The War of the Words... to be continued? More words were added recently to the insults being traded between Washington and Pyongyang. US President Donald Trump called the North Korean President Kim Jong Un a “madman” last Friday, September 22, a day after Kim named him a “mentally deranged US dotard.” On Saturday, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho in his remarks to the United Nations General Assembly called Trump “a mentally deranged person full of megalomania and complacency” who is trying to turn the United Nations into a “gangsters' nest.” Ri said Trump himself was on a “suicide mission” after the US president had said Kim was on such a mission. Ri also mentioned that Americans call Trump the “Commander in Grief,” “Lyin' King” and “President Evil.” That same day few hours later Trump tweeted: “Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at UN. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!” In an effort to minimise the impact of the president's insults, US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Sunday said on ABC News: “The president doesn't want to be in a nuclear war and we will do everything we can to make sure that doesn't occur,” adding “on the other hand, the president will protect the American people and our allies.” Trump's threats to ‘destroy' North Korea and to reconsider the Iran deal are the main issues now in the talk of Washington. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike against North Korea, with a majority trusting the US military, but not President Trump, to handle the escalating nuclear crisis responsibly. As for dealing with Iran and the nuclear deal Trump also tweeted last Saturday: “Iran just test-fired a Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Israel. They are also working with North Korea. Not much of an agreement we have!” It is expected that Trump might use the October 15 deadline for certifying to Congress whether Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal to announce a new policy towards Iran. Facing the Facebook Following the news of Washington politics in the last two weeks, one can assume that Facebook is in trouble. Its apparent involvement in facilitating Russian propaganda during the 2016 presidential campaign and passive participation in spreading hate messages led many politicians and pundits to come out and to say frankly that Facebook may have created something so big and so complicated that the company now cannot handle it properly or efficiently. ‘It is out of its control,' some have described it. Facebook is living its “Frankenstein moment,” others have dubbed it. Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, announced last Thursday, September 21, that the company would give congressional committees and investigators more than 3,000 Russia-linked ads and would begin disclosing the names of Facebook business accounts that place political ads on its site. More steps are expected to be taken in the coming days --not just by Facebook but by other social media outlets too. An editorial by The New York Times recently shed a spotlight on the bigger picture, saying, “Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google have become a huge force in the political system and in society broadly. While their executives have eagerly embraced their status as disrupters and innovators, they have been reluctant to acknowledge that their creations have been used to do harm.” The editorial continued: “Technology executives have been loath to accept much or any responsibility for the power they and their businesses wield.” In the coming days and weeks we will see how these discussions will proceed. How will tech companies take the responsibility of not allowing harm to reach the public? And how will Congress deal with all these vital issues and attempt to create a regulatory system which can handle the cyber chaos, while at the same time protecting Facebook users' privacy -- their right to know and to express themselves without being exploited, cheated or mislead by others -- in the name of “freedom of expression” or “free flow of information”?
