Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/27/25: Spam Email 2026 Election Takeover, Taylor Lorenz Debates Phone Bans In Schools, Serbia Mass Protests

Episode Date: August 27, 2025

Ryan and Emily discuss spam email PAC, Taylor Lorenz debate on phones in schools, Serbia mass protests.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Hello, it's Danielle Fischel. Rider Strong. And Will Ferdell from PodMeets World. We are back in Las Vegas and giving the people what they want. A full week of Y2K content. Tell me why. Well, for the Backstreet Boys residency at Sphere, of course.

We joke and say this is our second marriage. But it takes a lot of communication. Plus, it's carrot top, baby. And finally, Ashley Simpson Ross joins us to talk about her upcoming sold-out Vegas residency. Listen to PodMeets World on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jay Shetty, and I'm the host of the on-purpose podcast. And today I'm joined by one of the greatest athletes of all time, Novak Djokovic.

He's won 14 grand slams in a glittering career. Novak Djokovic. When you reach your 30, you start counting your days to your retirement. I'm 38 this year. long can I push my own limits. Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or

wherever you get your podcast. December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia Airport. The holiday rush. Parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then, everything changed. There's been a bombing

at the TWA terminal. Just a chaotic, chaotic scene. In its wake, a new kind of enemy emerged. Terrorism. Listen to the new season of Law and Order Criminal Justice System on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com.

A Democratic Senate candidate running in Maine on a platform of getting money out of politics has spent his career entangled with controversial packs created by the notorious email fundraising firm Mothership Strategies. The firm pioneered the hair-on-fire fundraising tactics that often send more money to political consultants than to political candidates. Mothership was recently the subject of yet another viral investigation that revealed that of the $678 million that the company's core political action committees raised since 2018, just $11 million went to candidates, $159 million made its way to mothership strategies. Meanwhile, the firm's spammy approach to email and text messaging,

mock-overdue bills, sky is falling rhetoric, and so on, has left the grassroots commons desicated, draining email fundraising of its potency, and driving many campaigns toward SMS, which is in the process of being destroyed itself. Most fundraising firms, in order to find businesses, in order to find business, pitch themselves to political action committees, which are known as PACs, and they pitch themselves to candidates.

Mothership does that, but also innovated on the notion by simply making its own PACs and then turning them into clients. As long as the PACs spend some of the money they raise on political purposes, contributions to candidates, canvassing operations, producing ads, and so forth, they are perfectly legal enterprises. Now, Mothership has pointed its money vacuum at the main. main Senate race, a true mother load for fundraising consultants. In 2020, Democratic Senate candidate Sarah Gideon raised just under $75 million directly to her campaign before losing to Susan Collins. Yes, $75 million. Outside groups raised and spent another $55 million to boost her or attack Collins, and Gideon even finished with more than $10 million unspent in the bank.

Collins and the Republican side raised and spent equivalent fortunes. Even a reasonable percentage of that haul adds up to a small fortune, and Mothership has never been accused of taking too small of a cut. Now, the candidate in this case is named Jordan Wood, and he's been executive director of two packs in the Mothership ecosystem. His husband, Jake Lipset, is a co-founded. of mothership and remains a partner. Wood and Lipset bought a home in Maine not long after Gideon's loss. In March 2021, Lipset and Wood bought a 4,000 square foot lakeside home in Bristol, Maine,

for $2.15 million, now valued at more than $3 million. Quote, Jordan was born and raised in Lewiston, Maine, and always dreamed of moving home to Maine to raise his family. When Jake and Jordan began planning to start their family, they moved home to Maine, unquote, said Sera. McCarthy, a campaign spokesperson for Wood's campaign. Now, out of the gate, Wood was quickly endorsed by progressive turnout project pack and defend the vote pack, both mothership packs widely derided for their predatory fundraising tactics and minimal level of genuine political activity. In 2019, the Washington Post reported that mothership's, quote, lightning quick rise also has sparked consternation in democratic circles where mothership is sometimes derided as the M word because of its

aggressive and sometimes misleading tactics, unquote. Now, defend the vote since launching in the 2020 cycle has raised and spent just over $11 million, according to FEC records. Of that, 3.8 million has gone to mothership. Spending well over 30% of a total organization's budget on a single fundraising consultant is considered highly unusual. PTP, meanwhile, has raised and spent more than $310 million since its launch in 2015. Of that, $39 million went to Mothership, but even that large number is deceiving. As FEC records show PTP got nearly $90 million of its cash from, quote, affiliated committees. Those committees use Mothership for their fundraising and then move the money to PTP. A budget of PTP's size, the organization

raised $90.3 million for the 2024 cycle, would typically make a political organization a significant player in democratic politics. But Progressive Turnout Project has left barely any visible footprint outside of your email inbox. In fact, go search for a Progressive Turnout Project in your inbox. You probably get their emails. Now, a spokesperson for PTP rejected that characterization, quote, Mothership Strategies has helped power our efforts since day one. The funds we've spent on our digital fundraising program have allowed us to become the largest Democratic field organization in the country, other than the presidential campaign, said PTP. Now, the two PACs have already deployed their massive email lists in the service of fundraising for Jordan Wood, whose campaign

said he has already raised more than $2 million. From a political perspective, the early endorsements were puzzling, as 77-year-old Maine Governor Janet Mills has yet to decide whether to run, which had the effect of largely freezing the field of candidates. The PACs endorsed before knowing who else would run. In the meantime, a new insurgent candidate, Oysterman and veteran Graham Platner, has emerged as a credible challenger, running on a platform of taking on the billionaires on behalf of the working class. At its core, it's a working class ideology that is built in movement politics. So I take my inspirations from the labor movement. I take my inspirations from the civil rights movement. I, American history is not a history

of working people asking permission to get things from those in power. Every good thing that we have gotten, quite frankly, for working people in this country does not come from writing a strongly worded letter to someone in power and then they just give it to you. We need to build power. We need to build organizational power,

both the communities and workplaces. We need to build a much deeper structure of power through our political apparatus in a way that we can leverage it far after campaigns come and go. So a spokesperson for Wood said that his campaign would not work with mothership, quote, Jordan for Maine has not and will not hire Jordan's husband's firm. We are working with a competitor, said Sarah McCarthy, the spokesperson for Wood's campaign. Quote, Jordan is running for Senate because he believes our representatives should be accountable to regular folks, not billionaires or the elites, which is why he won't take a dime from corporate

PACs or lobbyists, unquote. Now, Wood began as the political director for end citizens united, which was birthed by mothership in 2015 as a campaign finance reform project. Wood helped get it off the ground, becoming its finance and PAC director in November 2015, and later its political director and vice president, leaving in January 2020, according to an ECU spokesperson. While Wood was there, ECU paid mothership more than $9 million while raising $73 million, the spokesperson said.

The Wood campaign said Wood campaign said Wood recused himself from ECU's dealings with Mothership once he in Lipset began dating. The PAC eventually became independent of Mothership, completely cutting ties in 23, and Mothership now deploys Defend the Vote as its election integrity-related PAC rather than ECU. Now, notably, while Defend the Vote has endorsed Wood for Senate, ECU, his former organization, has not, despite the fact that he served as its executive director, strengthening ECU's claim to independence from the Mothership Network. In the 2022 cycle, the mothership ecosystem grew with the advent of a new PAC, Democracy First Pack, which made Wood executive director in

September 2022, Wood stepped down in April 2025 to run for Senate while Lipset remains a partner and mothership, which now boasts on its website of having raised nearly a billion dollars for clients that was billion with a B. The PAC Underwood's leadership did not initially hire mothership for email fundraising and instead relied on a handful of major donors, including $3.5 million, the first cycle from philanthropist Lynn Schusterman. But as he left, but as he left, Mothership came in and Democracy First ended up shoveling huge amounts of money their way. The month he left, the PAC funneled more than $500,000 to mothership, followed by another two payments nearing $100,000 total in May and June of.

this year. Woods campaign did not address drop sites specific questions about these payments. And I asked them a follow-up question about these payments specifically, and they ignored it again. Mothership, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment. So then Jordan transferred control of democracy first to Progressive Turnout Project, which subsequently endorsed him. In March, 2003, before Wood left, according to filings with the FEC, March 2025, Democracy First named Harry Pascal, co-founder of Progressive Turnout Project as its treasurer and custodian of records, switched its mailing address to the same address used by PTP and named a slew of mothership packs as, quote, affiliated committees.

Progressive Turnout Project's co-founder, Hannah Giltner, now runs Democracy First. Quote, Progressive Turnout Project was inspired by the work Democracy First was doing and wanted to fold it into their operation to augment. meant their existing state and local work, said Wood's campaign spokesperson McCarthy. Now, in March 2025, Democracy First became affiliated with Progressive Turnout Project, she went on. They went on. We're proud of the work Democracy First has done on the ground electing pro-democracy candidates with field support in key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Progressive Turnout Project wanted to ensure that work would continue into the 2026 cycle.

Democracy First and Progressive Turnout Project were two of the only organizations to provide, support to Pennsylvania State Senator James Malone in his upset special election victory in March. Currently, Democracy First is on pace to spend $1 million in field support for local elections in Pennsylvania this fall and is preparing 2026 plans for Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, unquote. Progressive Turnout Project, the Sister Pack towards Democracy First Pack is likely going to raise tens of millions of dollars from people hoping to oust Susan Collins, much of which will be funneled to Lipset's mothership. Progressive Turnout Project in a statement said that it stands by its early endorsement of Jordan Wood, quote, we've been familiar with Jordan's work for years, and we also understand the importance of fielding a strong competitor against an entrenched Republican incumbent as early as possible, the statement read. We believe Jordan continues to be the most formidable candidate to take on Susan Collins, unquote. Now, Emily, what's so wild about this mothership story is that the world's known about them.

for a very long time. If you have this next element, we can put this Huff Post article up on the screen. This is 2016. I edited this story back in 2016. The headline is this group raised $11 million to defeat Citizens United. So why do people hate them? Is that your headline? I'm sure that was my headline. Story by Paul Blumenthal. Good piece. Go back and read it. And it looks and it's like, wow, look, all of this money is being raised ostensibly for campaign finance reform and then it's getting moved to this fundraising firm and the emails are completely insane and they're driving everybody crazy and everyone in the election reform space hated them soon after that a new president of the board came in and actually ECU starts then moving away

from mothership then in 2019 you put this next element up Washington Post comes in with this like which I mentioned briefly at the top how a little known democratic firm cashed in on the wave of midterm money, this, like, this look into their practices again, this had the effect of getting campaigns, like Assov used them in 2018 for his house race. Doug Jones used them. I'm in Alabama. And they do raise enormous amounts of money. Like those emails work. But then mothership keeps like an enormous percentage of it. And it churns through people's inbox. People are like, okay, fine, I give you money. Go away. Yeah. It's like, ah, you gave us money. you're getting emails forever.

Yeah, you just made it so much worse. So after that Washington Post article, the party basically stopped using them, but they still had all these packs that they've made. So they make a pack, progressive turnout project, whatever, and then they raise money for the pack, then they take money from the pack

for raising money for the pack, and then they do some voter turnout stuff or whatever they do. It's financialization of politics. Yeah, and it's good money. They're making enormous sums of money. To think that you're, you know, if you talk to voters, one of the things they don't like about the party, and I wonder if this is true of Republicans as well, because I don't know what their email habits are, is the text messages and the emails.

Yeah, everybody hates those. It drives people great. And Mothership was the pioneer of all this stuff. And then Mothership's, this guy, and he's going to run for Senate. Well, I mean, to be fair, that strategy got Kamala Harris elected president. There you go. This is carpet bombing your, yeah, text messaging. It worked. And then that's, of course, control the Senate and the House right now.

So you can't argue against the strategy. Was it her husband who on Saturday Night Live was like, Kamala, can I get off these text messages at least? And she's like, no. Hell no. It's not happening. You absolutely cannot. So, okay, the argument for it is that it works to raise money. But the argument against it here is that these packs are not doing much.

No, the money. With all of that money. Yeah, it's a... And it's denuding the comments. Right. It's a vicious cycle because the more you fuel the strategy, the more the money is going to go lining the pockets of the consultants who do the strategy rather than actually getting back to a better point where you can have the money going to the candidates, actual campaign

efforts themselves. Not entirely unlike the Washington Post story this week that revealed the Harris campaign or the DNC agreed to cover the debts of the Harris campaign so long as Hairs. Harris herself was fundraising in the background and trying to raise the money. So Kamala Harris would raise the money if the DNC covered the cost. And it's like a shocking amount. It was like $1.5 billion. And it made like, I don't know, $20 million, something like that, which is good numbers for the DNC. But a lot of that you can go back and look was spent on things like this. And you can do it more money. You can do it another way. The two biggest email fundraisers in

Democratic Party politics are Bernie and AOC. And if you read their... Rodry Taylor Green, too. And I don't know how what hers are like, but if you read, I'm curious, tell me, if you read AOCs or Bernies, they're not this. Yep. They're trying to be inspirational. And they don't say, like, if you don't give $5, like, you know, I'm going to be thrown in prison tomorrow. Oh, you're talking about the pitches themselves.

The pitches themselves. I was talking about small dollar donors in general. Yeah, but so the two biggest are AOC and Bernie, and they managed to raise the money without. bagging predatory stuff in your inbox right so it shows that if you have if people are invested in in you believe in you they will give you money to do that project the problem for the democratic party is nobody's bought into them yeah because what do they stand for so they have to then the only thing left is fear but what is that what is do you know what the do you get her emails no i did yeah i shouldn't have spoke because i didn't i don't know what the tone of her fundraising

pitches are, my guess would be that they're more similar because she has a really similar rate of small dollar dollars. People are into her. Yeah. Yeah, it's actually, she's even higher than some populist Democrats among small, like percentage of your donations that are small dollar. I think actually higher than AOC. Well, you can get a lot of emails and contacts off of Facebook. Like, that's where, so the way that this whole scam works, basically. This is a little Cambridge Analytica E? Yeah, you run Facebook ads to basically attract people onto your email list and then you email them. Democrats are not on Facebook as much as Republicans are nowadays, is my sense.

Yeah. And so, and certainly Bernie AOC's supporters are under 40 and 50. Yep. So they're definitely not on Facebook. So it's actually much harder than to collect their emails. So it would stand a reason that Marjoriella Green's people who are on Facebook and still on email. But anyway, the idea that this, like maybe Jordan Wood is like,

I'm the greatest candidate ever, but like, he's part of this ecosystem that people don't like. And it's part of an arms race. And that's exactly, like, you just end up in this arms race for out fundraising. And then the money keeps going disproportionately in higher increments to the fundraisers instead of to the campaign. And that is absolutely, I mean, I have a friend who's a consultant who has a super flaming hot take on this, which is actually like we spend way more money annually on Halloween candy than we do on presidential election. And like we should be spending way more money in presidential elections and that's the like it. I just think that's completely crazy. I feel like we spend it stupid. Well, of course, yeah. But like a sincere ideological belief that we should be spending way more money. It's self-serving, of course, but it's a sincere argument because we do just spend a lot of money in this country. And hey, if our priority is Halloween candy, like why not actually spend so much money and, you know, it doesn't have to all go to ads. disagree with that and I think most Americans disagree with that and I'm really curious how the

Platner campaign talks about it because at a certain point and I guarantee you the consultants and fundraisers know this you hit a tipping point when people catch on in the emails get sick of the emails we're not yet there we're not yet at peak text or email but we will at some point and then it will not work anymore and they will have to pivot to something else and we'll see what that is but it's not going to always work. And I think at a certain point, the platiners of the world, it becomes valuable to them to actually campaign on these process things. And in Maine, at least, you can't put any more money in. I had a member of Congress from there predict to me that she's like, Sarah getting, wanting to be able to spend this money. Because there are only so many hours of like local

television ads that you can buy. Yes. Yeah. And there's only so much space in somebody's mailbox to cram flyers and these glossy mailers and people are sick because like a lot of people in Maine you have to pay to have your garbage picked up or you or you have to drive it to the dump and you have to pay by weight and now you've got every single day you're getting half a pound of these like political mailers it starts to like take people off so that's one reason she's you know finished the race with 10 million bucks in her bank she's like it's like Bruce or's million is just impossible to spend. And that's why the fundraising consultants are like,

all right, well, how about we'd just take a little bit more from you? Since you can't spend it anyway. I could use another boat. What's good as a lake side house without a boat. We could all use another boat. We invited Jordan Wood on to respond to this. He did not take us up on that offer. So we're not.

We're not trying to be biased here. Right. But we will be texting him 10 times every hour until he agrees with him on. That's right. Yes. We emailed him 155 times, despite him unsubscribing from that. Headlined. All caps. Urgent. Definitely signing him up for drop-site emails. Yes. Oh, that's a good idea. Graham Platner, speaking, which did take us up on the offer. He will be here tomorrow.

That's right. So make sure to stay tuned tomorrow for that. Now, Ryan, let's get to Taylor Lorenz, who was joining us to have a little friendly debate. Who can be so disappointed as not Taylor Swift. No. Well, we started with Swift. Then we thought, about rearranging the block so that it said Taylor Swift on the bottom bar, but... All right, let's bring in Taylor. Hello, it's Daniel Fischel. Writer Strong. And Wilfredel from PodMeets World.

And we're bringing you Viva Las Content. That's right. We are back in Las Vegas, the city of Sin, and giving the people what they want. A full week of Y2K content. Wait, we're back in Vegas? Tell me why. Well, for the Backstreet Boys residency at Sphere of... Of course.

We sat down with Kevin Richardson and A.J. McLean just minutes before they took the stage and our very own Wilfredel basically became the newest member of the band. Boy band, please. Plus, the man who has the longest running comedy show on the strip joins us and gets his props. It's carrot top, baby. And finally, we all L-O-V-E-Hur, Ashley Simpson-Ross, joins us to talk about her upcoming sold-out Vegas residency. It's a full week of nostalgic interviews you don't want.

want to miss. Listen to PodMeets World on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia Airport. The holiday rush, parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then, at 6.33 p.m., everything changed. There's been a bombing at the TWA terminal. Currently, the explosion actually impelled metal, glass.

The injured were being loaded into ambulances, just a chaotic, chaotic scene. In its wake, a new kind of enemy emerged, and it was here to stay. Terrorism. Law and order, criminal justice system is back. In season two, we're turning our focus to a threat that hides in plain sight. That's harder to predict and even harder to stop. Listen to the new season of Law and Order Criminal Justice System on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, I'm Jay Shetty, and I'm the host of the on-purpose podcast, and today I'm joined by one of the greatest athletes of all time, Novak Djokovic. The world's number one, male tennis player. He's won 14 grand slams in a glittering career. Novak Djokovic. You've been through so many injuries, losses. Oh, I've told himself. What has Novak Djokovic done?

What goes through your mind when you lose? I just want to be left alone. What has it taken to become Novak Djokovic? It's a consistent practice. It's prayer work, mindfulness, meditation, conscious breathing. It requires more responsibility from you on a daily basis to prepare yourself for the biggest battle. When you reach your 30, you start counting your days to your research.

retirement. I'm 38 this year. How far can I go? How long can I push my own limits? Listen to On Purpose with Jay Chetty on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Joining us now is Taylor Lorenz, who as often is at the center of some internet discourse this time around the moves by schools that are opening up this week and next to ban phones inside their walls. I told my 14-year-old that we were going to be talking about this and she is utterly shocked and appalled that I think that they should actually have to put their phones away when they go into the school. She's Tim Taylor. And that I disagree with you on this. She's just apoplectic, 100% supportive of your position. From talking to other friends of hers as well as like

I was reading the Jackson Reed student newspaper about it last year when they introduced the band. I think if you polled the students in high school, it would be roughly 99%, if not 100%, opposed to these bands. So, like, they have a view on this that I think does need to be considered. It's unusual that kids would be wrong

and adults would be right. I think that they're wrong. I think that we're right. But I want to hear out your, you know, the best argument. for my daughter's case, because she frankly wasn't making it. She's like, I want to be able to text my friends in class. I'm like, that's not a good argument.

No, we don't want that. We don't want that. She's like, only when we have breaks, though. Uh-huh, of course. Okay. So here's the thing. First of all, no one wants their kids, or no one wants any kids on their phone during class distracted.

Like, no one. No normal person would make that argument. She agrees with that. That's, yeah. And there's a big sort of a wide range of options between laws that are often enforced by campus resource officers, police, and we can get into that, versus rules or norms or, you know, other ways of sort of like curtailing cell phone behavior use during class. So my opposition is specifically to the laws, you know, if schools, if teachers want to have certain policies, if they want, you know, everyone to put their phone in a basket. or these little pocket things that they make now for classrooms, you know, that's totally fine.

I think that's great. I would encourage teachers to kind of cultivate their own learning environments. But I think once we get into these blanket laws, there can be a lot of unintended effects. And I think that we are not discussing a lot of those unattended effects. And specifically, I'm concerned with the sort of civil liberties implications with some of the laws. So, yeah, if you could flesh out what some of the civil liberties implications of that might be, I think Ryan and are both on the same page, particularly Ryan has done reporting on this over the years about how some of the unintended consequences of sweeping laws that are, they're able to be implemented.

They get the political permission structure to be implemented by lawmakers because they're addressing a serious problem. And then the attempt to address a serious problem has unintended consequences because they're able to do the power grab. Everyone was sort of desperate for some type of solution. So I don't object to the idea that there may be unintended consequences here. Tell us a little bit about what you think they might be, Taylor. Yeah, so we've had tech bans in the past. And I would say the closest corollary to this is actually the beeper ban. This was a little before my time.

But back in the early 90s, there was this really big panic about beepers. Kids had the beepers going off in class. Like pagers were a new thing. This was a big distraction at school. And there was a lot of concern about beepers. And the implication was that people use beepers for, like, drug use. So there was this moral panic around them. we saw how those laws played out

where basically hundreds of kids ended up having interactions with police some kids ended up with criminal records in one Chicago school dozens of kids were arrested and kids were just having these regular interactions with the police already I talked to a parent

in L.A. just last week who was talking about this exact issue where the teachers rightfully in certain environments don't want to enforce these bans or the administrators and we have an increasing number of police in school

campus resource officers, which is actually skyrocketed since the days of those beeper bans. And those are often the people that are sort of tasked with enforcing these bans. So it ends up just being this quite discriminatory policy where they just sort of harass kids. They, you know, and it just leads to more interactions with kids and police. So I'm sort of against that. I also think that we have to look at this law in the context of this broader legislative and political effort that we're seeing right now to restrict kids from access to the internet. And I can get into that more broadly, but I think a lot of people have been sort of talking

about things like age verification and these other things. And this law is very much tied, like these laws, rather, are very much tied in this broader political effort to sort of censor the internet. And before we go into some of that, I wanted to get to address the related controversy that you're inside now. You've been going back and forth with a couple people on Twitter, including Rachel Cohen Booth, who... flagged, maybe we can put up, what do we have?

Decided to say that I was paid by a phone company. I am not paid by a phone company. Never have been paid by a phone company. I don't know what. Like, that really bothered me. But you did put up the tag paid sponsors. No, I did it. No, no, no.

Well, let's put out her in their case and then have you respond to it. Their case is that, so you did a TikTok for, that you, that about bark, which is a, you can tell us in a moment. Child safety software, yeah. In the post, it said hashtag ad, and it had a link that had a long code at the end of it. A tracking code. You said you're doing this in partnership with Barks. The screenshot we had right there did have the tag paid partnership, which I think you've explained. So the reason I know, guys, oh my God.

This is such a derailing thing. The way that on TikTok, and I understand for people that don't use TikTok, they don't understand this. There's only one way to tag promotional content. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you click promotional content on TikTok, it comes up as paid. And that just means that the brand can put money behind it. It doesn't mean that you got money. I've been extra, extra careful where even things that I'm not paid for, I'll mark it as promotional because I am making something promotional, like, hey, I really like this product. But me making a, like, free promotion for child safety software that I use, that by the way, is completely

is unrelated and is actually on the same side as you guys on these bands. It's just so absurd and ridiculous. And I think it just shows the attempt that people will go to to sort of smear and attempt to discredit anybody that even raises issues with this. I have been reporting on this topic for eight years. Like I've been writing about all of these laws, the broader political effort. I've been talking about people like Jonathan Haidt, whoever, are going into these school districts and specifically lobbying for these laws, the interest groups around that. This is something that I've covered for a long time. And I'm actually, you know what, who's actually paying me is this program, this Reporters and Residence program that I'm in right now, where I'm

specifically, I got into the program talking about covering these laws. That's what I, like, am being paid for is basically this fellowship program. So it's just very silly. But, but, but yeah, I mean, I... You did post screenshots, or somebody posted screenshots of the company saying she was not paid. Yeah, the company has said many times on the record, she's not paid. But it's like I think people will just jump to anything where they just kind of want to make up a narrative because they want to discredit this issue.

And this is very normal in moral panics. I write a lot about moral panics. And I'm not saying that necessarily kids being on their phone in class is moral panic, but this issue is very tied to a broader moral panic about cell phones where people are convinced that they're making kids sort of mass unalive themselves and things like that, not to use YouTube learning Lego.

You could see why people thought from the way that it was presented. Sure, of course, of course. But also, like, well, of course, I can understand, like, people getting confused. But at that point, you have me responding, and I was at a funeral that day, so I didn't have the chance to respond quite so quickly as people might have liked. But then the company issuing multiple statements saying, you know, this is just not the case. You've misunderstood the situation. But, you know.

Okay. Well, so the question on the moral panic. Yes. it's just it does seem to me well first of all just in my own life I'm not a kid anymore my brain is better formed than kids that we're still developing but even myself since smart smartphones have come around I I think I read less I do I do more audiobooks I used to be able to sit down and read you know 10 20 30 pages at a stretch and then take a little break or something now it's like a page and a half and I find myself like distracted or scrolling Combine that with the rates of anxiety and depression that we're seeing this society. Why are we, like, why are we wrong to link these things? You could combine that with the rate of baggy pants, Ryan, and you would find also a correlation. That doesn't mean that those things...

Well, pants have gotten actually skinnier in that period of time. Skinny pants. So what I would caution people against is making these broad-based conclusions. We actually had quite literally... I'm not distracted from the book to, like, look at my baggy pants. Well, but you are making that correlation that does not exist in research. And we have the top, the top, top, top researchers, people like Candice Odgers, who wrote a great piece for the Atlantic on this exact topic, Alice Marwick, like people that have studied this issue in depth for years and years and years, coming out and saying, hey, we actually do know the cause of some of these broader issues, anxiety, all of these other things. things. We know those causes and they're not related to phones. There is no correlation between

those things. And it is just a fact based on the research that we have that that is just not a sort of a clear correlation. That's not to say that Ryan- What does she say they are? Oh gosh, you have to read her piece. It's kind of long and I don't want to mess it up. But all sorts of things. I mean, one in six kids is growing up below the poverty line. Like, I don't know, just all of these other things that kids are dealing with. Like they're growing up in pretty stressful world. And they're told, just the way that I was told that video games were, you know, destroying our lives back in, you know, when I was growing up, we had the video game sort of panic where people were like, oh, these kids spend hours and hours on the video games.

It's destroying their mental health. It's making them violent. Like, we've seen these moral panics play out over and over and over again. That doesn't mean that everyone has a healthy relationship with their phone and you shouldn't worry. What we know is that the way that you are can often inform your behavior. So if you are already depressed and you go, down a rabbit hole, that can exacerbate it or whatever. But it is sort of like it is more a symptom rather than the problem. And when we're treating it as the problem rather than the symptom of the problem, we don't ever get to address the sort of core issues. And often, and there are core issues that sort of lead to these mental health issues among children. And again, that does not mean

that they should be able to sit on the cell phones all day. But what I would say is a lot of this moral panic is tied to content. So you'll see these people saying like, they're going to sit on TikTok all day, right? They're going to sit in class all day, like, on TikTok. And the concern is more about the content and this sort of villainizing of short-form video content. Well, I was going to say, I don't disagree with you because you shared a sub-sac

that's been going pretty viral. I think from somebody who, like, disagrees with you on a lot of different things. And someone had sent that to me separately as well. And it's about how the argument is that these bands are a way to shoehorn sort of content bands. And I don't actually disagree that that's, that's probably the case with some people that it's kind of a gateway to age verification laws

and certain things that do genuinely encroach on civil liberties and creativity and freedom and all of that. I want to get your take, though, on, I mean, I'm looking at, I have three studies pulled up, one from plus one, one from scientific reports, and this other one is from, I just want to say, before you pull up any studies, we have to look at the body of research, and we have to look at how, and I can't speak to these specific studies. Sure. But what I would say is that all of the top researchers on this topic, this specific topic, got together last year

and issued an 82-page report surveying the overwhelming amount of sort of studies on this topic and debunked this, a lot of misleading studies pushed by this man, Jonathan Haidt, which is sort of these most popular person. I'm not even going to get into height here. The other one here is from the Journal of Association for Consumer Research, and I'm not, I mean, I'm not an expert on this.

So I'm just saying these are, these are studies not about anxiety or any of that. This is a study that shows, and this is particular to the phone ban issue, I think it's salient. Separately, that show the kind of brain drain phenomenon. I think we all probably feel this intuitively, or maybe you disagree, which is that as you're doing studies,

even having a phone near you, even if it's like flipped down, reduces cognitive capacity. And so on the question of whether or not it's proper for a school district to say we're locking these guys up in yonder pouches from the beginning of the school day to the end of the school day to the end of the school day, it seems to me that addresses

the very specific question of whether kids' cognitive capacity is harmed while they're learning because their phones in their backpack. Yeah, but like these studies are so dubious. Like, often these are industries, like, or they're funded by people with specific political agendas, like, et cetera, et cetera.

You also have to consider this is not some... I can say that about the big tech funded studies that go in the other direction, too. But there's tons of non-big tech funded studies. And again, you have to look at the overwhelming body of research and the overwhelming body of research on the cognitive capacity question. What about the cognitive capacity question?

The cognitive capacity question is a good question, but here's the thing that you have to consider. All of these school districts are different. And this is, again, I'm not saying that this means kids can be on their phone all day in class. I'm just against these laws where certain places you put the phone away, but you're on a laptop.

You're on a really high functioning, great laptop, and that's totally fine and you're sort of connected. A lot of school districts, the phone is the only word processor people have when you start to block them away, you're, you know, 15% of kids are disabled. A lot of kids use these as learning aids. And I know that's hard to believe, but a lot of times the phone is the only sort of computer that kids have in school. And we haven't even gotten into this yet.

But because of big tech lobbying and other things, we have had, and because we just are trying to prepare kids for the modern world, we have integrated technology into every part of the learning process. And so sort of, and just our lives and sort of take this one, piece away without addressing and without having any funding. These laws don't come with like funding initiatives or whatever to fix the broader infrastructure. It sort of just

leaves kids less prepared. I would also say we want to teach kids restraint and control. We want to teach kids. What we don't want is for them to go off when they're 18 to college and not know how to self-regulate their own technological use, right? We want to give them a safe environment

where there are guardrails where they're not allowed to sit on the phone all day long but where we can teach them restraint. Otherwise, you're just prolonging the inevitable because phones, as much as this political effort is trying, are not going to be banned from public life, hopefully anytime soon, for adults or the workplace. And so we want to encourage a healthy relationship with tech,

if that makes sense. It always has struck me as odd that schools are filled with all of these different electronic devices, and they focus on this one thing. Still, on the other hand, you don't think there's, so what, from your perspective, what do the studies say about the effect of screens on developing brains and on kids? Yeah. Well, that's a big, there's a big question, right? Because you have like, if you talk about screens on developing brains, like you don't want to put a one-year-old in front of a screen all day or something. But, but overwhelmingly, I mean, I think Candace Adgers has really just been the best. encourage people to seek out her work and Alice Marwick. These are two brilliant researchers that have really spoken about this at length. But this idea of like screen time and the panic

over screen time is just very imprecise. And the reason that the studies don't show anything is because it completely depends what your screen time is. You could be using your screen time to consume content that is making you feel bad or something. Or you could be using your screen time to text your friends and be creative and make creative work. We want people to do the We want to teach kids to use their phone in healthy and creative ways. And when we tell the kids, especially when the primary way that kids use their phone is through texting, the primary way that kids use social media is actually DMing with each other. It's not scrolling the feed.

Adam Masari came out and even said that. So we don't want to villainize communication. We want kids to stay in healthy, productive communication with each other and not bully each other and have positive experiences with each other and have social interaction, especially queer kids, you know, kids that are from marginalized groups who rely on these online connections a lot more than other kids. But we just want to

give them a healthy way to do that and teach them boundaries. And the best way to do that is to teach it to them when they're young, not to completely ban devices until they turn 18, and then it's a complete free-for-all. It's just that's not an effective way to teach anybody healthy media consumption.

What about parents who, let me try this one out. What about parents who say they don't actually, they don't give their kids phones, they don't want their kids to phones, they worry, they read the studies differently, they have different perspective on it, and they don't want their kids to be exposed to phones at all. So the bans then allow those parents to allow their kids to have a phone-free childhood without then getting shown something in between classes that actually from the content perspective may be harmful. Maybe take your example of maybe it's a queer kid and someone shows something on the phone between classes

that is harmful to their mental health and their parents want to be able to prevent that? Why not allow parents to let their kids make that decision for their own kids? Because you can't control that between classes. No, but what I would say is that you should be careful with that decision. We know actually that the mental health of kids that have the smartphone sooner is actually more positive. Like they have better mental health because they're able to get in touch with friends. And ironically, it's also been found that like poor kids have access to phones much more easily than richer kids. So it's not explained by, you know, income. And that is because they're able to keep in touch with friends.

You know, there's a study that came out that recently found that as well, that like kids actually spent more time outside with, you know, with friends because they were able to make plans. So you want kids to be able to communicate with friends. This idea of this like phone-free childhood, again, we live in a world. I know that there's these political efforts, the people that are selling the phone-free childhood idea, they're also pushing a lot of other reactionary political efforts that would censor adults from content, too.

want to go to a world before phones and before the internet. I admit to that. Yeah, me too. Well, guys, let me tell you, there's a lot of bad about the internet. And I've written about bullying. And trust me, no one is saying, I just have to reiterate this again, that you should have unmitigated access to your cell phone all day when you're 13 years old. You have to teach healthy internet use.

But we live in the world. And if you want your kids to be competitive, and if you want your kids to be able to function and have a job and make it through college, you do need to teach them these skills. And I understand the fights that come with it. But the way that we can fight these addictive algorithms and I think the problems that a lot of people have with the phones in terms of the content is through comprehensive data privacy reform. You want less addictive algorithms. You want less predatory apps. You want less control of big tech and more nonprofit driven online spaces that are about community. Join me in advocating for privacy laws and data, you know,

data privacy specifically, we will never get those laws if this political effort to ban the phones and age restrict everything is successful. And let me just say one other thing. At the same time that they are banning phones, these schools are doing partnerships with surveillance software companies that will do facial recognition to determine who's allowed to be on campus and who's not harvesting detailed biometric data on children. All of this stuff that could have significantly worse consequences for them down the line. Yeah, I saw a couple of months ago you write about those studies that you just referenced, and that was one of the first times where I was like, oh, this is kind of interesting.

You did a piece about how the studies were showing that kids that didn't have access to phones at all, like had worse mental health outcomes. But that's also the collective action, right? Because if you need to have a supplement to make plans with your friend, it's because your friends also all that. Right. Right. And I think there's a balance. I just think there's a balance here. And I just think before we jump to laws that will be enforced by campus police officers, we should have a more balanced discussion of what we're trying to achieve and what the realistic tradeoffs are, because there are realistic tradeoffs here. You know, not to mention the problems with parents and shift work and, you know, there's just so many down the line. So from your perspective, final question, what should what should parents do? God. I think it depends on the type of school that you have and it depends on your child's educational environment and who your child is and how they're using their phone. I am against, like, I am against, you know, again, just like giving your kid completely unsupervised internet time and unsupervised phone time forever, obviously. You want to slowly introduce. And the reason I was talking in the first place for free about like child, you know, protection software is because it sort of allows parents to have a little bit more control over their kids online experience. I think it's good to introduce kids to phones.

I think having restrictions, parental restrictions, taking it away during certain times of the day, teaching them moderation and how to work with phones and use their phone in a healthy way and communicate in a healthy way. It's helpful. And just that's broad. The internet, the other thing is that, like,

these phone conversations are going to be irrelevant. Kids have Apple watches, smart glasses. The internet is getting more and more integrated into every part of our life. We're going to have wearables soon. So we have to help kids have this healthy relationship with the internet while they're still young. Ryan is an elder millennial, but as a junior...

I mean, I was in school during the Beeper thing. And, yeah, it was like pitched largely as about drug dealers. And it's like, kind of drug dealers like getting pinged in class. About one. But I was just going to say, as a junior millennial, my high school was cut in half by the smartphone. And I fully, fully concede to being part of a moral panic. And so I'm a proudly conceded to be a moral panic.

I'm a much, much different side of this than you are at Taylor, but we appreciate you. coming here and making the case and allowing us to have this discussion. Yeah, thank you for having me. And please don't, please don't destroy me online. I'm just trying to add a little nuance to the conversation. Tell people where they can find your work. Yeah, I'm on YouTube at Taylor Lorenz. I have a series called Free Speech Friday where I talk about civil liberties concerns and tech policy. So I talk about this stuff specifically. And I'm everywhere else just at Taylor Lawrence. Well, thank you so much for coming on. Thank you. Hello, it's Daniel Fischel.

Writer Strong. And Wilfredel from PodMeets World. And we're bringing you Viva Las Content. That's right. We are back in Las Vegas, the city of sin, and giving the people what they want. A full week of Y2K content. Wait, we're back in Vegas?

Tell me why. Well, for the Backstreet Boys residency at Sphere, of course. We sat down with Kevin Richardson and A.J. McLean just minutes before they took the state, and our very own Wilfredel basically became the newest member of the band. Boy band, please. Plus, the man who has the longest running comedy show on the strip joins us and gets his props. It's carrot top, baby. And finally, we all L-O-V-E-Hur, Ashley Simpson-Ross, joins us to talk about her upcoming sold-out Vegas residency.

It's a full week of nostalgic interviews you don't want to miss. Listen to PodMeets World on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia Airport. The holiday rush, parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then, at 6.33 p.m., everything changed. There's been a bombing at the TWA terminal. Apparently, the explosion actually impelled metal, glass. The injured were being loaded into ambulances, just a chaotic, chaotic scene.

In its wake, a new kind of enemy emerged, and it was here to stay. Terrorism. Law and Order Criminal Justice System is back. In Season 2, we're turning our focus to a threat that hides in plain sight. That's harder to predict and even harder to stop. Listen to the new season of Law and Order Criminal Justice System on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jay Shetty, and I'm the host of the on-purpose podcast, and today I'm joined

by one of the greatest athletes of all-time Novak Djokovic. The world's number one, Mayo Tennis player. He's won 14 grand slams in a glittering career. Novak Djokovic! You've been through so many injuries, losses. I always heard himself. What has? Novak Djokovic.

What goes through your mind when you lose? I just want to be left alone. What has it taken to become Novak Djokovic? It's a consistent practice. It's prayer work, mindfulness, meditation, conscious breathing. It requires more responsibility from you on a daily basis to prepare yourself for the biggest battle. When you reach your 30, you start counting your days to your retirement.

I'm 38 this year. How far can I go? How long can I push my own limits? Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Slightly different kind of segment here. We have new reporting from DropSight on the ground in Serbia from journalists there. Let's just go ahead and roll this. Hey, hello!

Hey, hello! Police, they're all right. The President, I'm going to go. Oh, my Godine, 15 minutes of chutonement, This is the new railway station in Serbia, built in 1964. After a recent renovation, it was officially reopened in July, 2024. Just a few months later, on November 1st, 2024, at 11.52 a.m., at 11.52 a.m. a concrete canopy, weighing over 300 tons, collapsed, killing a total of 16 people.

Following the renovation, the station building had neither an occupancy permit nor a completed technical inspection. The initial estimate for the works was 3 million euros. In the end, the cost rose to 16 million. The station was renovated as part of the construction of the high-speed rail from Belgrade to the Hungarian border, a project of national importance carried out under a Serbia-China agreement. In Serbia, such deals are commonly made behind closed doors. In the aftermath of the tragedy,

the investor-Chinese partners, Serbian railways and President Alexander Wuchitch all stated that the collapsed canopy had not been part of the reconstruction. It would later emerge that each of these claims was false. Modifications to the canopy had in fact been carried out. In the first days following the collapse, those responsible were largely neither detained nor held in custody, with most released pending trial or allowed to remain under house arrest.

Fifteen days after the tragedy, tributes to the victims begin across Serbia, held every Friday at 1152 a.m. 22 days after the collapse, students were assaulted by officials and members of the ruling party while paying tribute in front of a university building in Belgrade. The protests swell in size. In the days that follow, students initiate blockades at the more than 60 universities and colleges across the country.

To the public, this marks a course. completely unexpected response from a student population, long seen as apathetic and disengaged from politics. The students advocate for the rule of law, the fight against corruption, strong institutions and respect for the legal system. They demand accountability. They distance themselves from political parties and refuse to meet with the president, stating that their demands do not fall under his constitutional authority, but under the jurisdiction of other institutions. They receive support from the public in Serbia,

as well as from students in neighboring countries of the former Yugoslavia. Decision-making within the movement is based on the principles of direct democracy. Resolutions are adopted at General Assemblies by a majority vote of those present. Every voice can be heard, every proposal can be put to a vote. As they occupy their university buildings, students put forward an initial

set of four demands. First, they call for the full release of all documentation related to the reconstruction of the Novisad Railway Station, records that are currently unavailable to the public. Second, they demand that the relevant authorities confirm the identities of those suspected of physically assaulting students and professors, and that criminal proceedings be launched against them, along with their dismissal if they hold public office. Third, they call for all charges against arrested or detained students to be dropped, and for all ongoing criminal proceedings against them to be halted. Fourth, they demand a 20% increase in the budget for public universities.

Motiv, so, to change the system. I would want to live in a society where are, like, promen of the society, might be able to be. One of the usual man is so putted, and is putted on the side, the hands are absolutely zavisand, there's no possibility to be able to some,

so, to say, the right, the people who, say, like, say, not so, ...prolase, it's uncazhnial, for many things that are... ...that are, of course, on the upchoice of a bit of a bit of a bit of a lot of a student,

a... ...proscienting, a... ...within us, we all of the way down to dinosaurs. ...students, and students, and students, and students, and teachers, and professors. Well, corruption in this society in our country is so deep, it reached all the way down to dinosaurs. ...pweigh! ...pweigh! ...! ...!

How could you know! How could you translate Pumpe in English? Keep adding the positive energy, don't stop and don't lower the tension. Oh, Dijitencia! Oh, Dijitensie! Oh, Dijitzee! Dijitensie! Oh! Bupoy! Bucoy! Bucoy!

Bucoy! Bucoy! Bucoy! We want to live in a country where there's a institution, do we do it, how they're doing

to do it, don't know what I want, but that I can't say, and say, in the instraue on that to be left

and this, all of all, Students, I'm going to eat, no rest. Students organize gatherings in multiple cities across Serbia, reaching them through multi-day protest marches, which, as many have said, in some way sent a pulse through the country. the country. I don't know how much.

I don't know what I'm going to how do you? How do you feel you? I don't know what I'd say this. This is emotion, how much, and how much love, this,

oh, oh, how much, how are you, how much, for sveny. Our is, Let's hear that we have that we have such a support.

We're going to be. Oh! Bravo! Samunapri! Samanepre! Chao! Dessa! Samunepre!

I was ataba, no, see. I was at him. No, we'll go. Be able to love! Bees you love! How do you feel like you?

How do you feel? And... You're soo, you're too. Yeah, very, yoke. Who's you know? What's you know? In what? In the end?

Inns. How is this? It's so hot. Zulia? Shulia. SIRCE? Nothing. It's just and vegan.

These kids are elubavila Serbian. That is the opus of all of this. This is a group of beautiful, people who, Yassim, know what wants and what

he wants, and they're very cultural, fine, people, eloquent, water, rachuna, one or other. So, that is just privilege with them to give them

time. What are you? Biohemia. Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you?

How will be you? Mutskka? We'll be a better. Don't know. President Voochich has ruled Serbia for 13 years. While the country is formally on the path toward European integration,

Voochich continues to cultivate ties with both Moscow, and Beijing. His rule is described by the Serbian opposition as increasingly autocratic. Serbia remains one of the few countries that has not imposed sanctions on Russia. Even as negotiations over the status of Kosovo continue are the close international supervision. Meanwhile, Serbian ammunition is being sent to both Ukraine and Israel. The European Commission has included the lithium mining project in Serbia, led by the company Rio Tinto, among the projects of strategic importance for the European Union. There is a growing sense that Wuchich enjoys the backing of all major world powers, who, preoccupied with their own crisis, pay little more than lip service to concerns over Serbia's internal political situation. Photography!

What's going to go to chelikas! Student, still, da, laxie. Faso, we're allishtra! Slaghan, we're big! We're our chelika! Yachti's fochelika! We've got, we've got to sit here. We're just going to sit here.

At the end of November 2024, During a commemoration for the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy, an incident occurred in the town of Pojadev. To unhapsed a man who was a vehicle. How before, to unhapped a man who didn't precarished the law? You've got to someone on the put, he said, I am, God, and bathe on this country, I don't you to go you to go. And you're going to govip. And you say, you're going to stop him on the automobile.

And you say, you are you know, of that he was a automobile. Are you normal? Are you normal? From the office? In late January, after four young men emerged from the offices of Wuchich's party in Novi Sad and fractured a female student's jaw in three places using baseball bathe. Serbian Prime Minister Milochevich submitted his resignation.

Just over three months later, President Voochich referred to those same party members as heroes, and later pardoned them. People, can't even a ball a dog who has made a kiflista over there. Wuchich and members of his ruling party labeled the protesters as foreign paid agents, accusing them of working on behalf of outside powers to overthrow both the government and the state. It is not to be it to aboen revolution. And it's true to say right, and not to lax in the world. Now, we'll back a political underage,

these slugam, those who are who wanted to do a boon revolution. Propal there is a boistered revolution. Propal them and a boistered me. In their pursuit of justice, the students visited European institutions, cycling for 13 days to Strasbourg and then running a relay ultramarathon for 18 days to Brussels. On March 15th, the largest gathering in Serbia's history took place in Belgrade. with some 300,000 people responding to a call from the student movement. During the event, some form of sonic weapon was reportedly used,

a claim supported by testimonies from over 3,000 citizens. The government denied all such allegations, dismissing the public's reaction as staged and orchestrated. No, nobody, not yet not yet any kind of any kind of

such a sound, the audio, as you have you have been written, or anything,

I'll say, I'll know, no, no, no, no, that's not

anything, not that's not, madecha, uh, unoged, and documentoveno, you want to

go back this statement, a photograph surfaced, showing a police vehicle equipped with an LR-R-A-D-450

X-X-L-E, acoustic device in front of the Serbian parliament during the protest. The Minister of Internal Affairs then offered an explanation. He's what it. He can do you, God, in some catastrophes. He did a bojure. To be able to come, we'll just ask people to not come. This is a test of the long-range acoustic device.

As their original demands remain unmet after six months of progress, On May 5th, the students issue a new demand, early elections in Serbia. They state they will not run as candidates themselves, but will vote on a candidate list through their general assemblies. Meanwhile, repression against dissent in Serbia is intensifying. There are political arrests and persecutions, widespread surveillance, raids on civil society organizations, organizations and the expulsion of foreign nationals.

But I think we're off Monday. I think the show's off Monday because it's Labor Day weekend, so. That is correct. So no show, Monday. So you really got to be there for Friday. If you want the whole show on Friday, not just the first half, breakingpoints.com, become a premium member, supports everything we do here. I've also been arguing that we should do the Friday show live for premium members.

Right. Because why not? Like, we've got nothing to hide. The sneakiest thing Ryan does is just talk about some of our internal discussions on air so that he can then use. viewer feedback to fuel his position. People are demanding it now. The people are crying out for the Taylor Swift segment. But no, I think live would be fun.

We don't really edit it anyway. No, it just goes up. Although sometimes our DMs open when we share our Twitter. Yeah, that's got to be on us. We just got a better op-sec, like do what Griffin does, which is log out. Yes. We can all learn from Griffin. Well, so we'll be here Friday.

Maybe we'll, because we'll be off Monday, shove some extra stuff in. So great to make up for being off on Labor Day. So maybe we'll do that. Make sure that you're subscribed over at breakingpoints.com. But other than that, Chris and Soccer will be here tomorrow. We'll be with them or some combination of them Friday. And if you're not there Friday, you've got to be their Friday. But if you're not, we'll see you back here next Wednesday.

That's right. See you then. Hello, it's Daniel Fischel. Writer Strong. And Wilfredel from PodMeets World. We are back in Las Vegas and giving the people what they want. A full week of Y2K content. Tell me why.

Well, for the Backstreet Boys residency, it's fear, of course. We joke and say this is our second marriage. But it takes a lot of communication. Plus, it's carrot top, baby. And finally. Ashley Simpson Ross joins us to talk about her upcoming sold-out Vegas residency. Listen to PodMeets World on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jay Shetty, and I'm the host of the on-purpose podcast,

and today I'm joined by one of the greatest athletes of all time, Novak Djokovic. He's won 14 grand slams in a glittering career. Novak Djokovic! When you reach your 30, you start counting your days to your retirement. I'm 38 this year. How long can I push my own limits? Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia Airport.

The holiday rush, parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then everything changed. There's been a bombing at the TWA terminal. Just a chaotic, chaotic scene. in its wake a new kind of enemy emerged terrorism listen to the new season of law and order criminal justice system on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts this is an iHeart podcast