We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters after the weekly policy lunch in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., October 29, 2019.
What’s in the antisemitism bill in Congress?
In response to roiling campus protests, the House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday. It attracted both bipartisan support and opposition — and now the Senate has a hot latke on its hands.
What does the bill do? It provides an official definition of antisemitic conduct that the Education Department could theoretically use to crack down on universities. If schools tolerate protesters who engage in what the bill defines as antisemitism, they could lose valuable federal research grants.
What’s the definition? It’s based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition of antisemitism,” which runs to over 500 words when contextual examples are included. It would condemnn not only threats against Jewish people but also certain criticisms of the state of Israel as antisemitic.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) framed the bill as a way to crack down on perceived antisemitism on campus, as Republicans attempt to use the campus protests to burnish their “law and order” credentials. The bill passed 320 to 91, but it attracted opposition from strange bedfellows.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a practicing Jew and self-described Zionist, said the bill goes too far in stifling free speech: “Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said she voted nay because the legislation could punish people who say Jews killed Jesus — itself a deeply antisemitic trope that has been used to target Jewish people for millennia.
What’s next? The bill is now in the hands of the highest-ranking Jewish official in US history, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is under pressure to bring it to the floor speedily. He was cagey on Thursday when talking to reporters about next steps. Ceding the “law and order” position to Republicans would be politically costly, but members including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jon Tester (D-MT) expressed concern over restricting free speech.
A view of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., May 11, 2021. Picture taken May 11, 2021.
Deepfake recordings make a point in Georgia
A Georgia lawmaker used a novel approach to help pass legislation to ban deepfakes in politics: he used a deepfake. Republican state representative Brad Thomas used an AI-generated recording of two of his bills opponents—state senator Colton Moore and activist Mallory Staples—endorsing the bill.
Thomas presented the convincing audio to his peers, but cautioned that he made this fake recording on the cheap: “The particular one we used is, like, $50. With a $1,000 version, your own mother wouldn’t be able to tell the difference,” he said. The bill subsequently passed out of committee by an 8-1 vote.
Fake audio like this recently reared its head in US politics on the national level when an ally of then-Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips released a fake robocall of President Joe Biden telling New Hampshire voters to stay home during the state’s primary. The Federal Communications Commission moved quickly in the aftermath of this incident to declare that AI-generated robocalls are illegal under federal law.
The path to holding social media companies accountable
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen thinks governments need to rethink how they regulate social media companies to hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Instead of laws banning specific stuff, which lawyers are very good at skirting, governments should develop legislation that opens conversations about potential problems.
"That's an ongoing, flexible approach to trying to direct them back towards the common good," she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Also, Haugen says we must recognize that the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen. To narrow it, we'll need more whistleblowers — and better laws to protect them.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Why social media is broken & how to fix it
- US in 2022: Smarter social media, more housing & living with COVID ›
- Be more worried about artificial intelligence - GZERO Media ›
- What is Section 230, the 90's law governing the internet? - GZERO ... ›
- Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen says social media ... ›
- Toxic social media & American divisiveness - GZERO Media ›