Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Joe Rogan Podcast Mark Zuckerberg Interview Breakdown | End of Censorship?

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

In this episode, we dive deep into the latest Joe Rogan podcast featuring Mark Zuckerberg and revisit their previous interview to compare and contrast key differences. Is this the beginning of the end for censorship, or is it a calculated move by a tech leader to adapt and align with the incoming Trump administration? Tune in as we unpack the implications and hidden messages behind this fascinating conversation.Listen To Watermelon Rattlesnake here

And welcome to Investor On my God, my Wantshurtzherty. On tonight's episode, we're talking about Zuckerberg, appears on the Joe Rogan podcast to try to convince you guys that he's not a complete piece of shit. He's actually really good. He's a patriot. And now he's in jiu-jitsu and everything's good.

He's not going to censor you guys anymore or completely high. the truth or interfering elections or I don't know you name what Facebook meta and Instagram has done for so many years now we've had podcasts on this for probably at least six years and so we're going to break down a little bit of the Joe Rogan podcast and revisit two years ago where Zuckerberg went on the Joe Rogan podcast and talked about the Hunter Biden laptop story the whole nine but by the way guys before we get into that I want to highlight the artist that we are featuring tonight It is watermelon rattlesnake on Spotify or wherever you listen to music.

Please go follow and support this artist. A good friend of mine. We've known each other for a long time. Been in the music game for quite a while. Ben has both been in California and South Carolina and some of these other places. Great artists. I think his music is really good. I hope he continues this project.

Because he's really good. He actually used to be a part of a band called The Valkyry back in a day. And that's when I actually originally. he met him and kind of new Ben and great band but now he's doing a solo project so i do encourage each and every one of you to go support watermelon rattlesnake the project yeah he definitely has a california vibe to him yeah for sure i just love that it's like laney kind of yeah yeah i don't know to me that kind of music is just sexy yeah yeah well no it is i mean laney uh great band uh great band out of California, amazing artist.

And yeah, so Ben kind of reminds me of that, but he has his own, he has his own vibe. So go follow Watermelon Rattlesnake. We'll probably play the entire song at the outro of this show. But guys, welcome to the show. We are, we're not that long until

the inauguration. What is it? The 14th. January 20 at six days. Yeah, it's insane. So we got the inauguration coming up. We know our good friend Nathan Jones is going to be at the inauguration. He's actually currently dress shopping for his daughter to go to the inauguration. Could you imagine just being a little girl getting to go and experience all that?

Yeah, that's pretty cool. I think that's so neat. And I don't know if Nathan's going to join us for this show or not. It depends on when he gets home from dress shopping. I actually called him. I was like, what are you doing? He's like, I'm dress shopping. I was like, oh, what kind of dress are you going to get?

What do you think you're looking at? So it was kind of a little jib-jib joke. Yeah, he's like, yeah, it's not my dress. It's my daughter. So, okay there. Yeah, he loves his daughter, Severance. much, though. And it's so good to see that. They're good girls. Yeah, they just actually got

back from South America. They were there for probably a week and a half. And so it was kind of some crazy stores. I think they didn't even have water at one of a a very nice hotel for like 18 to 24 hours. Wow. And then didn't even get any, you know,

compensation for it or nothing. So it was kind of interesting. But guys, welcome to the show. We are still recovering out there, but we're getting our way back. There's a lot of stuff going on. We got a lot going on tomorrow. We're having to put two dogs down tomorrow.

Not one but two. And this is really killing us. It's been very hard. Not only has Chad been sick. Well, I was sick. And then Chad's been sick. And Chad's not getting well. And on top of that,

our dogs have just gone downhill two of them, not the Beagle, the other two. And it's really putting a lot of like worry on my heart and anxiety. Tonight, I mean, this afternoon, I had to make myself take a nap because I had so much anxiety.

I don't know what to do with it. Yeah, it's been crazy, man. It's been a tough three weeks, but we're here. We're hanging out with you guys. We hope that all of you out there, no matter what you're going through, we hope that you look at the glass half full rather than half empty. And that's what I've had to do. I think that's what we always have to do at some point in times in our life.

Nothing, no matter what and no matter how good things can go, can drastically change in an instant. And also take this in mind as well, the same way that that can happen. when you are in the worst part of your life, just understand that that's not going to last forever either. And you always have to be optimistic because you bring into your life what you project and what you know is going to happen. And I think a lot of that is God personally. It is. So depending on God and just keep yourself uplifted, keep yourself optimistic. No matter what you're going through right now, I promise you'll get better.

And we've always said, if you guys ever need anybody to talk to, reach out to us. Our email, by the way, is investigate early. Earth Podcast at ProtonMill.com because Google has basically banned all of our emails that we have used. Isn't that crazy? Like Google, we cannot even use Gmail. Yeah. Well, no, we can't. I mean, even I remember Sherry back in the day, we were corresponding with the Alex Jones show a couple of times. And then all of a sudden, I think it was three months later, we tried to respond to an Alex Jones email. Google said we have blocked this email address because it has violated our community guidelines for email.

This is personal emails. So how does a personal email violate community guidelines? So obviously that means they're looking at your emails and know what you're saying. And if they don't agree with those emails, they're going to blacklist you. This is the same way, by the way, that we talked a little bit about on the last episode. And I don't think it was just, sorry. I don't think it was just Alex Jones, though. I think it was us because we would get emails coming in.

And if we tried to respond to emails, it would not go through. Yeah, it would not go through. And we talked a little bit about this in the last episode, by the way, if you have not listened to our last two episodes, we talked about the LA fires. We talked extensively about what we feel like is why this is happening, right? Not just the incompetence and the inadequacy of the California government, but also what potentially they are going to capitalize on based on these wildfires. And one of the things we had talked about then in that particular podcast was, you know, if you look at people like Alex Jones, you look at people like Nick Twin. test. You look at people like even Jake Shields on X and there's a lot of censoring going on on X right now, which is interesting because X has come out as the free speech platform. Elon Musk has said,

hey, you know what? I'm going to spend $44 plus billion on Twitter to allocate Twitter for the new X. And our main goal on this platform is to uncensor people. And keeping in mind, too, Elon lived up to that word in most cases. He unblocked most all accounts that were blocked. And then he allowed a lot of these accounts to be monetized, get the blue checkmarks, go premium. And then all of a sudden, recently over the past three or four months, there has been accounts like Jake Shields, Laura Lumer, there's been others that have been either demonetized. Their checkmarks are gone. They have been de-platformed, I guess you can say in some ways from the algorithm. So they're not getting the same reach they were. I can tell you right now that like Jake Schilds, for example, I don't agree

with a lot of what Jake Schilds talks about. He is usually anti-Israel continuously. And it's not that I don't agree with a lot of his thoughts on Israel, right, and how they affect the United States government. Same way like Ian Carroll and Nick Fentas and all these. But it's just, and I even said this on one of Jake's post. I said you have to, you understand if it's just consistent, consistent. whatever, whatever your platform is, that's all they talk about. And I was like, you've got to talk about some other things every once in a while, too. But I also don't believe just because whether you're pro-Israel or not, that person should not be banned. They should not be de-platform, demonitized or whatever.

And so Elon has always had this weird little con, I guess this weird little analogy that says, well, just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom of reach. Right. So that's what he's been saying. So you can say whatever you want to. but you might only have 20 people that see it. Right. And so that's not right either. That is not freedom of speech.

And unfortunately, Mark Zuckerberg is modeling Facebook off of X. Yeah. So is this really going to be freedom of speech? Well, here's what I think is setting up. And I think that Zuckerberg is setting the stage for competition. Now,

obviously, Elon Musk and Zuckerberg has talked about fighting in the past and an octagon, which, by the way, Elon would get destroyed. Don't do it. Don't do it, Elon. No, absolutely do not do that because Zuckerberg will definitely destroy you now at this point in time. But nonetheless, I think that Zuckerberg and these social media companies now are starting to see this as an opportunity to where it's like, well, number one, we have the Trump administration coming in.

We know that we're not going to get away with the same shit we got away with during the Biden administration. And with that being said, we are going to err on the side of this new administration. So we're going to do the things that appease the leaders in power now, especially considering that it was a mandate by America that put Trump in office that he has the House, the Senate, the presidency. And not only that, they're about to a clean house into bureaucracy with Doge, with Elon Musk and Vivig Romo-Swamy. Now, there's a lot of people that are starting to see a lot of weird things happen. Now that Trump has got into office or is about to get in an office, is inauguration. is coming up. He will take full power and control of the United States of America.

I think the Elon Musk knows that. I think Vivri Gwama Swami knows that as well. There's been a lot of people that have speculated that Elon is the real president instead of Donald Trump. So stupid, though. But I do think at the very least, you have to understand that Elon Musk is someone that has tons of contracts with the United States government. So obviously, the Trump administration, being close to him and being friendly with him and all

this stuff is going to highly benefit him. It started to hurt him during the Biden administration when they started to investigate and do all these things, whether it be Tesla or SpaceX or all of this. And so he knew, obviously, it doesn't matter if you necessarily agree with politics or not, he knew he had to go with Trump. Oh, yeah. And even when the X-Files came out, I mean, that was pretty much against the X-Files. Yeah, the Twitter files.

But yeah, it's funny, the show, yeah, X-Files. But when they came out, the Twitter files came. out. He was basically going against the Biden administration and he knew he was going to be screwed if Biden was president again. Oh, absolutely. He did. Yeah. And he knew that. But also at the same token, you know, it was very contrasting of what Zuckerberg said on this go-around with Joe Rogan where he's talking about what the Biden administration did and how they acted towards Facebook. Now, let me go ahead and tell you this. Sherry, you bring up the Twitter files. One of the things that Matt Taibi and Schellenberger did with the Twitter files

as they investigated this and started releasing information on all of this backed up logs and emails that were corresponding between Twitter and the Biden administration, it basically showed to where not only that the Biden administration continually email Twitter and say, you've got to do this, you got to take this down, you're not allowing this, you're not allowing that, you're not allowing the Hunter Biden laptop story, but also, um, It seemed like as we started to investigate more, there were a lot of either ex-intelligence officers or agents in the United States government that when they left, supposedly, left the United States government, they went and worked with companies like Twitter and

Facebook. And they were heads of like the security and information department or the whatever it is, whatever the bullshit word is for the propaganda network, the, what, What is it called the Mockenberg Media? They held high positions in social media to where they worked directly with the United States government to censor and silence any and everything you said. They actually had employees, supposedly ex-employees of intelligence agencies that worked in now social media companies. So are those actual ex-employees? Are you ever an ex-intelligence agent?

And how much are you corresponding? You are literally the direct link and communication line between the United States government. government and social media. And are they still there? And if you want to go into it, when Jen Socky was Joe Biden's speaker, press secretary, yeah. Our, yeah, the secretary, press secretary, she came out and said, we are working with these companies to help get rid of some of this misinformation and get rid of it.

We're helping them. The government is here with these companies removing false information, misinformation, whatever. And that's silencing. Yeah. I mean, right. And so there's always been that narrative of like, okay, well, you know, these social media

companies are private companies. And section 230 of the code, what section 230 essentially does is it makes the social media companies immune to lawsuits, especially based on anything like censorship or whatever happens on that platform. they are immune to any lawsuits or losing any type of monetary value at all whatsoever. So therefore, that tells you if you are part of a government code that says that, hey, we're going to allow you to be immune to these things, then you should also then at that point have to follow government regulations or at the very least constitutional regulations as far as what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot censor. This is obvious, especially considering the amount of propaganda that went out during the 2016

Trump win as president to where they tried to say that it was the Russian propaganda, Russia collusion, and it was Russian hackers that allowed Trump to get into the White House. They also tried to do that in 2020. And in 2020, it all came out through the still dossier and others that it was all a bunch of lies. It was all, everything that was made up most, mostly by the Clinton, or sorry, the Clinton, I guess you can say household or team. Right. They're the ones that created the narrative around the Russia collusion and the Russia propaganda

that says that they were trying to influence and still the election. But if anyone stole any election in 2020, it was not Trump, obviously. You had Biden, which was a known, even at that time, senile candidate. Well, got the most votes. in history of any president. Yeah, and everybody was like, oh, he's campaigning from his basement. When he goes out and campaigns, he has maybe 12 people around him. How is he getting all these votes? Yeah, it's ridiculous. Guys, I want to start this out, I guess, um, or initially with two years ago, Zuckerberg went on, uh, to the Joe Rogan podcast. And he talked about, um, a lot of the Hunter Biden

laptop story, what the government was telling him to do and not do. And we're going to contrast that with another clip of what he recently said. Let's get into this clip right now. When we take down something that we're not supposed to, I mean, that is like, I mean, that's the worst. How do you discern? Like how, like, say like these Christian Facebook pages, I don't know how they found out that 19 of 20 were fake, but if someone just says, I am Bob Smith, and they post as Bob

Smith and they have a photograph and they, but really what they're doing is trying to talk shit about Joe Biden and get people to vote Republican in the midterms. Like how what, how do you know whether someone's real or not? Like this is the big argument with Elon and Twitter because Elon asked Twitter like what percentage of your website is filled with bots and they say 5%. And he says, I don't believe you. I think it's higher. And let's find out how you've come to this conclusion.

Yeah. And, you know, they're, I believe they said that they just took 100 random Twitter pages and looked at the interaction and there's some sort of an algorithm they applied to it. But how do you discern? Yeah. So, I mean, I think estimating the overall prevalence is one thing. But I think that the question of, you know, looking at a page and is this page authentic, I think that there's a bunch of signals around that. One of the things that we try to do is for large pages, we try to make sure that we know who the admin of that page is. We don't necessarily, you should be able to run an anonymous page.

You don't necessarily need to out yourself and say who you are running it. But we want to make sure that we sort of have like an identity for that person on file so that way we know, like at least behind the scenes, that that person is real. For certain political things, I think having a sense of what country they're originating from. I mean, some of that you can do just by looking at where their server traffic comes from, like is the IP address coming from Romania or, you know, is. Or because if it's like an ad in some other country's election, then, you know, you probably want to make sure that that ad is, you know, especially in countries that have laws around that are like coming from someone who's a valid citizen or like, at least in that place. So there's a bunch of, I think, I don't know, one theme in my worldview around this stuff when it gets to some of the stuff that we talked about before is like, I don't think that this stuff is black and white or that you're ever going to have like a. perfect AI system. I think it's all tradeoffs all the way down. And you could either, you could build a system and you can either be overly aggressive and capture a higher percent of the bad guys, but then also by

accident take out some number of good guys. Or you could be a little more lenient and say, okay, no, the cost of taking out any number of good guys is too high. So we're going to tolerate having, you know, just a little bit more, like more bad guys on the system. These are values questions, right? Around what do you value more? And those are super tricky questions. And part of what I've struggled with around this is I didn't get into this to basically judge those things. I got into this to design technology that helps people connect.

It's like, and like, I mean, you could probably tell when we spent the first hour talking the metaverse and the future of basically building this whole technology roadmap to basically give people this realistic sense of presence. It's like, that's what I'm here to do, right? So this whole thing that's like arbitrating what is okay and what is not, I obviously have to be involved in that because this is at some level, you know, I run the company and I can't just abdicate that. But I also don't think that as a matter of governance, you want all of that decision-making very

in one individual. So I think one of the things that, you know, our country and our government gets right is the separation of powers. So, you know, one of the things that I tried to create is we created this oversight board. It's an independent board that basically we appointed people whose kind of paramount value is free expression, but they also balance that with things like when is there going to be real harm to others in terms of safety or privacy or other human rights issues. and basically that board. And by the way, this board that he is referring to, and during this time, they were creating this board.

On this board, there were people that were ex-intelligence agents on this board, if I remember correctly. But also during this time, there were reports that were coming out that Facebook had intelligence officers or ex-intelligence officers that were actively involved in censoring and silencing, especially people on the right. This was not a issue of human rights or, you know, we got to be careful about how we silence or censor or allow people to say certain things about a certain demographic. Right. For all people, it was only for a certain subset of people, which was at that time the voting class for the Democrat Party.

And so whereas some things right now that Zuckerberg is saying in two years ago interview with Joe Rogan is similar in the ways of we can't necessarily make an algorithm, them make these tough decisions. We got to figure out what on a level from one to ten is. But he says very similar things in the recent interview. But you can in a few, you're going to definitely hear the vast contrast of where he's going now versus where he wasn't even in this interview. Well, in this interview, too, he was talking about separation of power. And how do you do that?

Well, you have an oversight committee. But if you have this oversight committee that is leaning one way and not another way, Yeah. It's not a balance of power. Yeah, that's like saying you have an oversight committee for something. And yet all of the committee that you're supposed to have set this committee up for is the powers at B that you're trying to have this oversight committee against are on the committee. Right. Like ex-intelligence agents or whatever.

Well, and also intelligence. The committee is pro government. Yeah. And at this time, he was being directly told what to do. do by the government. Absolutely. It was. And this oversight committee was just a muse.

It was something that they created to try to make people believe that they were doing something right in terms of, hey, we're going to make sure that we don't over-censor or we don't infringe on your rights to speak because, you know, Zuckerberg, not only two years ago, but even in a recent interview said the reason why we created the platform in its, in its originality was to allow people to speak and have expression. And then all the sudden, as time went on, you started having the government influence. Now, I personally believe that as a major, massive company like Facebook and Instagram, where they bring Zuckerberg up in front of Congress, they grill him. Obviously, he's probably lying about a lot of what he said.

I don't know for sure, but likely. And they're grilling him on all these things, especially the conservatives, where they're saying, why are you censoring this and this and this? One of the major guys. Yeah. But, you know, and then he's just consistently lying. It makes you question when he goes on Joe Rogan. And now he's trying to act like they're the new reformed Facebook and meta all of a sudden. Why should you believe him now?

Yeah. And you got to think about when he was talking about, well, you know, we got to figure out who the bad guys are. Well, who are the bad guys? And on what terms are they bad guys? Yeah, exactly. And I think that's the big question. Let's listen to a little more of what he said two years ago. People in our community can appeal cases to.

when they think that we got it wrong. And that board actually gets to make the final binding decision, not us. So in a way, I actually think that that is a more legitimate form of governance than having just a team internally that makes these decisions or maybe some of them go up to me, although I don't spend a ton of my time on this on a day-to-day basis. But I think it's generally good to have some kind of separation of powers where you're architecting the governance. So that way you have different stakeholders and different people.

who can make these decisions, and it's not just like one private company that's making decisions even about what just happens on our platform. How do you guys handle things when they're a big news item that's controversial? Like, there was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Post. Yeah, so you guys censored that as well? So we took a different path than Twitter. I mean, basically the background here is the FBI.

I think basically came to us. Some folks on our team, it was like, hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that. So just be vigilant. So our protocol is different from Twitters. What Twitter did is they said you can't share this at all. We didn't do that.

What we do is we have, if something is reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also have this third-party fact-checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false. And for the, I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false, the distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still. allowed to share it. So you could still share it. You could still consume it. So, when you say the distribution has decreased? It got shared. How does that work?

Basically, the ranking in News Feed was a little bit less. So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise. So it definitely... By what percentage? I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful. But I mean, but basically a lot of people were still able to share it. We got a lot of complaints that that was the case. You know, obviously this is a hyper-polish hyper political issue. By the way, what he's saying here is distribution was decreased like you didn't see it. And we've experienced this, by the way, Sherry, on Facebook, like on our Facebook page, we do have a Facebook page.

And I want to take the time right now very quickly. Go follow us on our ex account, Investigator with Podcasts. That's where we post basically everything. But we're going to start trying a little bit more Facebook. We definitely have a big community over on Facebook. Or not a big community. I bet we got a community on Facebook. We talk to so many people over there.

And our Instagram, we don't really do a whole lot. we're going to start trying to do more. But the reality of this is, is that I can tell you right now, if Sherry and I post on Facebook a picture of just me and her hanging out in woods or whatever, it'll get 100, 200, 300, 300 likes. It depends. If I post anything nasty with Trump or whatever, anything political, fauchy, anything.

Vaccine, you name it. It's like 10 likes. There's obviously that still distribution decrease. And you can see the reach, like how many people. actually have seen that post. Yeah. And the reach is incredibly different if it's just a picture of Chad and I, like out celebrating Thanksgiving or whatever, instead of seeing a UFO out in San Francisco or whatever.

Yeah. And even UFO stuff is weird. I mean, you know, like, for example, I think, by the way, if we all want to talk about this censorship thing, TikTok is the worst. They are the worst censorship platform on the entire internet. internet. If you want any social media company that censors the most, it is TikTok. I mean, Facebook's probably, I mean, it's probably maybe second or third. I don't actually, no, sorry. I would say YouTube is probably second. Yeah. You got Facebook and Instagram.

YouTube, you got to put up there to the top. Yeah, X is, but X is still there. They're censoring people still. And so when we talked about, by the way, the reason why I want you guys to go back and listen to our last episode, which is the 15-minute cities and the Los Angeles, fires when we're talking about social credit scores. We're talking about things like how they're going to judge who you are, what you're allowed to do in the future. If you take the mark or the digital currency, I don't know, maybe it's a microchip. We don't know for sure.

But they're already setting the stage. They have been for quite some time with social media us with a social credit score. What do you think ours is going to be? A horrible. I mean, we're already, we're like 2.5 strikes away from completely. ban on TikTok and we've barely posted anything bad whatsoever. Well, it's not bad things. Like, for example, we posted a UFO.

Video of Fox News. Yes. And we got a... It was at 300,000 views and it got taken down. And it says community guidelines violations. I repealed it. I asked continually. No response.

They don't even give a shit. They'll just take your stuff down. They don't care. They're not going to explain it to you. More than likely, they're not even going to get back to us. And even if they do, they're going to be like, no, sorry, you're still going to be taken down. And don't know why. I don't know why they would want to censor or silence a video on live television,

mainstream media, Fox News, a UFO-looking thing going above the fires in Los Angeles. And all we said on the video, it's not like we were saying, the UFOs created the fire. We didn't say that. All we said was, check this out on mainstream media, Fox News. Isn't this crazy, right? Is this a UFO? Is this not? And they took that down.

Right. So oftentimes when we see things that they take down, just like they did during COVID, just like they did during the pandemic and the vaccine rollout, the things that they take down, including real and true factual information, whether it be vaccine side effects or even if I've shared stories before of people that have lost their kids just either hours after the vaccine or days. And when I would share their stories, even on X in the beginning, I would get either silence. sensor for three days. I've got banned on platforms for that shit before. And so this is no different. This is a social credit score. So you're used to being in social media jail, aren't you, Chad? All the time.

All the time. And there's so many people that listen to us that all the time send us like how many days they're blocked for or, you know, whatever the case is. But this is all setting a standard for a social credit score. And when they roll in and implement these 15-minute cities, like this. they may do in SMART LA 28, which is what they've had planned for a while. Now you've got these massive wildfires in Los Angeles. And then they start rolling in 15-minute cities to where you have a system that you have to utilize to be able to live in the city.

And then they're going to say, oh, well, you said this yesterday on social media. And so your score is down 10 points. So you're only allowed to be out this long or you're only allowed to buy this many groceries or get this much products for your house or whatever the case is. that's how social credit scores work. And social media, I think, is a test bed for social credit scores. I think they're implementing the entire system to be able to utilize when they develop these 15-minute cities.

Let's listen to a little more of the old Zuckerberg before we get into the new and reformed Zuckerberg. Censored enough or censored it way too much. But we weren't sort of as black and white about it as Twitter. We just kind of thought, hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view as it, a legitimate institution in this country. It's a very professional law enforcement. They come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously. Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story?

No. I don't remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern. When something like that turns out to be real, is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? What do you mean evenly distributed? I mean evenly in that it's not suppressed. It's not. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, it sucks. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it turned out after the fact, I mean, the fact tractors looked into it. No one was able to say it was false. Right. So basically it had this period where it was getting list distribution.

So, yeah. I mean, I think like, I think it probably, it sucks though. I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial. but being proven innocent in the end sucks. Like, it still sucks to have, like, that you had to go through a criminal trial, but at the end, you're free. So it's, I don't know if the answer would have been, don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable.

You know, we still let people share it. But obviously, you don't want situations like that. All right. One of the things he talks about a lot here is these independent fact checker companies, right? This is something that we saw across the board, especially during the pandemic, during the elections. And even during the pandemic where you would go

on a YouTube video, even if it was doctors that were talking about something specifically that they have had years and years of experience in, there would be a little card underneath the video. And they would say the World Health Organization, this is not even a fact-checking company.

This is the World Health Organization says that what this video is saying basically is bullshit and that you should not believe that. And here's the factual information of this. So when you click that, it may go to something that says, all evidence shows that these vaccines are 100% safe and effective. Safe and effective, safe and effective.

That's all they wanted to put in your mind 24-7. Even if there was a doctor on their sharing factual information that was done through multiple studies that said, hey, guys, if you have this, if this happens, if this happens, there are consequences with this vaccine. It is still technically an experimental vaccine. And yet the World Health Organization was the number one ruler of where information was disseminated and how tech companies and the United States government disseminated and acted on the information that was being given out. And even doctors that were inventors of M&RNA. MRNA.

Did I say it right? No, but close. Okay. even doctors that helped invent these things went against it and they were fat checked. Yeah, Robert Malone. Yeah, Robert Malone's definitely one of the big ones. And we're hoping to have him on the show soon. We've had Dr. Peter McCullough on the show a couple times and we want to have Robert Malone.

But, you know, keeping in mind, if you think about the funding, the funding of independent fact-checking organizations, AI says varies widely. But the majority of the financial support comes from private grants. private grants. I wonder where they get those grants from, right? Are these non-government organizations? If you know anything about non-government organizations, most non-government organizations are somehow in some way back traced funded through the United States government and the bureaucracy that is trying to uplift or implant some type of system into the American people or the

American government or the American population. I mean, so these NGOs act basically. as powerful as the government itself, given grant money through the government or taxpayer dollars even, because it's being done on the back end. And so these fact-checking companies, like private sector support a significant portion of funding for fact-checking organizations comes from the private entities. For instance, META's third-party fact-checking program contributes approximately 45% of the total income for these organizations.

So then you got to think about where does Meta get this information, right? Where, how are, how is Meta, aka Facebook and Instagram? How are they deciding what is misinformation? Well, I think Zuckerberg just told you where they're getting what is misinformation and what is not. That is the United States government. And so if they are funding the fact checking companies, they're paying them a shit ton of money, then technically the government is paying the fact checking companies.

Even the grants and donations, grants constitute about 30% of the primary funding, while donations of membership subscriptions are 6.5. In certain regions, fact-checking organizations receive government grants. For example, debunk.org, based in Lithuania, has received funding from Lithuania Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense. U.S. government in the United States, there has been instances of government funding directed towards combating misinformation, and a report indicated that the Biden administration spent approximately $280 million on studying misinformation with a focus on COVID-19 related information

to where they funded fact-checking websites. So who's funding the fact-checking websites? When you see the fact-checking websites like fact-check.org or debunk.org or whatever it is, who's funding them? It's the government or it's some way through back-ended hands of money through the government. Right. So whenever someone would be like, oh, well, let me check this out. And it's like, oh, well, that fact check said it's false.

So we're good. Yeah, it's false. So it's good. And this is a private entity. So we're not going to worry about it. Let's get in now to the Mark Zuckerberg on ending fact checking and being pressured by the Biden administration on his latest show with Joe Rogan. And we'll break this down. I was really worried from the beginning about basically becoming this sort of.

of decider of what is true in the world. That's like kind of a crazy position to be in for billions of people using your service. And so we tried to put in place a system that would deal with it. You know, in early on, tried to basically make it so that it was really limited. We're like, all right, we're just going to have this system where there's these third-party fact-checkers and they can check the worst of the worst stuff, right? So things that are very clear hoaxes, that there's like, it's not like, we're not parsing speech about whether something is slightly true or slightly false, like Earth is flat, you know, things like that, right? So that was sort of the original intent. We put in place the system and it just sort of veered from there.

I think to some degree, it's because some of the people whose job is to do fact checking, a lot of their industry is focused on political fact checking. So they're just kind of veered in that direction. We kept on trying to basically get it to be what we had originally intended, which is just, you know, it's not, the point is it to, like, judge people's opinions. It's to provide in this layer to kind of help fact check some of the stuff that seems the most extreme. But it just, you know, it was just never accepted by people broadly. I think people just felt like the fact checkers were too biased. Not necessarily even so much in what they ruled. sometimes I think people would disagree with that. A lot of the time, it was just what types of things

they chose to even go in fact check in the first place. So I kind of think like after having gone through that whole exercise, it, I don't know, it's something out of like, you know, 1984, one of these books where it's just like, it really is a slippery slope. And it just got to a point where it's just, okay, this is destroying so much trust, especially in the United States, to have this program. And I guess it was probably about a few years that I really started coming to the conclusion that we were going to need to change something about that. COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the

beginning it was, you know, it's like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it's, you know, even people who are like the most ardent First Amendment, you know, defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It's like, all right, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There are times when if there's an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control. So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, okay. Of course you were sympathetic.

to it. You don't me tell you why Zuckerberg that you were sympathetic to that and you act like, oh, all of a sudden COVID came about and we had to figure out how we were going to react to this. It was just something so new. I mean, that is, unless you went to Event 201 in November of 2019 and was a part of that, which basically all social media companies were, and you know what me, you'll me tell you what happened in Event 201? Well, Event 201 was created by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also in correspondence with John Hopkins University. And so what this

event was was a simulation of a pandemic very similar to COVID-19. The coronavirus outbreak, they even called it, I believe, an event two and one. The only difference was this came from pigs, I think, in Africa or something. South Africa, yeah. And it was a coronavirus

to where people, it was a massive pandemic that broke out. And then all of a sudden, they were going to try to release this vaccine, obviously Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation probably had something to do with that, right? Because they love vaccines so much, although Bill and Melinda Gates have nothing to do with medical anything whatsoever. They're not even doctors.

Not at all. And so then one of the things during the event 201 was how are we going to stop misinformation? This is, by the way, where misinformation and disinformation got its name. It wasn't during COVID-19. It wasn't during the 2016 Trump election. The dis and misinformation keywords were created during Event 201. And during this time, you had media companies that attended this. You had social media companies that attended this.

You had health care providers. You had doctors. You had everyone possible that attended the simulation of a mass pandemic based on coronavirus. And one of the things they really tried to emphasize in this event 201, was that, hey, guys, when we start rolling out this vaccine, we have to figure out as social media companies and mainstream media companies, how we're going to fight the blowback of even potentially an experimental, quick vaccine to where we've got to get in everyone's arm and how are we going to combat the misinformation? And essentially, they basically said, well, social media companies, you get a sensor in silence. mainstream media, you've got to stick with one narrative, and this is it. And you're going to listen to these people.

And when these people say this, you're going to go with it. And social media companies, if you don't censor in silence, your gas is going to be banned. Or you're going to be put in, I don't know, Guantanamo or some shit, right? They had this in Event 2.1. So Zuckerberg even sitting here saying, oh, it was all new to us. No, it wasn't. You knew exactly the plan. You guys knew the freaking plan.

You knew exactly what your job. was as a social media company, when this pandemic rolled out, that you guys just went to multiple, by the way, simulations. There was one in 19. There was one in 17 and 15 where Falchie also attended or contributed to a lot of these, you know, these simulations. You knew exactly what the plan was. This was not like, oh, my God, it just took us by surprise.

We had no idea how to combat this. No, you knew exactly. You had a plan. That was pretty obvious. You had this misinformation bullshit. And then you started silencing. and censoring, and you had these little cards that were popping up, and the World Health Organization and everything.

And then also the Democrats, meanwhile, were their biggest concern was to stop the spread of mal-information, which by the way means it's true, but it's not good for the narrative. They had to stop the lab leak theory. Why would they want to stop the lab leak theory? Why the hell do you think that Democrats in our government would want to stop a lab leak Chinese theory from Wuhan, China. Why? Because that's China. That's not in the United States. It doesn't affect us. It doesn't affect our government. If anything, you should have utilized that to say, especially considering how much we hate China, right? We want to get into war with them.

Trump was saying, this is the China virus. And then they called him xenophobic. Yes. Right. But the China virus was contributed from Americans. Nih. In our taxpayer dollars went towards that. Dr. Fauci, Ralph, Ralph, Ralph, Ralph, Ralph, Ralph Barrett, many other doctors in the United States, including potentially DARPA, which is a, you know, kind of like one of those clandestine deep government programs. That's why they fought heavily against it. It's the same way that the Democrats in a deep state, which I compare both those kind of similarly now, they fight against anything that is true information that affects or hurts the people of America. It is the class and the party of the people that want to destroy Americans, not uplift Americans. And that's why there was a mandate this past election because most people realize that now.

They went through COVID. They went through this Biden administration. However, the freak that happened. And most people, it was just, I think it was just too big to rig this time. And, but yeah, but Zuckerberg saying we didn't know what to do is bullshit. Yeah. Well, this whole simulation too, I think it goes way beyond COVID-19 or any COVID. It goes into a simulation of how do we inject every.

human being on the earth with whatever we want to inject them with. Yeah. It's way bigger and it goes to the social credit score. It goes to the Mark of the Beast thing. It goes to all of that. It goes to the one world government thing. Like how are we going to go against these people that refuse for us to inject them? Well, we're going to fire them.

I mean, just like Pete Hick-Seth today when, you know, talking to Capitol Hill about like how everything went down and all these people that got fired from our military because they refused to take the injection. And he said, you know, he said today, it's like, we're going to reinstate them. We're going to back pay them. We're going to do whatever we got to do because we lost a lot of our great warfighters. Yeah. Back. We lost a lot of them during that time.

And I think they did that also because they were like, well, these are more than likely patriots or Trump supporters or whatever. So that was the easiest way to get as many of those people out of the military. And that's the same with health care too. Yeah, because if you ever wanted to create a coup in America, to where the military would fight for the administration. You got to get the people that are willing to fight for America out. And one of the quickest and easiest ways they found to do that was the people that refused the vaccine, even all these military guys that get, they line up for vaccines to get in

the military. But even they were like, okay, something's not right about this. This sounds weird. And then I guess this administration just took that as well. They're probably Trump supporters. Let's get them the hell out of here. And let's replace them with people that will follow our orders. So it goes very good.

Our CRT orders and DEI or whatever. Yeah. And all this bullshit, yeah. So let's listen to a little more of Zuckerberg's lies. This virus seems like it's killing a lot of people. I don't know. We didn't know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, okay, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.

But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to. And, you know, in the beginning it was like, okay, there aren't enough masks. Masks aren't that important. To then it's like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, like everything was shifting around. It just became very difficult to kind of follow. And this really hit the most extreme. I'd say during the Biden administration when they were trying to roll out the vaccine program.

And I'm generally like pretty pro rolling out vaccines. on balance, the vaccines are more positive than negative. But I think that while they're trying to push that program, they also tried to censor anyone who is basically arguing against it. And they pushed us super hard to take down to things that were honestly, were true. Right. I mean, they basically pushed us and said, you know, anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you basically need to take down.

And I was just like, well, we're not going to do that. Like, we're clearly not going to do that. I mean, that's that, that is kind of inarguably true. Who is they? Who's telling you to take down things that have to talk about vaccine side effects? It was people in the Biden administration. I think it was, you know, I wasn't involved in those conversations directly, but I think it was.

How difficult is that to not be involved in those conversations directly? That's got to be strange too, right? Because you're running the company, but there's clearly your moderation. at scale that's beyond the imagination. The number of human beings you're moderating is fucking insane. And by the way, he says he told them, we're not going to do that. Yes, they did do that. That's exactly what they did.

And the reality of this is, guys and girls, is that if not only just the vaccines, right, this is not even just about the vaccines. This is about the censoring of information that could have saved lives during the pandemic. We're talking about whether it be protocols that either Dr. McCola or just not even Dr. McCola, people that may have listened to a doctor on YouTube that knew what the hell they were talking about to say that, hey, you should take quercetin or zinc or vitamin C or vitamin D with K2 or all these things or ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. All these things were censored by social media. And think about just if we knew a number, which we don't, but if we did know a number of how many people could have been saved, if they would have just been able to. see a post that said, hey, guys, start doing this now. And I remember when I saw a YouTube video that somehow it got, it got censored and banned.

It was the ER doctor. In Miami. Is that the one you're talking about? No, I don't think he was in Miami. I don't know where he was exactly. Maybe in New York or somewhere. But yeah, it was this ER doctor that started talking about, you know, he had researched this.

He was a young doctor. And so this young doctor, not an old dude, not someone that, you know, went to medical school 30 years ago. Right. This is a guy that not only went to medical school. but also has done a lot of research for himself. And he started coming up with this protocol that he told all of his nurses and all of the doctors. He was the head of the ER.

And he said, number one, I want you to do quercetin. I want to do vitamin D, zinc and vitamin C. And here's how you need to take it. And here's the protocol. And so he started telling all of his nurses and all the doctors did it. Because there was a lot of nurses and doctors dying during this time. And so he started telling them. And he said, I did not have one nurse or one doctor out at all.

there was this entire time I did not lose anybody no one got COVID and so I'd heard that I'd heard that video like in the early stages of COVID 19 during Delta variant and so I ordered all of that shit I took every every bit of it. Oh yeah. You did not take all of it. And so Sherry got COVID like five times. I never did. But I was also twice or like five times as exposed than you were. Yeah, you're right. I mean, yeah, you're right.

I mean, you were in school and around all the kids, but you always brought that shit homes. I was right next to you all the time. I never got it. I tried to get you to take it. You did sometimes. Sometimes you didn't. You weren't very good. And then obviously we had to clear nasal spray, which also, I think, was a massive thing,

which is probably why Nathan and Clear XLR is being sued by the FTC because FTC saw, hey, you know what? This is working and we got to stop this. I mean, how crazy is that? I mean, how stupid is it to not know that things replicate in your nose? Nose and throat. Yeah. And the way to get rid of it is to clean.

it out. I mean, that is very basic stuff. It's the same thing with brushing your teeth. You got to brush your teeth. You got to get rid of all the nasty stuff in your mouth. I bet Nathan's screaming under his phone right now as he's listening to this because he would love to talk about this. We try to get him on, but he's dressed shopping for his girl and they're going to inauguration. But let's listen to some more of Zuckerberg. Well, what's the Facebook? How many people use it on a daily basis? Forget about how many overall. Like how many people use it regularly? 3.2 billion people use one of our services every day.

That's it. Yeah. No, it's wild. More than a third of the planet. That's so crazy. It's almost half of Earth. Well, on a monthly basis, it is probably half of it. But just, I want to say that, though, for, there's a lot of, like, hypercritical people

that are conspiracy theorists and think that everybody is a part of some cabal to control them. I want you to understand that whether it's YouTube or all these, whatever place that you think is doing something that's awful. it's good that you speak because this is how things get changed and this is how people find out that people are upset about content moderation and in censorship. But moderating at scale is insane. Yeah. It's insane. Yeah.

What we were talking the other day about the number of videos that go up every hour on YouTube and it's bananas. It's bananas. It's like to try to get a human being that is reasonable, logical and objective that's going to analyze every video. It's virtually impossible. It's not possible. So you've got to use a bunch of tools. You've got to get a bunch of things wrong. And you have also people reporting things.

And how much is that going to affect things? You could have mass reporting because you have bad actors. You have some corporation that decides we're going to attack this video because it's bad for us going to take it down. There's so much going on. I want to put that in people's heads before we go on. Like understand the kind of numbers that we're talking about here. Now understand you have the pandemic. and then you have the administration that's doing something where I think they cross the line,

where it gets really weird where they're saying what you were saying, they were trying to get you to take down vaccine side effects, which is just crazy. Yeah, so, I mean, like you're saying, I mean, this is, it's so complicated this system that I could spend every minute of all of my time doing this and not actually focused on building any of the things that we're trying to do, AI, glasses, like the future of social media, all that stuff. So I get involved in this stuff, but in general, we have a policy team. There are people who I trust. They're the people are kind of working on this on a day-to-day basis. And the interactions that I was just referring to, I mean, a lot of this is documented. I mean, because, you know, Jim Jordan and the House

had this whole investigation and committee into the kind of government censorship around stuff like this. And we produced all these documents and it's all in the public domain. I mean, basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse. And it's like, these documents are, it's all kind of out there. Did you record any of those phone calls? I don't, no, I don't think we were. But I think. I want to listen.

I mean, there are emails. The emails are published. It's all kind of out there. And they're like, and basically it just got to this point where we were like, no, we're not going to, we're not going to take down things that are true. that's ridiculous. They wanted us to take down this meme of Leonardo DiCaprio, looking at a TV, talking about how 10 years from now or something, you know, you're going to see an ad that says,

okay, if you took a COVID vaccine, you're eligible, you know, like, for this kind of payment, like this sort of like class action lawsuit type meme. And they're like, no, you have to take that down. And we just said, no, we're not going to take down humor and satire. We're not going to take down things that are true. And then at some point, I guess, I don't know, it flipped a bit. I mean, Biden, when he was, he gave some statement at some point. I don't know if his press conference or to some journalists where he basically was like,

these guys are killing people. And, and, I don't know, then like all these different agencies and branches of government basically just like started investigating coming after our company. So, by the way, Biden was not probably wrong in what he said in that press conference, where these guys are killing people because they probably were. Yeah, because Biden says a lot of things he's not supposed to say when he says it. He's like, oh, gosh, I'm going to get in trouble for saying that. I'm going to get in question. I'm in trouble for asking or answering questions.

Although the reality, though, what Biden was saying is that the administration did not think that Facebook of all people were doing enough to silence people. And the reality is that because of what Facebook and Instagram and social media companies did during this time, potentially, was killing people. You know, if you think about what Dr. Peter McCullough said on our show and others, where he talks about the protocol for responding to COVID-19 and how they reacted to COVID-19, potentially, allegedly, may have killed more people than the virus itself.

So when you have someone coming in with low auction rates or whatever the case was, and then they would immediately put these people otherwise healthy seeming, put them on ventilators. And then they would go on ventilators. They would develop these massive, horrific bacterial infections on ventilators, which happens. Even if you're in a motor vehicle accident, you get a head injury or whatever the case is, you get put on a ventilator. It can develop a lung infection that eventually may kill you, right? And so the protocol for responding to COVID-19 was very bad, what a lot of doctors believe.

But the fact that social media and how they censored information, especially even just especially, I said that twice. Information that could save you. Yeah. That is, that is, in my mind, the pandemic, I mean, you can, you can say all this shit about the Biden laptop and all this stuff. But how they censored information that could have saved lives is my most unforgiving piece of social media. And I know I've said this before on the podcast, but it just brings back nightmares to me. This is when the first pandemic came out and this guy went to their murder.

emergency room. He's in the emergency room. I guess his oxygen was really low and they're like, we got to ventilate you right now. This guy was basically fighting. And they trapped him. Yeah, fighting for security guards. And doctors and nurses.

And they're holding him back, trying to put this respirator thing in him. He's like, no, I don't want that. And they made him do that. And two days later, he was dead. Allegedly. We don't know for sure. They try to use that video against people.

that say that, but there's been a lot of reports that maybe he died. We don't know for sure, but we'll say allegedly. Okay, well, let's just say, if this guy's alive, come, contact me and let me know because I don't think you're alive. Well, who knows? I don't know. But, you know, you also go back to the doctor, I mean, sorry, the nurse that kind of was a whistleblower in New York, how they were responding to COVID and how, like, basically everybody was dying because they were putting every one of ventilators and they, you know, they were gone. And I'm not saying that, you know, that's primary cause of death, but, you know, you guys, whatever, you can think about that. Let's listen to a little more of the shithead and then we're going to wrap it up.

It was brutal. Wow. Yeah. It's just a massive overstepping. Yeah. And also, you weren't killing people. This is the thing about all this. It's like they suppressed so much information about things that people should be doing.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in the vaccine, regardless, put that aside. Metabolic health is of the utmost importance in your everyday life, whether there's a pandemic. By the way, Joe Rogan's saying they, they, like you have Zuckerberg right in front of you. And he's talking about, yeah, they censored all this stuff and blah, blah, blah. Joe, call him out. He's literally across the table from you. And you're not doing it. Because Zuckerberg, it's not they.

It is Zuckerberg. It is the people at the head of these companies like Zuckerberg that made these decisions that they knew, obviously, especially when the Biden administration is calling and cussing them out. And especially also after, you know, you had two instances. You had COVID-19. You had the Hunter Biden laptop story, both of which most of the people that were talking adversely to those things were correct.

And yet you chose the opposite. Zuckerberg doesn't have balls. and not all of a sudden he's a fair weather fan, right? He's like, oh, well, we got Trump coming in. We have no choice. We're going to reverse our policies. We're going to try to get on board with X's community notes because we've lost a shit ton of people. Nobody really trust Facebook anymore, just like no one trusts mainstream media.

And yet, I just, I'm not saying that Joe is bad. I'm just saying that, you know, you have people like Michael Baker that goes on Joe Rogan. He's a CIA ex-officer. And this guy, every time something happens when it comes to people potentially thinking CIA has something to do with something, Mike Baker will come on, the biggest podcast on the planet and try to do damage control essentially for the CIA. That's what he does. He tries to act like a bro and like he's hanging out with you. He is literally a guy that the CIA sends out to the mainstream media because Joe Rogan is mainstream media now. You don't have a way necessarily as easy to control.

the podcast right now. So you get to send people on podcast to try to conform the narrative around what you want the narrative to be. And this is Michael Baker. I think this has also been many people throughout Joe Rogan's tenure. And I think it really started after COVID. I think once they almost canceled Joe and they were coming down hard on him, he started changing his stance on every single thing he said and how he said it.

And since then, I'm just not a huge Joe supporter anymore because I just kind of see. either him now. But what do you think, Chad, with this whole Mark Zuckerberg coming on board with Trump? What is the sentiment of X? What are they saying about Mark Zuckerberg right now? I don't know. Elon's not really said a whole lot about Zuckerberg in the interview. I don't think I've seen anyway. But most people don't believe him. Most people think he's full of shit. Most people think exactly what you should think, which is, you know, even Zuckerberg on the interview says, you know, there's a lot of people's questioning like the timing of of us coming out and all of a sudden saying we're not going to censor people anymore.

You know, and he's like, when is a good time to not censor, right? When is a good time to change your policies? Is it during the election? Obviously not because then people are going to be like, oh, you're trying to get Trump elected. So he said, now was our best time we thought we could change these policies. But you're literally changing the policies based on the administration. You know that if you don't change the policies, you're going to be held accountable. You're going to be potentially brought in front of Congress again.

and this time you have Congress, the Senate, you have everybody that can get shit done to really screw you over as a company. So he has no choice right now. He has no choice about to get on board with this new and, you know, new up-and-coming free speech thing that we should have had forever based on the First Amendment of the United States of America. But this guy's full of shit. I don't trust him.

And by the way, I hate to say this, but I don't necessarily even trust Elon Musk anymore. I mean, it's not even I've always completely trusted Elon, right? I mean, we've talked about this. But you've just seen things that are like weird. It's very strange.

Especially when he's in direct arguments with people and then he takes away their little blue check or whatever. Yeah. You know, and people pay for their little blue check. You know, I don't pay for mine, but you can have your blue check. Yeah. I mean, no, I mean, no, for sure. I mean, if Elon disagree with someone, he's going to,

he's going to pen a lot. you. And it's also very similar. Like X has this monetization program. And so people that get a lot of views, some of those people make a lot of money. So if you get, if you have a post that has like a million plus views, you can make a lot of money on that post. But it seems to only happen with people that Elon like or agree with or conform with. So if Elon highlights you or post to you or something, you're probably one of those accounts that are going to make a lot of money. Now, you could take the same account on X, right? Sorry, a different account on X with the same exact amount of views or more, and they get paid

$200. Yeah, and because they're going against policies that Elon doesn't like. Maybe. It could be that. It could be something else. You never know. And so X is like the worst example of monetization on the internet right now. I mean, you know, if you're going to go to X to try to make money.

Sorry, I'm about to call off. If you're going to go to X trying to make money, X is not a place to do it. I mean, TikTok would be a better place to do it or podcast or whatever. But X is not the place because right now there's an obvious still censorship program over at X. And I even go back to although Linda Yaccarino, which is the CEO of X now, you know, she, she multiple times, I believe, attended the World Economic Forum. I even think she was part of the young leaders, globalist kind of movement. So when Linda Yaccarino was appointed CEO, many people were like, what the hell, why would you appoint her? It makes no sense.

Because if you want a content moderator, if you want someone that's going to come in and figure out ways to silence people, Linda Yaccarino is a perfect example of that. And so when X brought her in, there's a lot of people. are like, why would you do that? It doesn't make sense. And so there's a lot of questions still is like, is Linda as a CEO? How much, how much influence does Elon actually have? How much does he actually know about who is being hired under Linda Yaccarino and what's actually going on? And it's also interesting that Zuckerberg says that they are going to move their content moderation team to Texas to be able to better hire people that are not so biased on the left. So,

who knows? But do you think as Elon being the owner of X should have so much freedom of speech on X? I know that sounds crazy. But, I mean, he's out there saying what he wants to say. And then if anyone comes back at him, all he has to do is say, you're out. You don't have your blue check mark anymore. Yeah, it's kind of crazy. Maybe do you think that would have been a smarter thing for him to kind of stand back on his own platform?

Of course. Of course. I mean, yeah, I mean, well, he can say whatever the hell he wants to, but he should never censor silence anybody that comes against him. I mean, that just looks bad. And it's not even just against him. It's against policies or decisions or things. And I got to be honest, I hate to say this, but a lot of the people that are getting their

blue check marks away are people that are anti-Israel. And so that's interesting, right? And so, you know, and the crazy thing about that is, is that when you have this large group of people that are consistently campaigning against Israel, especially Israel's interfering potentially in U.S. elections or policies or whatever, you have this massive movement of people that are saying this. And then you go and take away their blue check marks and silence them. That just makes their whatever they're saying.

Their case, like bigger. Exactly. Right. Instead of just letting them have the platform and letting them continue to say what they want to say. and have freedom of speech. I think when you take away speech, you don't want other people to know what they're saying. Yeah.

Well, I think at the end of the day, guys, you guys should go listen to the entire Joe Rogan and Zuckerberg interview. That's a little bit of what Zuckerberg had to say in the new Joe Rogan interview. We could sit here and break it down for two and a half hours or whatever. But the kind of the meat of what Zuckerberg said was what we just played, although I do encourage you to go listen to it in its entirety because there's a lot more of this said. I would just say this. I think that all of this, we're constantly trying to figure out, you know, what fights we should be fighting, right?

Like, what are the fights we should constantly be fighting? And even as Donald Trump is coming into power and into office, the deep state and the globalist and the people that want to establish a new world order are not going to stop. They're going to ramp up their efforts. And whereas we have not seen a ton, I mean, obviously, we've seen the world basically catch on fire during the Biden administration. But what I fear is as Trump is in, right, as Trump is in with this mandate by the American people, they're going to try to burn America during this time. They want you to do or want anything other than Trump. And so they're going to try to destroy America during this time.

And they want you to, they want to do that because they want you in 2028 to say, well, shit, we've had enough of this. Like cities are burning terrorist attacks. You name it. We can't take this anymore. We got to vote Democrat. They're going to have to. And then they're going to get back to their dictatorship, totalitarianism. And so just because we have Trump in does not mean all, all cells are open.

That means that we better watch our ass over this next four years like we've never before watched our ass in America. And so be on the lookout. Be on a lookout for false profits. And when I say false profits, we're talking about people like Zuckerberg. We're talking about even people that you may agree or trust right now. Maybe like Elon, maybe even Trump. Who knows?

We don't know. This world is ever changing. And we just don't know. We have to hold everyone accountable. We have to evaluate everything, everyone says, and we got to hold those people to what they're saying. Are you going to do this or are you not? Yeah, but I think

that's what Trump's coming in with this new cabinet of new, creative people that are not like the normal politician type people that he's putting in his cabinet. But he also wants to like takeover Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal now. Who knows, Mexico maybe might be next

even though for some reason he doesn't want Mexico. There's like no one. There's no one in Mexico anymore. It's like they're mostly here now. Well, I just said I want to go on vacation to Venezuela now. Yeah, I mean, you can. There's going to be nobody there. I mean, we can certainly go on vacation to Venezuela.

But guys, we wanted to kind of break this down. There's probably a lot more to obviously say about this. And I wish we could go on and on to kind of give you more of our thoughts. But let us know what your thoughts are. Reach out to us on X. Tag us in a post. If you don't have X, I encourage you to get it. Or reach out to us on Facebook, Instagram, or wherever you do social.

media. That's up to you. But I want to know your thoughts. Do you trust Zuckerberg or not? And what is your thoughts on Elon Musk? Now, we're going to close this podcast with a watermelon rattlesnake. We're going to play the song in its entirety. Like I said, go support Ben with the watermelon rattlesnake project.

Go find them on. I know Spotify for sure, but probably also Apple. And I want to have Ben on, by the way, very soon because Ben is a patriot. he believes a lot of the same stuff we do although he's kind of a California dude you can hear it in his in his music but he still believes a lot of what we do I would love to have been on and talk about some of the subjects

that we talk about every day and he just moved very close to us so which is kind of cool but guys we will end it there this is Blue Eyes by Watermelon Rose Snake until next time we love you peace out peace out guys I see your blue