YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The Canceling of the American Mind — with Greg Lukianoff | Prof G Conversations

The Canceling of the American Mind — with Greg Lukianoff | Prof G Conversations — Transcript

by The Prof G Pod – Scott Galloway · 9,208 words · 1,350 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Well, in terms of First Amendment law,
0:02anonymous speech is protected, but um
0:04but I don't think that's sufficient
0:06enough of an answer. Um, and I think I
0:09tend to think of the justification for
0:11anonymity as like a seessaw. That
0:13especially if we lived in a free and
0:17enlightened society in which people
0:19welcomed dissent and welcomed
0:21disagreement and there was no imaginable
0:24idea that you'd be punished for it. Um,
0:27then the justification for anonymity
0:28would kind of fall on ring hollow to
0:31people. They'd be like, who cares? But
0:34we don't live in that world and we live
0:35less in that world than we used to.
0:42>> Greg, where does this podcast find you?
0:43>> Uh Maine, actually. This is my my my
0:46first day up here since last year.
0:48>> First day up there. Where are you
0:49usually?
0:50>> DC.
0:51>> Oh, nice. Um so let's bust right into
0:55it. Give us your thoughts on council
0:58culture. How did it start? brief history
1:00of it and how does it differ from
1:03accountability, so to speak?
1:05>> Sure. I mean, uh, I wrote a book called
1:07Cancelling of the American Mind, um,
1:09with a when I started the project, uh,
1:1220-year-old, um, Ricky Schlott, who's
1:15absolutely brilliant and I feel very
1:17lucky to work with her. And it
1:20definitely was one of those things that
1:21was a really striking discontinuity from
1:24the rest of my career. Um, I started
1:27working defending free speech on campus
1:29in 2001. Uh, and back then you were most
1:34likely to get in trouble on campus from
1:36administrators. Uh, professors were
1:39fairly good on freedom of speech.
1:40Students were great on freedom of speech
1:43and and freedom to differ, differing
1:45opinions. But right around 2013
1:49going into 2014, a cohort of students
1:52showed up that were much less, you know,
1:54just to be blunt, tolerant of difference
1:56that essentially you started seeing a
1:58lot more demands that speakers be
2:00cancelled. You started seeing demands
2:02for new speech codes. And this was a big
2:05shift from what I'd seen before. Um, and
2:09but I also started seeing some of this
2:10happening off-campus. So I try to define
2:14cancel culture as a historical period um
2:17because
2:18um all moments in the history of
2:21censorship have commonalities but they
2:24also have uh things that make them
2:26distinct. And I think one of the
2:27distinct characteristics of cancel
2:29culture is that it was essentially
2:31impossible to have it as we understood
2:33it uh without something like social
2:36media. something that allows you to
2:38create um the uh reality or oftentimes
2:41appearance of a sudden mob that's
2:43demanding you fire that one employee.
2:45And this wasn't a subtle shift. You
2:47know, I'd been doing it doing this job
2:49for a long time prior to 2014. And from
2:522014 on, you know, I've seen more
2:55professors uh lose their jobs, more
2:57tenured professors lose their job than,
2:59you know, what I'd seen in my previous
3:01half of my career, you know, times 20.
3:05you know, it it was it was really quite
3:07a shift. So, the way that Ricky and I
3:09define cancel culture is the uptick of
3:12campaigns to get people uh fired,
3:14punished, penalized, uh expelled, or
3:17otherwise punished um for speech that
3:20would be protected under the First
3:22Amendment. They're making an analogy to
3:24public employee law, which basically
3:26means there that that there's some
3:28common sense injected in there, but that
3:30essentially um you're not supposed to
3:32fire people just for their outside
3:34speech as a citizen. And the culture of
3:36fear that resulted from it. And one
3:39thing you should notice about that
3:40definition is there's no political
3:41veilance to it. So cancel culture is
3:43cancel culture whether it comes from the
3:45left or the right. Isn't that one of the
3:47deltas though that there's always been
3:49shaming or criticism of people if they,
3:53you know, if their narrative doesn't
3:55match yours or an opportunity to play
3:57kind of play into gotcha culture. But
3:59what I see is the big difference over
4:00the last 10, 15 years is the discovery
4:03that you could go after people's
4:05livelihood. It used to be that that was
4:07somewhat isolated. Like we're I don't
4:09like what Greg says. I'm going to
4:12publicly shame him. I'm angry at him.
4:13He's a bad person. you shouldn't be his
4:15friend, you shouldn't be listening to
4:16him, but it never jumped the shark to
4:20now go after his livelihood. Wasn't that
4:22the big difference here?
4:23>> Well, that was part of the definition.
4:24Um, our campaigns to get people punished
4:27in some real material way, like get them
4:29fired, expelled, etc. It's not cancel
4:32culture if you're just telling it. There
4:33was there was a phenomenon called
4:35trashing
4:36>> in the 1960s that Musa Algarvey likes to
4:38point to. Um, and it's this really nasty
4:41vitriolic way of going after political
4:43enemies that was exact everything you're
4:46talking about. It's like the person's a
4:47bad person. Don't listen to the person
4:48anymore. They're they're not, you know,
4:50um, they're not doctrine as as I would
4:53like to be doctrinire. But it generally
4:55didn't get to the point of and this
4:56professor has to be fired. And the
4:59biggest shift, the one that kind of
5:00shocked me was the uptick in around 2017
5:05because at first students were focusing
5:06on each other um and outside speakers,
5:11but 2017 really marks the moment when
5:13they started going after professors in
5:16large number.
5:17>> Talk a little bit about quote unquote
5:19deplatforming. deplatforming is just the
5:22idea um and uh that essentially the the
5:26way we define deplatforming in our
5:28research department at at fire um is
5:31essentially um getting getting a speaker
5:35um either getting them disinvited or
5:38making it so difficult to hear them or
5:40otherwise chasing them off campus. the
5:42the the ones that scare me, the kind of
5:44deplatform that actually scares me the
5:46most are the ones that involve violence
5:48or the threat of violence for obvious
5:49reasons. It's primarily targeted at
5:52speakers. We also consider it
5:54deplatforming if you do the same thing
5:56to like say playing a movie. Um that
5:58essentially you're showing a documentary
5:59that's not very popular on campus,
6:01students show up and shout it down. But
6:03um this is actually one of the areas
6:05where a lot of it actually comes from
6:06the right as well because uh for a lot
6:09of speakers on campus uh there'll be
6:11off-campus pressure to get that person
6:14um to get that person disinvited and
6:16this is particularly true of say
6:19speakers that could be painted as like a
6:21pro-choice um and sometimes Catholic
6:24groups um I think the Carl Cardinal
6:26Newman Center is big on this uh pressure
6:30um schools to disinvite that person. So
6:33generally as and this is for fairly
6:35obvious reasons. If the threat to free
6:37speech and that deplatforming comes from
6:39the left, it tends to come on camp come
6:41from on campus. If it comes from the
6:43right, it tends to come from off-campus.
6:45>> I saw some of this as a faculty member
6:47at NYU. I I remember about 1015 years
6:49ago, it became sort of invogue for
6:52department chairs to put out very long
6:55emails about how
6:57certain microaggressions would not be
6:59tolerated.
7:01And it was, okay, we're we're charging
7:04kids $280,000 to come here. Some of them
7:08leave riddled in student debt. Twothirds
7:11of the faculty probably isn't holding
7:13the weight. So, there was an opportunity
7:15to step into this virtue circle. And no
7:17one could ever criticize them. I do
7:19anything but applaud otherwise you were
7:21a racist. And there was this almost this
7:25sort of self-appointed police.
7:29>> Yeah. that um and it was always quite
7:32frankly uh and I consider myself a proud
7:35progressive but people never got
7:37cancelled for being
7:39um too progressive
7:42and it felt very unhealthy
7:46and then uh we'll comment on that and
7:48then I'm going to play identity politics
7:49and and just make some anecdotal
7:52observations in the classroom and see if
7:54there's any actual data that supports my
7:56thesis. to talk about how all of a
7:58sudden do you think some of it is I just
8:00saw as people who weren't adding any
8:01actual value and were trying to find
8:03some merit
8:05uh and grab virtue or some sort of
8:07relevance and saw this as an easy way to
8:10try and to try and grab status so to
8:13speak.
8:13>> Yeah. I I think it's a lot of things
8:15going going on at once. I I I think a
8:17lot of younger people um were taught I
8:20one thing from my work with Jonathan
8:22height
8:24>> one chapter we ended up leaving out
8:25because I just didn't have enough
8:26research to back it up um was my
8:29intuition that uh a lot of the phenomena
8:32we were seeing seemed to be playing out
8:35some of the values of the circa 2010
8:39anti-bullying movement. Um so in
8:42coddling we talk about there being three
8:43great untruths um which are basically
8:46terrible advice to give someone that's
8:48inconsistent with either u modern um
8:52psychology or ancient wisdom and that
8:54will make you more miserable if you
8:55believe them. And so we give this
8:57negative advice as what doesn't kill you
9:00makes you weaker. You know kind of like
9:01the opposite of nichi. Um the um uh the
9:05the second one is always trust your
9:07feelings which sounds nice but is just
9:10awful advice. And three, life is a
9:12battle between good people and evil
9:14people, which is contrary to more
9:16sophisticated understanding of that
9:18everybody has some aspect of of good and
9:20evil within them, which is more how I
9:21was raised. There was a a critic who
9:24pointed out um after uh coddling came
9:28out in 2018
9:30that uh these were more or less kind of
9:33like the way anti-bullying was being
9:35taught after sort of like a a moral
9:37panic about it. Not that bullying isn't
9:38real and should be addressed, but things
9:41manifest in their own ways. And this was
9:43primarily due to parents being aware of
9:45more of this stuff due to the fact that
9:47they could see it on their cell phones,
9:49they could see it on their uh on their
9:51screens. And this did have a an emphasis
9:54of, you know, human fragility. Um if you
9:57feel that you've been wronged, you've
9:59been wronged. Um and that there's
10:01basically only two types of people. Uh
10:03good people and evil people. uh that you
10:05know good people victims and bullies and
10:08I think that this wasn't the only cause
10:10by any any stretch of the imagination
10:12but to explain why I think young people
10:16had such sympathy for this movement I
10:18think they were framing it partially in
10:20that way but unfortunately because the
10:22rule of human behavior is that all
10:24motives are mixed it also met with
10:26something that my very young um uh
10:29colleague and co-author on cancelling
10:30the American mind was able to point out
10:33that she was part of the first
10:34generation of people to grow up with
10:36cell phones in her pocket. She had them
10:38since she was 10 uh in junior high
10:41school. You know, it took on very much
10:43the nature of what you would expect um a
10:47a mass communication device uh given to
10:50kids in junior high school. It became a
10:52way of showing aggression against your
10:54perceived enemies, but doing it within
10:56the rules of the time, which you don't
10:58call out someone for being unpopular or
11:00ugly. you call them out for being
11:02something more that makes you allows you
11:05to feel more moral. So I think these two
11:06mixed motives kind of came together for
11:08the students when it comes to the
11:11utterly crucial role though of the
11:12administrators because this wouldn't if
11:15if administrators looked at this and
11:16went no way no no you're not you're not
11:19getting a professor fired because you
11:20don't like what they said. This would
11:22have died in the crib. Um but they had
11:25met those same administrators we've been
11:27fighting for fighting against uh at at
11:29fire forever and together it created
11:32this kind of calamity um for uh for
11:35freedom of speech where these people who
11:37already believed it was their job to uh
11:40say what shall be orthodox on this
11:42particular campus met a cohort of
11:45students that were more willing to play
11:47along with that too. And again as as
11:50with all things with mixed motives. He
11:52said something that I thought was so I
11:54don't know puncturing. He said that
11:56students are being taught the mental
11:58habits of anxious and depressed people
12:02which really struck me. I thought we're
12:05we're teaching the kids to be fragile
12:08and and and actually make them less
12:13resilient.
12:14It's more than just word. These I have
12:17seen this evolution where kids in my
12:19class
12:20they feel weaker.
12:22It's not just it's not just a a cool
12:25virtue thing and trendy or fashionable.
12:28They appear to me to be
12:31less resilient. Talk talk about that.
12:34>> Yeah. I mean the whole project uh with
12:36me me and John um came uh out of my
12:40observation when I was dealing with my
12:42own anxiety and depression. Um and
12:44cognitive behavioral therapy is what
12:45saved me and utterly transformed my life
12:49which is a process by which you develop
12:51all these tools and sort of talking back
12:53to the exaggerated voices in your head
12:56um that tell you things like you're
12:57doomed or you're a failure, nobody loves
12:59you. all all of these kind of voices
13:01that to a degree to be clear everybody
13:03except sociopaths have um but you know
13:06when you're anxious and depressed uh
13:08they're louder and they're harder to
13:11ignore. Uh the amazing thing about CBT
13:13is it teaches you that if you actually
13:15rationally, not not power of positive
13:17thinking stuff, but just rationally
13:19interrogate these, you realize you're
13:20overgeneralizing or engaging in uh
13:24fortuneelling that you know what the
13:25future's going to look like or mind
13:27readading. All these things that
13:28logically don't really stand up to
13:30scrutiny. And the observation um that I
13:34uh that really brought me to talk to
13:36John about a potential collaboration,
13:39although actually I just told him the
13:40idea that I thought was cool. I didn't
13:41actually think we'd collaborate on it.
13:43That was a that was a dream come true.
13:45um was just that it was like we were
13:47teaching kids reverse CBT that we were
13:50teaching them do overgeneralize, do
13:52catastrophize, do engage in binary
13:55thinking, do uh uh uh do believe you
13:58know the future and and and and it comes
14:02from I believe two different places.
14:04want a very well-meaning um idea from
14:07both parents and administrators all
14:09through all through K through PhD to
14:11sort of and an instinct to sort of
14:13protect young people and to um to
14:16insulate them from harm. But then a less
14:19admirable quality is that essentially if
14:22you make people feel guilty or
14:23frightened, it uh in theory will
14:26motivate them towards political action
14:28that you prefer. And to me, that's the
14:31that that's the one that makes me pretty
14:33angry. The first one makes me kind of
14:35sad because it's like, yeah, no, it's an
14:36understandable instinct, but it's still
14:38terrible advice and you should have
14:39known that. The second one is the idea
14:42that we can sort of guilt, shame, anger,
14:45upset um through uh telling people that
14:48they are more fragile than they are,
14:50that they are in greater danger than
14:52they are, that that will somehow result
14:54in a better world. And I always make the
14:56point, listen, this is a bad calculation
14:58even just rationally because people who
15:00are filled with despair and anxiety
15:02don't always choose to say the least the
15:05the best course of action to get from
15:07point A to point B.
15:09>> Yeah. I want to make some observations
15:10anecdotal and you tell me if there's any
15:12data to back it up that in terms of I
15:15think I'm trying to think of that
15:16product. Was it called Jot Form where
15:18all of a sudden someone would get upset
15:20by something and spin up an online
15:22petition and within a certain amount of
15:23time everybody thought it was cool to
15:25join in and the dean had to deal with
15:27this and and I do think a lot
15:30of it was but a couple
15:32observations and you tell me if if the
15:34nullify or validate them. Uh, I never
15:37got in the way or I was never subject to
15:39this sort of scrutiny or blowback
15:41because the first thing I say in class
15:43one, I'm known as being provocative and
15:45quite frankly a little bit aggressive
15:46and obnoxious. So, the expectation is
15:48there.
15:49>> Yeah.
15:49>> And the first thing I say is if you
15:50think there's a non-zero probability
15:52something I say is going to trigger you.
15:53I curse. I make sexist jokes. I I have
15:58certain unconscious biases I'm still
16:00working on.
16:01>> Yeah. But if you think something's
16:02really going to emotionally trigger you,
16:04you should call your parents and tell
16:05them to come get you cuz you're not
16:06ready for college.
16:07>> Yeah.
16:07>> So, there's a certain expectation that
16:09I'm going to be a little bit out there.
16:12And no one ever has I've never gotten
16:14run over by this. I have some colleagues
16:18who are much more thoughtful and
16:21considerate than me 99.9% of the time
16:25and then they then they make an error.
16:28They're they're inarticulate around
16:30something and it's shocking because
16:32they're known as these nice benign
16:35people and and then they get taken, you
16:39know, they get taken out and shot
16:41because it's almost like those of us who
16:43are a little bit more aggressive and
16:44provocative regularly are not subject to
16:46the same scrutiny as someone who makes
16:49one false move. And then the second
16:51observation I would make, and this is
16:52identity politics, but I'm going to do
16:53it anyways.
16:55The people I have observed in class who
16:58get really upset. I mean physically
17:01upset. They're not faking it.
17:04It tend to be women tend to be white
17:07women.
17:08>> Upper class white women. Yes.
17:11What's the data there? The data on women
17:14particularly um white women and
17:18particularly upper class white women
17:19being more free speech skeptical is just
17:21very apparent. Um, and that's one of
17:24those things that, you know, it makes me
17:25a little uncomfortable to say it, but
17:27it's a consistent finding and it's um,
17:30and it's something that we found among
17:32the professorate, among students as
17:33well. And of course, I think the free
17:36speech skepticism comes from a comes
17:38from a good place, but so does all of
17:40censorship, you know. So, I I don't
17:42think that that's um uh a a strange a
17:47strange observation. The observation
17:50that the professors who start out more
17:53sympathetic um uh tend to be more
17:56vulnerable definitely accords with my um
18:00uh my professional experience that it
18:02certainly seems that way. But then
18:04there's also a category of sort of
18:06outspoken um conservative or outspoken
18:09you know um econic professors that I've
18:13definitely seen get targeted quite
18:14aggressively um over the years. So, in
18:16some ways, I will say that some of your
18:18observations come a little bit from
18:19luck. Um, because like you get one
18:22student or one administrator who
18:24decides, I'm getting Scott Galloway and
18:26the whole dynamic changes. We'll be
18:28right back after a quick break.
18:30[Music]
18:33What are your thoughts on how the
18:34presidents of Harvard uh MIT and Penn
18:38handled that situation and generally
18:40assess their their response uh
18:43congresses or the the congressional
18:45committee's viewpoint in this on this
18:47and and this is a difficult one and what
18:50is the line between free speech and hate
18:53speech from people in masks that creates
18:55an environment that's unhealthy for for
18:57for for the community. There have been
19:00critics who have been really critical of
19:02th those professors when they went to
19:04the anti-semitism hearing in December of
19:062023.
19:08Um there have been people who have been
19:10primarily critical of the fact that when
19:12asked if calling for genocide
19:16um was protected or not on their campus.
19:19Uh they said it depends on context. Now
19:22here's the truth. It does depend on
19:24context and first amendment law. Um if
19:27you're uh if you're saying something and
19:29particularly in academically if you're
19:30saying something theoretically if you're
19:33saying something in the course of a
19:34philosophical discussion that is
19:36different than being like I'm going to
19:37kill you. So context is right but the
19:40reason why I nonetheless have zero
19:42sympathy actually to be fair I have
19:44sympathy for the president of MIT
19:46because MIT has not been the best but it
19:49sure as hell been the worst. Penn and
19:52Harvard, Claudine Gay, I had no sympathy
19:54for them at all because the reason why I
19:56have no sympathy for them is they've
19:58been utterly terrible on freedom of
20:01speech prior to that point. Um and
20:03definitely her critics including people
20:05like Barry Weiss have a good point that
20:06saying these people who claim to be
20:08exquisitly sensitive
20:10uh about fat phobia, you know, is the
20:12example that she usually uses um were
20:15suddenly not caring if someone said
20:17something that sounded an awful lot like
20:19you your country should be wiped off the
20:20map. So what is the line? the line as
20:24far as a fire is concerned and we think
20:26to a large degree the law is is
20:27something that actually crosses the line
20:29into anti-semitic or or racial or sexual
20:32harassment. And that's not as simple as
20:35just saying something offensive.
20:36Actually, it can't just be saying
20:38something offensive, which by the way, I
20:40think is absolutely the right rule. I
20:42think the situation for free speech
20:44would be even worse if it uh um than it
20:46currently is if we didn't have that that
20:48bedrock principle which is called in
20:50called in the law. It has to be a
20:52pattern of discriminatory behavior
20:53directed at somebody for it to be
20:55harassment. But a lot of what we saw on
20:58campus after October 7th, you don't even
21:00have to get to that question. A lot of
21:02what we saw was uh you know violent
21:05attempts to intimidate actual threats in
21:08some cases physical assault, taking over
21:11of buildings, all of these things that
21:12are just not protected nor should they
21:14be. And particularly, this is something
21:16that I just did a TED talk. Um, and the
21:18thing that I and I probably angered some
21:20people by opening up with this example,
21:22but I want to be really clear here. Um,
21:24there was a speech, for example, at
21:26Berkeley. There was an uh Israeli
21:28Defense Force speaker there. Um, and
21:31students organized um to and it's nice
21:34to have this actually like in a like in
21:36a screenshot of a tweet of a of of a
21:39text message to everybody. Shut it down.
21:42and 200 students stormed uh where the
21:45guy was supposed to speak, you know,
21:47broke down a door, broke broke down a
21:49window and chased chased the guy off.
21:52And it's and I always have to explain,
21:54okay, that's mob censorship. Like like
21:56like that is an attempt by people to say
21:59uh 200 people to say to anybody who
22:01would want to hear this person, you're
22:02not allowed to hear this person because
22:04I don't approve of them. That's not
22:06okay. That's the kind of thing that in
22:07my opinion should get you kicked out of
22:09university because it means you're not
22:10actually understanding the point of
22:12university. And one of the reasons why
22:13this angered some people is because I
22:15also tend to point out that from October
22:187th on all but about three and and the
22:21two worst years for deplatforming
22:22involving violence and involving um
22:25involving shoutdowns as they're called.
22:27Um all but three were pro Palestinian
22:30activists. So like it was one of these
22:32things. We're spending plenty of time
22:34defending the free speech rights of pro
22:36Palestinian students, pro Palestinian
22:38professors, but nonetheless, we were
22:40also seeing these same students and uh
22:42who expected to be protected by freedom
22:45of speech have showing no respect
22:46whatsoever for the free speech of
22:48others. So, a lot of these issues are
22:49actually not that hard. The hard the
22:52hardest issue you get into is
22:54essentially if it's not a threat, if
22:56it's not uh blocking someone from
22:58getting from point A to point B, it's
23:00just really really offensive. At what
23:02point does that actually become uh
23:05anti-semitic or or uh racial or ethnic
23:07harassment? And the answer is
23:09essentially that that that Davis test um
23:12that we always refer to a fire which is
23:13is it severe, persistent and pervasive
23:16such that it causes a reasonable person
23:19um to uh be denied effectively in
23:22education. So that's that's a high
23:23standard, but it should be if you're
23:25dealing with something that has an an
23:27offense aspect in it. But again, for a
23:31lot of these situations, you didn't even
23:32have to get to that analysis because
23:33what the students were doing wasn't
23:34protected in the first place. So, I'm
23:37asking this to learn, not to make a
23:38statement, but I struggle with I feel
23:40like anonymity has been conflated with
23:43free speech to our detriment. That that
23:47um some of the really vile things you
23:49see online,
23:51you know, I understand how important it
23:54is for individuals to have first
23:56amendment and free speech rights, but
23:58free free speech rights, but I don't
23:59think that applies to bots. And I think
24:02that
24:03an understandable protection for
24:05anonymity has morphed into a total lack
24:08of accountability and a real coarsening
24:10of our discourse online. And it I think
24:12it extends into letting government
24:14agencies wear masks and things like
24:16that. But I'm curious, I'd love to just
24:19get your thoughts on the fulcrum between
24:20the importance of people having the
24:22right to say things anonymously because
24:24what they're saying could trigger danger
24:26or self harm or or harm for them and at
24:29the same time how this reverence for
24:31anonymity may have gone too far and
24:33resulted in a lack of accountability and
24:35some really ugly spreading online.
24:38Your thoughts, Greg? Well, in terms of
24:40First Amendment law, anonymous speech is
24:43protected. But um but I don't think
24:44that's sufficient enough of an answer.
24:46Um and I think I tend to think of the
24:49justification for anonymity as like a
24:51seessaw that especially if we lived in a
24:56free and enlightened society in which
24:59people welcomed dissent and welcomed
25:01disagreement and there was no imaginable
25:03idea that you'd be punished for it. um
25:06then the justification for anonymity
25:08would kind of fall on ring hollow to
25:11people. They'd be like, "Who cares?" But
25:13we don't live in that world and we live
25:15less in that world than we used to. Um
25:17because even I'd say 10 years ago uh or
25:2112 years ago before cancel culture, um
25:24the idea of saying something that was
25:26your genuinely held opinion had a much
25:28lower likelihood of ruining your career.
25:30Add to it the possibility of being
25:32actually punished um in in in some way.
25:35Now, that certainly applies to now to a
25:38much larger degree than I ever thought
25:40I'd see to say wester a lot of countries
25:43in Western Europe at this point, a lot
25:45of countries in the Anglosphere. I mean,
25:47you know, by different estimates,
25:48they're arresting something like 30
25:49people a day for offense speech in in
25:52Britain. Um, I've heard different
25:54accounts, but generally they they go
25:55between seven and 40 um uh people being
25:58arrested a day a day for that. Uh
26:00Germany, you know, like that will brag
26:02about the fact that they did morning
26:04rate. They did this on 60 Minutes is
26:05what um brag about doing morning raids
26:07on someone who called a politician a
26:09penis. Under that situation, the
26:12justification for having anonymous
26:13speech goes way up. Can it and is it
26:16abused?
26:18Absolutely. Um but you know, I I think
26:21actually I'm going to quote Milton
26:22Friedman here, but it's just a really
26:23good quote. Um something isn't a right
26:26unless it can be abused.
26:28>> I like that. What about so section 230?
26:33uh the idea that these naent platforms
26:36aren't subject to the same kind of
26:38liable, slander, disparagement laws that
26:41traditional media platforms. What are
26:43your thoughts on that?
26:44>> I think we toy with section 30 to our
26:48great peril. Like democracy, it's the
26:51worst of any system except except all
26:55the others. Now, to be clear, there
26:56might be some other system that I
26:58haven't thought of that could be better.
27:01Um but when it comes to things and I but
27:02I do find it particularly almost amusing
27:05that that that conservatives are going
27:07after 230 or were going after 230 with
27:10such um uh with such you know gusto
27:14because if you actually even let's just
27:15take it to the um uh defamation
27:19protections that uh 230 gives to ISPs to
27:22internet service providers. If suddenly
27:24that were to vanish, it would lead to
27:27internet service providers censoring a
27:30lot more, like a lot lot more, because
27:32they can be held liable for for for
27:34liable for defamation. And I think that
27:37given um the biases in a lot of social
27:40media companies, um that would wildly
27:43disproportionately affect what
27:45conservatives say. So I think that 230
27:47is probably we I I think that overall we
27:50benefit so much from 230. Of course,
27:52it's going to have downsides, but I'm
27:54more afraid of monkeying with it.
27:56>> But you see, you don't see an issue that
27:58traditional media platforms, which are
28:00struggling to stay
28:02viable and raise the funds to do
28:04factchecking and put out, not I don't
28:07want to say the truth, but a greater
28:09attempt to do the good work of
28:10journalism and fact check and do their
28:13research. You don't see that a problem
28:16with holding traditional media to an
28:18entirely different standard, a higher
28:20standard than these online platforms?
28:22>> Yeah. And that's generally the way
28:24they're held. Um that that essentially
28:26uh essentially traditional media that's
28:28responsible for the content that they
28:30produce. I think it makes more sense to
28:31hold them liable for not doing the
28:33sufficient factchecking for defamation.
28:36Um as opposed to something that hosts
28:39everything. I mean, something that hosts
28:41the Wall Street Journal, the New York
28:43Times, um, and every and YouTube and
28:45everything else under the sun, you know,
28:47is something that's quite distinct than
28:49just, you know, um, just the New York
28:51Times by itself.
28:52>> Do you think there's opportunity for
28:53nuance or gray area? And I'll propose a
28:56solution or what I think we should think
28:58about. I think about 230 a lot. The idea
29:01that people can break through and say
29:02things impose something and that a
29:06company that creates a lot of economic
29:08value lets a lot of interesting opinions
29:11when sometimes the conspiracy view ends
29:12up being actually more true than you
29:14think. There's been some just wonderful
29:16things about these platforms and the
29:18ability for viewpoints and consumers or
29:22content producers to kind of go direct
29:23to consumer and and and kind of have at
29:26it at the same time.
29:29Um I I worry that the protection is not
29:34consistent in the sense that well let me
29:35propose a solution. So if um my co-host
29:40on one of my podcasts raging moderates
29:42and she's the kind of the sole Democrat
29:44on this show which is actually the most
29:46watched show on
29:48uh cable news called the five. uh
29:50someone got upset that she called out
29:52Ken Paxton or something and mocked up a
29:55picture of her uh with her previous
29:58boyfriend and has you know has gone into
30:01this triedand-true misogynistic
30:04shaming misinformation having an affair
30:06from her first husband hasn't been
30:08married to I mean just total nonsense
30:09right and the algorithm on Twitter loves
30:12that because it creates a lot of
30:13comments a lot of engagement people
30:14weighing in conspiracy theorists and
30:16also people protecting her creates more
30:20um Nissan ads and the algorithm itself
30:22from Twitter is trained to elevate that
30:24content and give it broader and further
30:27reach than it would organically because
30:29it creates Nissan ads. In other words,
30:32there's an economic incentive to spread
30:33disinformation. Do you think there's a
30:35solution or some gray area where maybe
30:38we say, "Okay, you're a bulletin board
30:40and you can't be responsible. Just it's
30:42it's unrealistic. Suppression of speech,
30:45economic impairment. if you were
30:47responsible for policing everything
30:49someone pins up on the board. But if you
30:52as a social media company decide to
30:55elevate algorithmically content and give
30:58it more spread than it might organically
31:00at that point, are you really different
31:02than an editor at CNBC or MSNBC or at
31:05Fox who's subject to a different set of
31:08standards? Shouldn't they be subject to
31:10the same standards if they make the
31:13conscious decision to algorithmically
31:15elevate content? I'm always worried
31:18about the distortitive impact of uh
31:22government uh also regulation sometimes
31:26you know um and liability
31:29um and so I'm very hesitant to change
31:33anything
31:35um without um and my job is to make the
31:39argument for you know air on the side of
31:42free speech as much as possible and heir
31:44on the side of as little um as few
31:47things being uh banned and as few things
31:49being government regulated as possible.
31:52So my fear uh is that essentially if you
31:55started having government entanglement
31:57with algorithmic choices um you know you
32:01really got to decide one you know which
32:03government do you trust? Do you trust
32:04Biden to do that? Do you trust Trump to
32:06do that? but also particularly when it's
32:08a liability um uh standpoint uh how
32:12distortive that actually can be to what
32:14gets reported in the first place because
32:16this is in a sense kind of like why uh
32:19everybody sues for liel in Britain. Even
32:22though they've made slight improvements
32:24around the edges, it's still much easier
32:26to find people guilty of uh committing
32:29liel um in Britain than it is the United
32:32States. we actually have a shield um uh
32:34for for the country basically saying you
32:36know providing some modiccom of
32:38protection uh for people in the US from
32:41uh liel tourism um that that takes place
32:44in uh that takes takes place in the UK.
32:48So you know I'm always going to be
32:50fairly skeptical of that kind of stuff
32:53but it's also my societal role to be
32:55skeptical of that kind of stuff.
32:57We'll be right back.
32:59[Music]
33:02So I want to throw the kind of the most
33:03difficult stuff at you and get your your
33:04thoughts.
33:05>> That's great. Appreciate it.
33:07>> So uh if I were Putin and I were had
33:11lost a million men to a war and spending
33:15you know 70 to$100 billion a year on a
33:18losing war and at some point if this war
33:20continued to wreak the kind of economic
33:22and
33:23human damage if it were to continue to
33:26do at some point I might find myself
33:28falling out of a window. Yeah.
33:30>> Uh, so I think he would be stupid not to
33:32weaponize and spin up troll farms in
33:35Albania and then create a list of the
33:3710,000 most influential people online
33:39who are pro- Ukraine
33:42and uh start attacking their reputation
33:45with millions of bots.
33:46>> Isn't he already doing that though?
33:48>> Well, yeah, I think he is. Yeah.
33:50>> And that's my question. And that is do
33:52bots have first amendment rights and do
33:53these platforms have some sort of
33:56obligation which I I I think would only
33:58be registered or adhered to through some
34:00sort of regulation to protect us against
34:04bad actors that might be quite frankly
34:06raising a generation of military civic
34:08and nonprofit leaders who don't like
34:10America or begin to have their views
34:12shaped and ultimately our votes and our
34:16military decisions shaped on outside
34:19forces that are taking advantage of very
34:21porous and lightly regulated um uh tech
34:25ecosystem and platforms. Your thoughts?
34:28>> The question of whether or not bots have
34:29first amendment rights? Uh of of course
34:32they don't. But do bots but do bot
34:34creators have first amendment rights? Um
34:37at least when they're in the United
34:38States, absolutely certainly they do.
34:40when you're talking about the kind of
34:42propaganda kind of warfare and targeting
34:45that is possible in the uh in the age of
34:47the internet in the age of social media
34:51when you kind of fall down this rabbit
34:53hole of how you actually address it
34:55without actually devastating uh without
34:58having huge government encroachment um
35:00which will end in bad places as well um
35:03or without creating uh massive
35:05unintended consequences.
35:07The best way to do this historically has
35:10simply to have authorities that people
35:12actually trust and we have blown giant
35:16holes in the only thing that really can
35:18protect you from disinformation and
35:20misinformation.
35:21Um, and you have to start figuring out
35:23ways to get authorities that that people
35:27essentially trust because one of the
35:29ways we could potentially address some
35:31of this stuff is by h having
35:33institutions um pointing out uh what is
35:36troll farms and and what isn't. Um but
35:39in under the current environment,
35:40there's going to be a lot of like sure
35:42they are um you just don't like what
35:45they're saying is going to be the
35:47response there. And in a situation where
35:49these institutions had better societal
35:51trust, it'd be like, "Oh my god, you're
35:53right."
35:53>> So, you're a First Amendment attorney.
35:56What are we not paying attention to in
35:58the courts? Have there been any legal
36:00decisions that you think are especially
36:03uh important to the future of First
36:04Amendment or speech or its regulation or
36:06lack thereof? What have you come down
36:08the pike that you think has not gotten
36:10enough attention?
36:11>> Yeah, I mean, I think it got good
36:13attention, but I think people haven't
36:14thought through all the ramifications of
36:16it. And this is and this gets to your
36:18your your point on um anonymity where we
36:20we may disagree to some degree. Um but
36:23the uh the change in the law um to
36:28uh to say that you can actually require
36:31um verification for kids uh and actually
36:35really for anybody to use porn sites um
36:39in Texas uh is a case that could really
36:43have some serious bad ramifications
36:47um unless it stays relatively cabined.
36:50Now, I was definitely among the First
36:51Amendment people saying, "Listen, um
36:53there's a case called New York v.
36:55Ginsburg from the late 1960s that says
36:58you can require um store owners to put
37:01the, you know, put the nudie mags, you
37:04know, on the back shelves and to make
37:06sure that that minors don't get them."
37:09Um but then we had decade after decade
37:12of the uh Supreme Court and other courts
37:14basically saying but online um that
37:18can't possibly apply for all sorts of
37:20and to be clear very serious reasons. I
37:22knew that wouldn't last forever and that
37:25eventually uh Texas passed a
37:28verification regime um that was actually
37:31more complex than I originally
37:32understood but was first uh marketed as
37:35something where you had to basically
37:36show like a driver's license if you want
37:38to see porn. Um that would also include
37:41um uh that they had to have disclaimers
37:45um saying that you know porn is harmful
37:47to your mental health and all all this
37:49kind of stuff which it has compelled
37:50speech issues. I think they they made
37:52some efforts to sort of improve the law,
37:54make it clear that there's other ways to
37:55verify. Anyway, if that stays so that
37:58that that fight was something that I
37:59predicted we were going to lose in in
38:01the Paxin case. Um, now here's the
38:04question. Are we then going to with the
38:08best of intentions create an environment
38:09where you essentially can't use the
38:11internet um without identifying yourself
38:14in some way? And that scares me because
38:16I do actually think that the situation
38:18for free speech um even in the so-called
38:21free world is dodgier than it's ever
38:23been in my lifetime. Um and the idea
38:26that this at this precise moment we'd
38:28also be make it harder for people to
38:30hide what they're looking at or what
38:32they're reading um scares me. So our our
38:36efforts at fire are definitely going to
38:37be to make sure that um that decision as
38:40much as possible stays cabined um to uh
38:44kids access to adult materials.
38:46>> Do I think the platforms are already
38:48doing that? Do other platforms already
38:49know exactly what we're doing saying and
38:52when. But as long as they use it to
38:54monetize advertising, it seems to be
38:57there's a tolerance for it. I I think
38:59the cat's already out of the bag. I
39:00think they already know everything we do
39:01and what we say. We don't seem to have
39:03worried about that. But then we have
39:05this do we have this tremendous
39:07fidelity for protecting them uh when it
39:11comes to any I don't know forward-
39:14facing
39:15um viewpoints that might result in more
39:18I don't know just more it it seems like
39:20we're just protecting protecting them in
39:22the wrong areas and and not looking at
39:25them in others. I apologize for the word
39:27salad there Greg. Do you see any
39:28inconsistency?
39:29>> Yeah. No, I I I I definitely get the
39:31concern, but I do think that there are
39:33tools that people badly underutilize.
39:36>> Well, they're purposely made complicated
39:37to utilize. If you tried to regulate
39:40your kids content on face on meta, I
39:42mean, they are not I would argue they
39:45are not readily accessible purposefully.
39:47>> Yeah.
39:48>> Or they're not easily used.
39:49>> Yeah. No, I and I definitely ask for
39:51help to make
39:54with with my kit stuff. But now we have
39:55you know we have signal um you know for
39:58example we we we do uh duck.go there are
40:01some basic basic steps you can do to
40:03somewhat protect your privacy. And of
40:05course when it comes to private
40:06corporations doing bad things and this
40:09is something that I feel like we have an
40:11entire um generation of young Americans
40:13sort of brainwashed to believe that you
40:15should be more afraid of corporations
40:17than you should be of governments. And I
40:19just think that's absolute nonsense,
40:21particularly um foreign um governments,
40:24but also also frankly the US government.
40:27Um and that corporations, you know, and
40:30people talk about that evil profit
40:32motive. And I'm kind of like I prefer
40:34the profit motive to a lot of the other
40:36motives you can have for finding finding
40:38this stuff out. and profit motive often
40:40lends itself to and by the way we
40:42protect our users privacy in a way that
40:45you know the Chinese the CCP or or or
40:48Russia or even our own government um
40:50it's like no we we we want this
40:52information for other reasons.
40:55>> Well, so just so you know just I'm very
40:57good at turning this podcast into it's
40:59really just an excuse for me to talk
41:00about me. Um Steve Bannon uh suggested
41:04that the president that the
41:06administration sue me for some of the
41:07things I've said about him. I called him
41:09a rapist. And do you feel that the
41:11president is is in different ways trying
41:14to suppress free speech? And if and what
41:17laws or what do you think should be done
41:19about it? What are your views on it?
41:21Feels to me like free speech has been
41:23chilled.
41:23>> Oh yeah.
41:24>> From the administration and just curious
41:26curious to get your thoughts on it.
41:27Sounds like you agree with it, but what
41:29can and should be done to push back on
41:30that. So the ways in which it's being uh
41:33chilled just really quickly um there's
41:36been you know attacks on um mainstream
41:38media. Um people can argue that it's
41:40deserved but that doesn't mean you get
41:42to violate the first amendment. There's
41:43attacks on higher education. Again you
41:46can feel like it's deserved but it
41:47doesn't mean you get to violate the
41:48first amendment or or existing laws. Um
41:51and then there's the attack on the law
41:52firms. Um which probably is the one that
41:54I think gets the least attention but
41:56probably scares me the most. Oh,
41:58>> when it comes to the media, for example,
41:59like were the group defending Anne
42:01Celzer, um Anne Celzer is the pollster
42:04in Iowa who got the poll really wrong,
42:06um right before uh the election, saying
42:10having Camala up by two points in Iowa.
42:13Um but when it came out, uh she
42:15apologized. She explained how she got it
42:18wrong, saying that she was using
42:19methodology that was really effective
42:21maybe 10 years ago, but has gotten
42:23increasingly ineffective um as fewer
42:26people have landlines and that kind of
42:27stuff because she used to be considered
42:29like the gold standard of pollsters. Um
42:32but she was nonetheless sued by the
42:33Trump by Trump himself. Actually, this
42:35is before um inauguration day for um
42:39under a consumer protection act in the
42:42in Iowa. Um, and the Consumer Protection
42:45Act was really designed for uh
42:48preventing false advertising like like
42:50as in in commercial speech saying that
42:52you know these pills will help you lose
42:5440 pounds a day type things not getting
42:56a poll wrong um which is you know good
42:59faith reporting. Uh so we're defending
43:01her in that case. Then there's also like
43:03the the the 60 Minutes uh situation ABC
43:07News. The 60 Minutes one I I think of as
43:09particularly bad because it really
43:11seemed like the um administration was
43:13dangling um a proposed merger uh with a
43:16with um
43:18>> uh with dance
43:21>> um in in front of CBS to saying kind of
43:24implying we're not going to agree to
43:26this unless you play ball which is good.
43:29>> Um the university stuff nobody's been a
43:31bigger critic of Harvard for example
43:33than I've been. Um they have finished
43:35dead last in our campus free speech
43:36rankings. one of the best and most in
43:39data inensive things that fire does or
43:41like the most data intensive thing that
43:42fire does. Um uh and Harvard was dead
43:47last two years in a row. But we're
43:48currently defending Harvard because the
43:51letter the administration sent to
43:52Harvard was basically saying because
43:54you're probably in violation of title
43:56six, which they may be or and title 7 um
44:00which when it comes to admissions
44:01probably are um that uh you you
44:06essentially have to nationalize Harvard
44:09like basically the government gets to
44:11decide all of the key things about what
44:13Harvard would decide on its own which is
44:15not a power the government's been
44:16granted. And when it comes to the um the
44:19law firms, I mean like that that's the
44:21one that I really I I wrote on this my
44:23Substack, the eternally radical idea
44:25about the um about all of these these
44:28cases. And it started with them just
44:31going after um attorneys who had opposed
44:34the Trump administration, even like
44:35people like Robert Mueller um and where
44:38they had law firms and and saying that
44:40they would be denied their Secret
44:41Service uh protection. uh not secret
44:44service, their um not secret service uh
44:46their um
44:47>> repackage violence. If you're someone
44:49who ordered a strike on Sullean ahead of
44:52the Iranian security forces and you take
44:54away a general security detail, you are
44:56putting that person in harm's way in my
44:58view
44:58>> and get rid of their security clearance
45:00and then also deny them access to
45:02federal buildings which of course
45:03include court uh courtrooms. And that's
45:07that's to me like some of the most
45:09chilling stuff. Now, what can be done
45:10about it? uh the most the the thing
45:12that's happening consistently is that
45:14Trump is losing in court. And so far
45:18he's mostly been abiding by those
45:20rulings. Um I'm a little bit concerned
45:23given how fast and loose sometimes this
45:25administration plays with the rules that
45:27that might not hold up if when push
45:30comes to shove. Um but you know, fingers
45:32crossed. Um, in terms of like what else
45:35people can do about it, I think it
45:37really is a question of what happens in
45:38the next uh in the midterms and then of
45:40course in the presidential election. Um,
45:43but uh it's it's it's troubling but not
45:46unexpected.
45:48>> Yeah. Shocking but not surprising. Uh,
45:50just as we wrap up here, Greg, a lot of
45:52young men listen to this podcast um
45:55based on some of the many challenges all
45:58young people but especially I would
45:59argue some young men in our society are
46:00facing right now. a lot of them are
46:02struggling with their own mental health
46:03and I appreciate how transparent and
46:06vulnerable you were at the beginning of
46:08the podcast talking about your own
46:09struggles and you had said that
46:11cognitive behavioral therapy really
46:13helped you. Can you share
46:15uh some thoughts on your struggles with
46:18your own anxiety and depression and any
46:19advice you might have for young people
46:21who are facing their own challenges?
46:23>> Sure. Um and that's you know and and
46:26it's tough cuz like you know everyone
46:28struggles kind of differently.
46:30Um and and I I really understand um
46:36people's kind of concern about well one
46:39of course the expense of getting a
46:41therapist uh but also the fear that
46:43given that the therapy has to some
46:45degree become politicized that they
46:47don't want to end up in someone with a
46:49therapist who's going to judge them you
46:51know for for for in some cases just for
46:53being a male or for having um you know
46:56non-conforming political views. Um, so I
46:59I get all of that. Uh, but but I did
47:02hear from one uh friend about their
47:05about their kid who basically said he
47:08didn't need therapy because he watches a
47:11lot of podcasts.
47:13Um, and he he's on YouTube a lot getting
47:16advice and it's and it's just not the
47:19same thing.
47:19>> Yeah. That's not the fix.
47:21>> Yeah. So, there's people out there like
47:23Camilo Ortiz, uh, Ortiz, sorry, um, who
47:26is trying to put together aolitical
47:30therapists, you know, um, who or ones
47:32who won't judge you, you know, who won't
47:34let their political opinion interfere
47:36with their therapy, which is amazing
47:37that you have to do that, but you do,
47:39unfortunately.
47:41um and and within so looking for people
47:43who are who are recommended that way for
47:45CBT. There's also some, you know, some
47:48approaches to CBT that actually lend
47:49themselves fairly well to even apps. Um,
47:53which is I don't think it's sufficient.
47:55Uh, but it can help. Uh, but here's the
47:57thing. Unless you make it a John, when
48:01John and I were writing coddling, um, I
48:04kept on sort of like changing language
48:06back because John was talking about how
48:08simple CBT was, and I'm like and I'm
48:10like, it's it it um, uh, and or easy. I
48:14think I think maybe was like a word that
48:15used. I'm like, listen, it may be
48:17simple, but it's not easy because you
48:19have to do it several times a day. You
48:21have to actually do it when those um
48:24self-hating voices come up in your head,
48:26those catastrophizing voices. Otherwise,
48:28your brain will never get in the habit
48:30of talking back to those. And you have
48:32to do it every time they come up. And
48:34you have to do it for pretty like I
48:37would say probably you're not really
48:38going to see much change uh for the
48:41first six months even. But I remember
48:42about 9 months in suddenly being like,
48:45"Wait a second, all these things that
48:46used to pop up in my head, they're not
48:47they don't sound convincing anymore."
48:49And it was really dramatic after that.
48:51So I I definitely believe look into CBT.
48:54I think that, you know, um one thing
48:56that I do a lot when I'm having a hard
48:58time is I go reread Senica's letters to
49:01a young man. I I I find that they're
49:03really approachable. Uh meditation is
49:06very helpful to people. But don't forget
49:08things like things exercise is really
49:10key. And if you're in it, um, there is
49:13something there. My favorite book is
49:15Upward Spiral by Alex Cororb. I highly
49:18recommend I have like a whole thing. I I
49:19have a whole like a Substack um on on
49:23this very issue because since I get
49:24asked it so much and I give kind of all
49:26of my advice.
49:26>> And what's that Substack called or
49:28what's that post called?
49:29>> Well, I don't remember the post is
49:30called, but my substack is the eternally
49:32radical idea. But also, you know, talk
49:34to people about it. Talk to friends. um
49:37that when you're in a really bad way,
49:39there's a sense that nobody's going to
49:40want to hear your hear your whining
49:42about it, but that's just not true. Um
49:45in in in most cases cuz you know, as
49:48hard as it may be made may may be to
49:49believe sometimes when you're really
49:51deep down and dark, um there are people
49:53out there who love you. Greg Lucianoff
49:55is a free speech advocate, first
49:56amendment attorney, president of FIRE,
49:58the foundation for individual rights and
50:01expression and co-author of the coddling
50:03of the American mind, which has probably
50:06had more impact on my parenting than any
50:09book I have read. Uh, and also the
50:12cancelling of the American mind. His
50:13latest book, War on Words: 10 Arguments
50:15Against Free Speech and Why They Fail,
50:18is out next week. He joins us from
50:21Maine. And Greg, I wanted I wanted to
50:23meet you and speak to you for a couple
50:25years cuz one of my role models, uh,
50:28Jonathan Heights, whenever he talks
50:30about you, he speaks about you in such
50:32reverence and with such respect. Uh, so
50:35I was really excited to, uh, have this
50:37conversation. Very much appreciate your
50:38time. Also very much appreciate, uh,
50:41what you said, um, at the end about
50:43cognitive behavioral therapy. Uh, and I
50:46the the take the takeaway I have and
50:48that I hope people take away from this
50:51podcast is when you're really down and
50:53you think everyone's sick of you and
50:54sick of hearing from you and doesn't
50:56have time for you, that that that's just
50:57not true. Uh, so anyways, thank you for
50:59sharing that, Greg.
51:05[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The Canceling of the American Mind — with Greg Lukianoff | Prof G Conversations by The Prof G Pod – Scott Galloway, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,208 words across 1,350 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.