Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 124 | YouTube Crackdown

Episode Date: June 12, 2019

YouTube cracks down on viewpoints it finds "dangerous," and the New York Times blames mainstream conservative voices for "radicalization." Do censorship and demonization of ideas matter?

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone is having a wonderful week for those of you who are at YWLS this weekend. It was so wonderful to meet you. I love seeing you guys in person and just hearing your stories and hearing how inspired you were by all of the speakers and those of you who do listen to my podcast. Just hearing you say, you know, what you get from this every week and what you appreciate about it. It just, I mean, I've always loved my job. I've, always loved doing this podcast. It's always meant a lot to me to hear from you guys. But when I get to see you in person and hear these things in person, it just takes everything to a whole other level of reminding me of why I do this. And everyone should have a why behind what they do. Of course, the chief lie is to glorify God and to obey him. But another huge why behind what I do is you guys. And so just thank you for always being encouraging and for giving feedback and for being such an engaging audience who is so smart, who always gives me really good thoughts, really good ideas, really good critiques. And I just, I just love you guys. I think relatable listeners are the

best listeners in the entire world. Some listeners, I'm sure, like super boring, don't know that much. They just listen to a person and they don't even really think about the things that they're listening. But that's not you guys. You guys are really thoughtful. And I don't know, you're just, you're just my friends. And I just, I love the people that listen to this podcast. So thank you for that. Okay, today what we're going to talk about is YouTube and this crackdown that's been happening on more conservative viewpoints. Should we care about this? Should we be worried about this? You probably know that censorship is something that we have been hearing about nonstop, mostly from the conservative side. So we should ask ourselves. I mean, obviously you guys know

that I'm a conservative and you guys know that if this is the case, I probably would be a so-called victim of this kind of censorship, but I want to be objective and stand back and say, okay, is this being overblown? Is there really that much of a bias? And if there is a bias, does any of it really matter? Well, I'm just going to go ahead and tell you my thoughts on it up front. I'm not going to try to hide it from you. I would like to argue that yes, this matters very much and I don't actually think that it's overblown. Sometimes it is, but what we have seen devolve over the past couple of weeks, with YouTube and some conservative voices, I think should, it should worry us.

And it should make us say, okay, this is not something that's being exaggerated. This is not something that's overblown. This is something that we actually need to look out for, really no matter what side of the aisle that you're on. Okay, so the thing that kind of spurred all of this that started yet another controversy between social media and conservative voices,

is it has to do with Stephen Crowder. Stephen Crowder has an extremely, extremely popular podcast that is also distributed by the Blaze like Minus or Blaze TV. And he has a huge following on YouTube. I think he has almost 4 million subscribers. His videos get hundreds of thousands of views. Every time he has a podcast episode go out, some of them get millions of views. He's just a really popular voice in the conservative world.

he's very unique because he's also a comedian. And so he's always kind of pushing the limits on the things that you're like, oh, can you can you say that? Is that really okay to say? And he just kind of goes there, which is, you know, different than what we do on this podcast. That certainly he certainly says things and I would say this to him certainly says things that I would not say, that I would not approve of saying, that I probably don't think are that great to say. He says them and that is who his audience is. That's what his show is. That's how he's always been. He has been in this conservative world for a long time. And there are hundreds of thousands, millions of people who respect his voice and who value the platform that he has diligently built for a long time. However, someone who takes issue,

someone who takes issue with his platform is a guy by the name of Carlos Maza. I think that's how you pronounce his name. He and Stephen Crowder haven't always gotten along. So Carlos Maza works for Vox. Vox is a left leaning outlet in Carlos makes videos for Vox on, you know, a variety of liberal topics. Well, Stephen Crowder has used his show or a segment of his show several times to refute the content of these videos. Carlos Maza does not like this, or maybe it's Maza. I really don't know how to, I don't know. I'll just go with Maza.

He doesn't like this. But that's, that's not totally fair to say that he doesn't just like or he doesn't just not like that Stephen Crowder actually refutes the content of his videos. He doesn't like how Stephen Crowder actually refers to him. So he did this long text thread or text, what, tweet thread that ended up going, I guess you would say, semi-viral. Now, I'll just be totally honest with you. I wasn't able to read the tweet thread right away. And so I've been kind of like out of the loop on this whole thing. And the reason why I wasn't able to read the tweet thread that everyone on the conservative side it seemed like was talking about was because he apparently he blocked

me. I don't even know who this person is. Like I don't think that I've ever communicated with this person. I don't know. I don't remember ever knowing his name talking to him, interacting with him, but I was blocked. And so this tweet thread that was going around everyone was retweeting and commenting on. I was like, well, I have no idea what this is because this person, he goes by the Twitter handle of gay wonk. He blocked me. a long time ago for reasons completely unknown to me. So I just kind of ignored it for a while. So, well, let me say what the tweet thread was. So the tweet thread was him saying, hey, Stephen Crowder makes these videos about me and, you know, I have thick skin. But look, he keeps on commenting on my

sexuality. He keeps on commenting on the fact that I'm gay and the fact that I am Latino. And I don't like it. It's harassment. His followers have harassed me. His followers have targeted me and even tried to, uh, even tried to docks me. And so he posted this like video compilation, this like cut up video compilation of Crowder referring to Maza in a variety of ways that do highlight Maza's homosexuality. Um, mostly just like referring to him as gay, but he also called him a gay Mexican. Oh, let me just say, if you have kids in your car, I always try to say this, there are some things that maybe you might not want them to hear. So just FYI, um, called him a gay sprite called him a lispy queer. And again, these are not phrases that we would use on this

podcast or that I would use in my life. But stick with me as we talk about the actual point of the story, which goes beyond what Crowder actually said. So he's calling him these names. Maza puts a compilation of this name calling that Crowder did on Twitter. The thread was really long. But in summary, he said, okay, this is harassment, and I have been harassed by his followers. So why is YouTube allowing this person to have a platform? Doesn't this go against their rules? Doesn't this violate their terms? Why are they allowing this person to have such a growing channel on their platform who is homophobic, he would say? Now, Crowder responded to this by saying, okay, hang on just a second. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, so I, this is him talking, basically, I'm totally

paraphrasing and summarizing, basically saying, okay. So I use some off-color jokes that offended you. Yes, I called you those names, but he's saying, I never told my followers to harass you. I never encouraged doxing. He said, I refuted the content of your videos. And sure, I might have said some things that offended you, but I never harassed you. I never encouraged anyone else to harass you either. So after all of this kind of back and forth, and of course, You had conservatives all over Twitter defending Stephen Crowder because they know that Stephen Crowder is a comedian. Comedians often push the limits. They often pick on people.

They rib people. They even say things that are offensive to groups of people. And Stephen Crowder has been politically incorrect for a really long time. So you had a lot of conservatives defending him. YouTube responded to Maz's thread on Twitter saying this. Our team spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the video. flagged to us. So he had flagged the particular videos that Stephen Crowder, that Stephen Crowder harassed him in. And they said, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful,

the videos as posted don't violate our policies. We've included more info below to explain this decision. As an open platform, it's crucial for us to allow everyone from creators to journalists to late night TV hosts to express their opinions within the scope of our policies. opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don't violate our policies, they'll remain on our site. Okay, so I was surprised by this, honestly. And I think a lot of people were surprised by this on the left and the right. To me, this is the correct stance to take. Yes, he said some offensive things, and they're saying, okay, we understand that they were hurtful. But look, if we, being YouTube, if we took down every single opinion or every single comment that someone was offended by, we wouldn't have anyone on our platform. There are people on the left and the right who say

offensive things about groups. And if they're not allowed to do that, are they even allowed to say anything of substance? Now, of course, you had people saying, well, why is homophobia an opinion? Why is that something that should be protected? But you've got other people that say, okay, it was just gentle ribbing. It was just making fun. You can't possibly say that that violates your terms. You can't possibly say that that goes against our policies. But, okay, I think I was pretty happy with this decision. That's kind of a hands-off. We don't agree with what he said. But we're going to allow people of different opinions to be on this platform because that's who we are. We are encouraging an open dialogue as long as they're not targeting people by calling for harassment or doxing or violence

or anything like that. I thought that it was a pretty good step for YouTube. But here's the thing. The story does not end there. The story does not in there. So this completely sane, I thought, in common sense stance by YouTube, solicited an absolute, absolutely outrageous outrage mob. I mean, people were upset by this. They could not believe that this is the stance that YouTube made, especially in light of Pride Month and all of this. People were saying this is a direct attack on the LGBTQ community that YouTube clearly

doesn't stand with this community. They said, you're not going to police offensive language. You're not going to police what they call hate speech. You're not going to censor inappropriate jokes, they said. So as we would expect, as we would expect. And as we primarily expected, as we expected in the first place YouTube to do, they bowed down to the outrage, to the leftist outrage, by the way. They did not bow down to conservative outrage. They bowed down to leftist outrage. They changed their mind. They said, okay, you're right, you guys. You are right. We are sorry. We are going to completely, we're going to completely demonetize Crowder's channel. Now, if you don't know what that means, that means that we're not going to allow ads to play on any of his videos, which means he will

no longer get paid, the money that he used to get paid from YouTube. Now, like I said, Crowder has almost four million subscribers on YouTube. His videos get hundreds of thousands and usually, you know, over a million views. So that means he probably gets paid pretty well from YouTube. I don't know for sure. But I would guess that the monetization of his videos helps him out a lot. That's no longer going to happen because YouTube decided to cowtow to people like Maza and all of the people that got really upset about their original decision. But Maza actually still isn't happy about this. I saw a tweet that was screenshot because, you know, I can't see it because I'm blocked. He still isn't happy about this. He says that demonetization doesn't actually work,

that it doesn't go far enough. So he really wants. He really wants Crowder and other people like him to be completely taken off the platform. Now, it makes sense once you realize that Maza used to work for media matters, which is literally in the business of deplatforming and demonizing conservative voices. This is just who he is. This is a guy who has also called for violence and harassment in person against conservatives. Other tweets that I have seen that you can look up if you are not blocked. He is called for milkshaking conservatives, which is like this thing that apparently people do is like throwing milkshakes on like conservatives in the public sphere that you see out in everyday life. Really solid stuff. Really, really mature solid stuff that probably makes, you know,

a lot of people in the middle say, you know what, I'm going to become a liberal now. Now that I see that that these guys are throwing milkshakes on conservatives, you know, they must have some pretty good ideas, some pretty good ideas that are probably, probably worth joining. So that's, that's who this guy is. He also said that he wants conservatives to be terrified to gather in public. So that's good, good guy here. So he is out here saying all of that, that literally in public, literally calling for harassment against conservatives in the public sphere, throwing milkshakes on them. I, I, I, I, promise you, if I am with my daughter and you throw a milkshake on me, that's not going to end well for you. One, jokes on you. I love milkshakes. Two, I promise you, I promise you, I promise you,

if you do anything to me when I am with my daughter, I'm just saying it's just not, it's not going to turn out well for you. It's not going to turn out well for you. So that's who this guy is. He's a complete and total hypocrite. The bottom line is that he just doesn't want conservative voices to have a platform, and this is a full-on assault. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be offended by what Stephen Crowder said, look, if I were him, if someone had a channel, a very popular channel, and they were talking badly about me on multiple episodes, and they were calling me names that I didn't like and their followers were coming to my channel and harassing me and threatening to docks me, I would be really upset about that. I would. So I do not blame this guy, even though I don't like

him, even though I don't like his tactics, even though I don't like his views. I don't blame this guy for being upset. I don't. I don't blame this guy for not liking Crowder. I don't blame this guy for being, you know, maybe somewhat upset at YouTube, maybe. I don't blame him for that. But if I were in his situation, would I be calling for the systematic censorship of everyone who doesn't agree with me? Would I be calling for the complete deplatforming and removal of someone who said, I don't know, something like, girls shouldn't have podcasts?

No, of course not. I would disagree with him. I wouldn't like it. I definitely would report all of the users that tried to harass him. me or all of the users that tried to dox me. But if that person weren't calling for direct harassment or calling for direct violence or calling for a direct for or calling directly, uh, for doxing, well, then that's not really that's per that person's fault because I'm in the public sphere. They can comment on my content if they want to. And that's just,

you know, that's part of the game. And again, I understand why this guy doesn't like Stephen Crowder and the things that he said. And I think that he's totally in his, he has every right to be offended by this. Totally justified, but that does not justify trying to shut someone down just because they said something that offends you. So YouTube, I think I started to say something and then I went away from it and now I'm coming back. So YouTube changed their mind and they said, yes, okay, I said this. YouTube changed their mind. They're going to demonetize him. Carlos is upset that they're not completely deplatforming them. But, they did come out with a statement that said, YouTube came out with a statement that said,

well, you know, we're actually going to crack down on this stuff. We actually are going to crack down on this stuff. We're going to make sure extremist content doesn't get seen as much. We're going to make sure that even the kinds of videos that could lead to so-called extremist content don't show up as easily. So we're just going to make sure that that doesn't happen. So, okay, here we go. This is what happens when you try to give YouTube the power and the authority to take down all content that offends you. When you say YouTube, you don't believe in the LGBT community or you don't support us or you don't like us, you hate us unless you completely deplatformed the people that we don't like. When you give YouTube that kind of power, you are implicitly or explicitly, depending on how you

look at it, giving them the power to censor all ideas, all ideas that could possibly be offensive. and we saw that with this statement that they made after all of this saying we're going to crack down on it. We're going to make sure that videos that even could possibly lead to a so-called extremist views, that we're going to make sure that they don't come up as suggested videos or anything like that. So here we go. Here's the problem with this. We cannot trust Google and YouTube to decide what is extremist, what is actually harmful and what is not. I mean, am I extremist? I've done multiple videos probably about biblical topics that people are offended by.

I've done podcast episodes about God's design for biblical marriage. Am I radical? Am I offensive because of that? Am I hateful? Am I engaging in hate speech because I talk about the Bible and I talk about things that non-Christians probably don't like? Am I radical? Am I one of those people that they're going to have to demonetize that they're going to have to platform to make sure that they have a safe community? I mean, who's to say? Is Google to say whether or not a biblical point of view is extremist? I guarantee you, this does not stop with someone like Stephen Crowder making off-color jokes that can be offensive to a group of people. This doesn't stop with that. This stops with or this keeps going to people like me, to people who talk about Christianity, to people who talk about, you know, liking Donald Trump or being a conservative that talk about being pro-life, that even just engage

in these conversations. Maybe they don't even hold the views themselves, but maybe they're just open-minded. We've already seen that Big Tech doesn't really like open-mindedness in the censorship that we've seen of people, like, or not even censorship, but just kind of demonization and dislike of people like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin, who themselves aren't particularly conservative, but engage with people who are. They just don't like that, which leads to an interesting article that I read in the New York Times. And it was called the making of a YouTube radical. The making of a YouTube radical.

So this writer for New York Times thought that he just busted this extremely, extremely interesting case of this radicalized guy who was 26 years old. His name is Caleb Kane. He recently, apparently, he says that he swore off the alt-right. So this article looks at Caleb's journey. It's like this very intensive, interactive timeline of Caleb's journey that YouTube took him on. Apparently he was on the left or he didn't really know what he believed politically. But then he started listening to conservative commentators and then he got further and further

to the right to where he started listening to more outright commentators. And I agree. Some of the commentators that he was listening to, they were all right. So he started going down these rabbit holes. and he basically became this all right guy who bought into this. But then he started listening to this leftist YouTube channel. And then he was saved and he realized that, oh, my gosh, all the stuff I was listening to was bad.

And so this article was basically saying that YouTube is set up in such a way as to radicalize people. Because when you listen to or when you watch one video, it suggests other videos that are similar. So you do go down these rabbit holes. and you can just get more and more radicalized. Well, the reason why this was contentious is because the people that they included in this kind of collage that they put up at the top of these all right views that the New York Times

seems or says radicalized people were people like Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman, so the economist, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, I think there were some other more mainstream people. So this is the problem, and this is something that we have seen multiple times. Obviously, the entire article was biased, basically saying that conservatism, any kind of mainstream conservatism or open-mindedness to conservatism, like what Dave Rubin exemplifies on his show, that's going to radicalize people. And it's subtle, but it's a way of making people worried or making people scared of listening to mainstream conservatives because they don't want to be seen as radicals.

If you are someone who is in the middle or you're just trying to decide what you believe, the more you see someone like Ben Shapiro associated with the name alt-right or associated with far-right people, the more you are going to classify him in your mind unless you know better as some kind of extremist, some kind of bigot, some kind of person that you don't want to associate yourself with. This has happened multiple times. I think it happened with Washington Post recently. It's happened multiple times with multiple outlets. this subtle association of very mainstream thoughtful conservatives with more far-right or

alt-right figures that are not particularly thoughtful, that are extremists, that do espouse views that really don't have any similarities to conservatism whatsoever and just maybe like Donald Trump and aren't leftists themselves. But the media really likes to clump all of these people together and say, if you buy into any of these ideologies or philosophies or ideas, if you buy into any of these conversations, well, then you're going to be radicalized too, and you don't want that because that's bad. That's immoral.

And New York Times, of course, they came out and they said, oh, I'm sorry, like we didn't mean to include some of these people in the collage. We'll take, we'll take, like, I think they said, like Ben Shapiro out. This happened a couple weeks ago, and the same thing happened to Ben Shapiro when they included him.

I think it was with Milo Yanopoulos or someone and called him. All right. They had to change the description of him. there. So they do that a couple days later and they apologize, but this has happened too many times for me to think that it's accidental. It's totally deliberate. They want people to be scared to listen to Ben Shapiro. They want people to be scared to listen to Dave Rubin, even to be scared to listen to someone like Joe Rogan, who is not a conservative, by the way. But he does have people of a variety of viewpoints on his show. And to the left, that's not something that they want. They don't think that you

should entertain any idea or any thought or any kind of reasoning that disagrees with them. They think the same thing about someone like Jordan Peterson, who himself, I would not call a conservative. Now, he's against political correctness. He is against forced speech, of course. Those didn't used to be conservative values exclusively. He is, but he's extremely thoughtful. There is nothing radical about what Jordan Peterson teaches or talks about. And yet, the media wants you to think that if you start entertaining any ideas that are not far left, well, then you might become an extremist too. You might become a bigot too. You might go down this dark and deep rabbit hole into the scary abyss of actually believing things that MSNBC doesn't tell you.

And that is why I think all of this is a problem. I do not, there are a lot of voices. A lot of voices who consider themselves on the rights that I don't agree with, that I don't like, that I actually think their ideas are really toxic to the public dialogue, that I wish that they didn't try to espouse conservatism because what they're saying is harmful or it's not true or whatever it is. And I think that the people that follow them and follow their ideas typically do end up in this really weird and corrupt place. But what I don't want is for us to have these, basically these online police states where you have this leftist social justice group of elites saying what can be, what can be accepted as good speech and what can't based on completely biased views.

That's what I don't want because I am perceptive enough and I think all of you are too perceptive enough to realize that it's not going to stop with the absolutely crazy views. I would rather it be up to individuals. I'd rather it be up to listeners and to viewers to know what is true. And I understand, I understand that there are a lot of people out there that are susceptible to fake news. And I do think that there has to be some sort of standard for truth, some sort of standard. Like, it does get really scary when you think about all the technology that's out there that you can literally make someone look like they're saying something in a video that they're not, or you can manipulate something, manipulate some sort of footage into,

to implicate someone for something that they didn't do. And all of that is very scary. I'm not saying that these social media platforms don't have any responsibility whatsoever, especially when it comes to directly hurting someone's reputation. But the more you get into that, the more you start censoring that and policing that, the more biased you become.

There was that whole thing with Nancy Pelosi and this compilation going out of her, this guy who just, lives and works in the Bronx. I think that's where he lives. He made this like mashed up video of Nancy Pelosi at a press conference and slowed it down a little bit apparently. So it sounded like she was drunk. It was circulating on social media. I'm sure a lot of people believe that it was true. The president and his administration, I think that's the same video they ended up sharing. It could have been a different video. But there were people in in Trump's administration who ended up

sharing it. Nancy Pelosi was very upset. Hillary Clinton was very upset. You had a lot of people, on the left very upset by this and what did the daily beast do the daily beast went and found this guy found exactly where he works found what his name is found his criminal history and they exposed it why because they don't believe that he should be free to do something like that and of course they called on facebook to help them find this guy's identity facebook did and they said well facebook why didn't you take this video down mark Zuckerberg apparently called nancy pelosi to apologize all this crazy stuff And so when you start getting into things like that, when you can't even tell jokes anymore, if you remember that AOC video that I did, the mashed up interview that I did back in July.

So almost a year ago, you had the Washington Post, you had BuzzFeed, you had all of these outlets reaching out to me saying, why did you purposely deceive people? And why has it Facebook taken this down? Why hasn't Twitter taken this down? They fully believe that these social media platforms should step in when there is a video that they don't like if it employs humor that they don't think it's funny. I do think it's extremely dangerous when social media platforms come in and they try to censor that. And so I don't know exactly where the line is on these social media companies coming in and saying, okay, we don't

allow blatantly false material to be circulated on our platforms. Maybe that's not their job at all. Maybe it's not their job at all. Maybe it's totally on us. Maybe it's completely on the individual, on the viewer to know what's true and what's not. Maybe it's not on them at all because I do think that when they come in and say, sorry, you can't do that, you can't do that interview with AOC because it makes her look bad or whatever it is. I think that's extremely dangerous because you're not going to see them doing the same thing to Stephen Colbert when he does it with the president. You're not going to see them take down the videos of Jay Leno doing that. And we've already seen how their new round of censorship when they said, oh, we're going to make sure that we're cracking down on these extremist views.

We've already seen how that has backfired because apparently even like Holocaust educational videos are being taken off YouTube. Holocaust educational videos that like teachers are using and professors are using in their classrooms to make sure that their kids know what the Holocaust is. They're literally erasing history, which there are very few things that are more Orwellian than that if you have read 1984. But that's a lot of. exactly what's going on. And so, again, when we give the power to the social media companies to tell us what is true, what is not, what is hate speech, what is not, it just becomes extremely dangerous. The information that we have access to becomes extremely narrow, especially ideologically.

Again, I think that if you're inciting violence or you're looking to dock someone or you are inciting some kind of harassment or you are spreading possibly an outright line. Maybe there is a place. There is a place, certainly in place of, in the instance of violence, but maybe there's a place in those other instances for the social media companies to come in and say something. But look, they're a platform. At the very least, if they do enforce rules like that, at the very least they need to be ideologically neutral. And they just aren't. We know for a fact that Google isn't neutral. we saw the leaked video of them after the election crying their eyes out when Hillary Clinton lost. Like, we know that they leaned to the left. There is a reason for conservatives to be worried.

And in a free country where this is how we use our voices and this is how we have public dialogue, I do think it's important for them to say, hey, we're not politically biased. Here are our rules. We're going to enforce them evenly across the board. That's all I ask. They are private companies, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. They can have the rules that they want to use. I don't want them to be regulated. I don't want them to be regulated by the government. They can totally enforce the rules that they want to enforce. But as platforms rather than publishers, platforms who claim to be neutral, who claim to be making fair and even decisions, they should absolutely take their political bias out of it.

100%. I don't anticipate that's going to happen. So this is just a plug. And I never plug this thing. but I never plug really at all, unless I'm talking about bolster sleep or Express VPN. But I am going to say I really do want you guys to subscribe to Blaze TV. It's really important because you don't know when I'm going to be kicked off YouTube. Like you don't know when I'm going to be kicked off iTunes.

We've already had a problem with Spotify. So subscribe to Blaze TV if you can. I know it's an extra expense every month. You can use promo code Alley. You can get $20 off. But that just assures that you're going to be able to live. listen to the content that you want to listen to because they're not going to be able to censor us on Blaze TV. So you can go to blazTV.com slash Allie and you can subscribe there and then you know

that you're always going to get the content that you want to get no matter what. It's protected that way. Probably as far as we know, at least longer than we will be on YouTube or these other platforms that we know have a bias. So yes, all of this stuff matters. Yes, censorship matters. Doesn't matter if you agree with the voice and what they're saying, it all matters. And it is, it's not just a logical fallacy to say that it's a slippery slope. We've already seen that it's a slippery slope. And there is an ideological motivation behind it to make sure that conservatives don't have a voice and that the only public dialogue that exists is decidedly leftist. And I think that's something that we should care about. Okay, we will be back here on Friday. I haven't decided what we're going to talk about.

There's been a lot that's gone on with the Southern Baptist Convention over this past week. there's a lot, there's a lot of contention. And so I might talk about that on Friday. I haven't decided, but if you guys do have suggestions, always feel free. You can message me on Instagram. You can email me, Alley at the conservative millennial blog.com. Of course, if you love this podcast, I would love your five-star review on iTunes. It helps me out a lot. Plus, I read them and I love hearing your words. Okay, I will see you guys here on Friday.