around the World is they and their allies in big tech and big business are like, we're gonna take advantage of people's frustration with the slow, frustrating nature of democracy to swoop in and say, we get to make all the rules now.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah, I mean, talking to the character of these people. When I started ccdh, I looked for advice from everywhere and I found this guy called Lord David Young. Now, he'd been a cabinet secretary under Margaret Thatcher. In fact, he was the guy who brought privatization to the uk. So, like, ideologically, he was very, very on the other side to where I'd been in the Labour Party as a special advisor. But he was an incredibly kind man, loved talking to people who disagree with him, as do I. And so he and I would talk for hours and hours. And he was very generous with his time too, because he was in his 80s by then and he was a very successful businessman in his own right. And I remember asking him once, david, explain to me what you think the difference is between someone who was incredibly successful in business, like you, and someone like Mark Zuckerberg. And he said, you know, it was so characteristically honest of him. He said, the truth is I did well in business because I wanted to go down to the country club and I wanted people to look at me and my wife and say, there goes David. He's a fine chap, he's doing incredibly well. His wife must be so proud. And for the wives to be kind of like, oh, she's doing great, she's with David. He's doing incredibly well. And he said it was about my standing in community. And that's why as well, I felt that I had to behave in a certain way. I had to think about people because otherwise I would damage that brand equity that I had. He said, but the problem is with these guys are they're members of a country club with a membership of one. They don't have any connection to the lives of us 100%. And I do think about, like, Mark Zuckerberg sitting in the back of a blacked out limo, being driven around San Francisco, driving past homeless encampments and just thinking, these are a subspecies to me.

[Jon Favreau]

Now he's in a bunker in Hawaii.

[Imran Ahmed]

Exactly. In a nuclear bunker. Or watching January 6th happen and thinking, well, you know, oh, gosh, I guess the plebs are rebelling. Maybe I should dial it down a little bit. And yeah, this complete emotional and spiritual disconnect from humanity, from the rest, which

[Jon Favreau]

their platforms contribute to.

[Imran Ahmed]

Exactly. And I think that's where the sort of the sinister and sociopathic element of move fast and break things becomes so clear to me. These guys do not care about us as human beings. They see us as NPCs in a game in which they are the lead character, you know, and I think it's the character of the people. But then you're right, and democracy is incredibly messy. One of my great frustrations is hearing people go to, like, somewhere like Dubai and tell me, oh, if only we had, like, Sheikh Al Zayed, we could get things done. We could build buildings and everything else. And I'm like, I thought you guys didn't like kings. I thought you didn't like absolute rulers and actually talk to the people who

[Jon Favreau]

are building those buildings.

[Imran Ahmed]

Perhaps they tend to look like me as well, so from the subcontinent. But it's messy. And you said the way that democracy works is glorious, though. I wrote my dissertation on Jimmy Carter at Cambridge, on his energy policies and how he basically failed to get them through when he was writing them. He predicted things like wars in Iraq if we didn't start to build energy independence, if we didn't start to build alternatives to fossil fuels. But he couldn't get it through Congress because he just didn't want to play the politics. And I do think that politics is messy. I think sometimes good policies don't get implemented because of the messy, partisan, silly nature of how we've constructed the checks and balances in our democracy. But that's the game.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Imran Ahmed]

You know, that's where it takes talent. That's where great presidents are made and poor presidents are revealed to us.

[Jon Favreau]

I agree. Well, let's talk about your work and how you see potential for change in all of this. Like, I'm curious how your approach to digital hate and disinformation has sort of changed over the years. I've been thinking back recently on the period of time when the strategy was centered around content moderation, pressuring the platforms to moderate content, pressuring governments to do something about hate speech and disinformation. I now feel like that's. I don't want to say lost cause, but harder from both a practical standpoint, it's very difficult to achieve and to moderate everything. And because fundamentally judging whether a specific piece of content is acceptable when it's contested speech is always going to be inherently subjective. But also, you know, I think, and we're seeing this now, you can talk about the recent lawsuit against Meta and Google that Zuckerberg had to testify on. We're seeing so much dishonest and hateful content because of the way these platforms and algorithms are designed. And so maybe the design itself, the algorithmic amplification, should be the focus of the strategy. And it seems like it's moved that way in this space. But you know more about this than me, so what do you think?

[Imran Ahmed]

You know, I want to be as honest as I can be about this. This is an emerging area of policy. Our understanding of the harms has really been emerging over the last 10 years. That's the age of like real understanding that these negative externalities are down to social media design choices, the way that these platforms operate. And our understanding has slowly grown over time. Initially it was a sense that, look, there are bad people on social, so it was a bad actor analysis. Increasingly it's about bad platforms and the way that they are fundamentally constructed. There's been a growing understanding, thanks to whistleblowers and other things, that there are actual active decisions taken at a platform level where they know about harm and they choose not to do anything about it. So we've evolved as well as our understandings evolved, as we've done more and more research, as we've been able to more clearly articulate and evidence that specific aspects of platform design, that they are designed to create harm, that it's not abuse of the platforms, it's use of the platforms as they were intended, that the platforms, in one respect, we've become more and more aware of just how malignant the decisions being taken are. I think that where we've moved to and CCDH has been in this place for quite some time now, is that we develop what we call our STAR framework. It's very, very simple. It says that we can have better platforms by having transparency. And you know, CCDH works with neurologists, with social psychologists, with people who work on inoculation theory, who work on a wide array, and we've tried to sort of build a minimum viable framework for how we can reapply democratic values to something that has now been taken out of democratic control. And also looking at what's worked in the past in America, where we have a long history of industries that have, have caused real harm to people, but we've eventually managed to renegotiate the relationship that we have with them through and in accordance with the Constitution's quite extraordinary limits on what's possible. So you can't. It wouldn't be possible to, for example, have a regulator as easily in the US as you would in Europe. But then Europe regulates, America litigates. So if you want to have a system in which litigation could start to produce the framework of what's tolerable, what doesn't create an unnecessary risk and cost for social media platforms. So to change the cost calculus, the risk calculus, transparency first of all, so we know what's happening. And that has this dual effect of helping people to understand how we're being manipulated. And I think that as it becomes clearer how we're being manipulated, people will resist that they get some inoculation, some pathway inoculation. What are the means by which we're being lied to? What things are platforms deliberately amplifying to distort the way that we see the world. And that helps us to sort of adjust our understanding for that distortion. So there's transparency, but that also allows for us to understand how systemic harm is being created and then when there is knowing indifference to that harm, to allow platforms to be held liable under the normal negligence laws that everyone else is, the normal product design laws that everyone else is. So when someone is harming other people at scale, and I think in particular of things like scams, eating disorder and self harm contest, I think of when they may lead to violence. So terroristic content that, you know, there's a number of lawsuits which have been dismissed because the current laws in the US do not allow us to hold social media companies accountable. This is a sort of, you know, a well worn cliche. But there is more regulation of a deli that serves you sandwiches than there is of platforms that our kids spend 4.7 hours a day on an average and fundamentally reshaped shape their frontal cortex in a moment of extraordinary neuroplasticity in their transition to adulthood. Which is bananas to me, but the way that we've done that, and we've taken inspiration from people like Nader and others who built the consumer rights revolution is expose the harm and make it justiciable. So make it something that you can take someone to court for. And by creating transparency, accountability. And accountability is in part through the courts, but also through educating lawmakers so they can ask intelligent questions. In the UK would be a regulator that would ask tough questions. In America it's mainly select committees, it's mainly the Commerce committees, the Judiciary Justice Committee. So those giving them the knowledge and equipment that they need to ask good questions and then allowing them to be held accountable through the courts. And that would mean reforming, not repealing section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996, which is a 30 year old piece of legislation.

[Jon Favreau]

It basically says platforms are not liable for any of the user generated content that is on the platform.

[Imran Ahmed]

It says that they are essentially posits that they are completely neutral spaces and therefore and are not in any sense a publisher or distributor, which is bonkers because we know how algorithms work.

[Jon Favreau]

Right. Just the existence of the algorithms disproves that.

[Imran Ahmed]

Yeah. So I mean, right now there's this big debate happening in Congress over should it be design features that make someone liable, should it be algorithmic recommendations so pushing or promoting scams or eating the sort of content of self harm content. The there's a debate over publisher versus distributor, which is a very technical debate, but still a very interesting one from a legal perspective. So there is actually an active debate happening right now on whether or not 230 is fit for purpose. And there's a bill, a bipartisan bill that was introduced in the Senate. There was one introduced in the Senate, in the House in the last Congress by members Palone and McMorris Rogers. So the former and then the current at the time chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House. And now there's a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Durbin and Graham with support from Senators Hawley and others. And we've been meeting with them over the past few months and listening to what they have to say. But they are introducing a bipartisan bill that would sunset section 230. So essentially say you've got two years and then this special protection under law is over. And in that time you have to renegotiate a new framework. We want you to have a liability shield, but it can't be absolute anymore. And I think that would make a lot of sense.

[Jon Favreau]

What sort of reforms to the liability shield would you favor?

[Imran Ahmed]

I think the algorithmic recommendation is one where everyone can align. I think knowing indifference is a fantastic test. So under negligence law, you know, normally it's a reasonable actor test. Like would a reasonable person have been able to foresee the harm and if so, you become liable for it. That on platforms that are this complex may be too low a threshold. So knowing indifference is when you know that you're creating systemic harm when human beings are being hurt by it and you fail to take action or exacerbate it and then you become liable at that point. We do focus groups and polling and I was in this focus group and I know that you're a fan of focus groups too and you've sat behind those one way screens so many times, as have I. But like we're in Denver, Colorado, it was white male libertarian dads and they were being explained section 230. And they were just explosively angry about it.

[Jon Favreau]

Wow.

[Imran Ahmed]

We asked them to vote at the end, would you get rid of 230 or keep it? And every single one is get rid of it. And I'm like, I'm texting the moderator and I'm like, ask them why. Ask them why. And one guy says, accountability. And I'm like, just snap that. Just like, put that in an ad for me. And the second guy says, well, wait a minute. So I can sue you, I can sue him if they cause me harm, but I can't sue a social media company if they make my kid kill themself. That's un American. I was like, put that in the ad as well. That's just incredible. But that's how normal people see it. They're like, wait a minute, why does Mark Zuckerberg have special protection? What makes him different to the rest of us? And why does he need special protection? And the answer is always, well, we have to help this young industry to grow. Come on, it's been 30 years. They've grown.

[Jon Favreau]

Well. And it's like you hear them say, well, I mean, the big tech companies can afford all the lawyers, but if it's a small platform or small companies, it's going to be hard for them to deal with, with lawsuits they may get or moderate all their content. The one you always hear is like, what if you're gonna start holding Reddit liable for every single comment in the Reddit thread, and if someone has a Yelp review about a restaurant that the restaurant sues for defamation, they're gonna be able to sue Yelp for someone's. But it sounds like if you're reforming 230 and you're basing it sort of on design and algorithm, like, you don't have to worry about that kind of stuff.

[Imran Ahmed]

You don't. And also, like, you have to recognize that the court there is an established corpus of law and judgments on when you are negligent. And so, like, they keep saying, well, you'd be able to sue for anything. Well, yeah, yes, of course. I've discovered you can sue for anything. But, like, it doesn't mean you're gonna win. And so they're like, there'll be a flood of lawsuits. I'm like, well, there's a flood of lawsuits right now, but they're losing because of 230. And they're like, they're like, it would stop free speech. I'm like, they wouldn't get rid of the First Amendment. Right, right. The First Amendment still determines what's lawful speech or not. So actually hate speech in America is lawful.

[Jon Favreau]

Right? Unfortunately.

[Imran Ahmed]

Go figure. So the First Amendment still protects that you wouldn't be able to bring an unconstitutional lawsuit and win because it's unconstitutional, right?

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. Like if you. Yeah. You can't stop people from filing suits that are frivolous and get thrown out. Cause they'll get thrown out.

[Imran Ahmed]

I mean like it is your God given American right under the Constitution to be an asshole. Thank God.

[Jon Favreau]

To say hateful things, to say awful things.

[Imran Ahmed]

That's to be a, you know, Mr. Meaney pants, so to speak. But you can't systematically go up to 13 year old girls and tell them you're fat and disgusting and you should go on a 300 calorie a day diet and do that again and again and again until they starve themselves to

[Jon Favreau]

death and make the decision to just fill their feed with that.

[Imran Ahmed]

On my board's a guy called Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life when she was 14. Ian's British. And in Britain the coroner's court decided to open an investigation into the role that platforms had played. It was the first time this had ever happened. So they subpoenaed from Meta and Pinterest what Instagram and Pinterest had been feeding her. The conclusion of the investigators was that they had fed her so much self harm content that it would have been rational for her to conclude that it is normal to hurt yourself outside if you hurt inside and that if you really hurt inside, you kill yourself. And Ian is this wonderfully dignified and kind human being. He sits on my board, as I say. But there's a documentary about Molly coming out shortly. Molly versus the Machines. He told me the story and he was telling me about how when the paramedics arrived, they had to physically pry his arms off her because he wouldn't put her down down so they could declare her dead. And I think to myself that when a platform has done that, maybe you should be able to hold them accountable. And it is fundamentally corrupting to our society, to our soul as a nation, when we allow anyone to get away with that. And I think that at the core, I think that 30 years of that abstruse legal protection has become a culture of arrogance and indifference, a sociopathic indifference to the harm that these platforms are causing. And I think that it is infecting our politics, both through money, but also I think through spiritual osmosis. The whole problem with a system that's based on checks and balances that stop any one locus of power becoming too powerful is that when you take one of those loci of power, one of those places of power away from that system of checks and balances, it will become unbelievably powerful and tyrannical in its power very quickly. And that's precisely what we've done. And it is madness and it needs to be reversed.

[Jon Favreau]

I agree. Imran, thank you so much for joining us. More importantly, for the work you're doing, this country needs you. I really hope you stay.

[Imran Ahmed]

Thank you. So does my wife.

[Jon Favreau]

I think. I feel confident that you'll win the cat because it's so crazy. But beyond that, I'm really glad that you and the center for Countering Digital Hate are out there doing this work. Cause it's really important.

[Imran Ahmed]

Thank you, John.

[Jon Favreau]

Thanks. One quick note. Check out the brand new episode of Pod Save America Only Friends, exclusive to Friends of the Pod. If you haven't listened yet, you're missing out. This new episode is helmed by Lovett and Tommy. In this episode they discuss who they would prefer to run against in a 2028 election. Marco Rubio or J.D. vance. Come on guys. They also answered questions from subscribers like which MAGA influencer do they dislike watching the most for podcast research? That's fun. So subscribe to Friends of the Pod to get access to Pod Save America Only Friends which is our new extra episode of Pod Save America. There's also a lot more subscriber only content new shows shows that you love like Polar Coaster with Dan Pfeiffer. We have a growing list of substack newsletter like Pods of America Only tabs and you get ad free episodes of all your favorite Crooked Pods. And you get to know that you are supporting a pro democracy independent media company. Which is great. So if you're listening, hit pause and subscribe to Friends of the [e-mail] Friends as always, if you have comments, questions or guest ideas, email [e-mail] and if you're as opinionated as we are, please rate and review the show on your favorite podcast platform. For ad free episodes of Offline and Pod Save America exclusive content and more, go to crooked.com friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. If you like watching your podcast, subscribe to the Offline with Jon Favreau YouTube channel. Don't forget to follow Crooked Media on Instagram, TikTok and the other ones for original content, community events and more. Offline is a Crooked Media production. It's written and hosted by me, Jon Favreau. It's produced by Emma Ilic Frank. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. Jarek Centeno is our sound editor and engineer. Audio support from Kyle Seglin, Jordan Katz and Kenny Siegel take care of our music. Thanks to Delon Villanueva and our digital team who film and share our episodes as videos. Every week, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America.