Tangle - Elon Musk takes over Twitter.

Episode Date: November 1, 2022

We're breaking down the Elon takeover of Twitter. Plus, a question about "grassroots" movements and an important reader survey about a potential new product.Interested in seeing more content from Tangle? Take a brief survey here and weigh in on new ideas we've got in the works!You can read today's podcast here, today’s “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (2:38), Today’s story (3:38), Right’s take (9:00), Left’s take (13:46), Isaac’s take (18:34), Listener question (23:10), Under the Radar (25:16), Numbers (26:00), Have a nice day (26:44)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about Elon Musk and his purchase of Twitter, which has finally gone through. Obviously, we've covered this a couple of times before when he first joined the board, when he attempted to buy it, when the deal fell through, and now it's happened. He's in the door and has taken over. And we're going to talk a bit about

what it means and what's happened so far. Before we jump into our quick hits, though, I want to give a quick heads up that in today's newsletter, there is a reader survey that I think many of my podcast listeners may be interested in. so we're going to drop it in the episode description as well. One of the most common reframes that I get from readers who unsubscribe from the Tangle newsletter or who are like you, podcast listeners, is that they find the newsletter too long, that they just don't have time to sit down and read for 10 or 15 minutes a day for whatever reason. So my team currently is exploring the idea of creating a second newsletter, a sort of branch off of Tangle, called a Tangle Roundup or Tangle Shorts, that is basically just a heavy abbreviated version of this one with an option to click

into stories that you might want to read more about. So in past reader polls, something like 80% of the readership has said that they love the length of Tangle. So we're not going to change the main newsletter. That's the product that has gotten us here. It allows us to inject all this different nuance into each edition. But if the idea of a shorter newsletter, maybe a weekly newsletter, is attractive to some people, that would be good for us to know. It's an interesting subset of readers that we want to go after. And obviously it's a good business move. We could monetize it. We could paywall it. We could run advertisements in it, whatever. But before we go on building it, I just actually want

to know if there's an interest in this. So if you have an opinion about that, again, there's a survey in the episode description today, and it would really help me to give us some feedback on how to move forward. So think about doing that. All right, that is it for the survey plug, which brings us to our quick hits for the day. First up, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on affirmative action in higher education. The court appears primed to end the policy of race-based admissions in colleges. Number two, the Justice Department charged David Wayne DePapp with attempted kidnapping and assault after he allegedly broke into Nancy

Pelosi's residence and assaulted her husband. DePapp told police he planned to hold Pelosi hostage to talk to her. Number three, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked a House committee from accessing Donald Trump's tax returns. Number four, police in Indiana arrested nine people in connection with the collapse of a century-old suspension bridge in the western town of Morby. Number five, President Biden says he will push for new taxes on oil companies if the industry does not take action to lower fuel prices and boost domestic output. Well, Chief Twit Elon Musk cementing control of Twitter. In a new securities filing, Musk not only cleaned house of executives of Twitter when he took over the company, but also the board. CEO Parag Agrawal, gone. CFO Ned Siegel, axed. Top policy executive

Vijaya God, history. Though don't feel too bad because they got tens of millions of dollars in their exit packages. Elon Musk sent a tweet directed at the social media company's advertisers and said the platform, quote, obviously cannot become a free for all hellscape. No, but it could stay that. Elon wants to bring back to Twitter is reasonable exchange of ideas. richest person, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, secured his purchase of the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion, setting off a new era for a company frequently referred to as the modern town square. Musk's path to owning Twitter was long and arduous. After first attempting a hostile takeover, Musk then attempted to renege on the inflated offer and back out. The price was rich

enough that Twitter opted to force the deal to completion, and after a bitter legal fight, Musk finally saw it through. Last week, he officially took over the company. On Wednesday, he showed up at the company's office carrying a sink and quipped on camera that he wanted it to sink in, he would now be the new owner. The bird is free, Musk tweeted late Thursday night. It didn't take long for things to get interesting. In one of his first moves, Musk tweeted late Thursday night. It didn't take long for things to get interesting. In one of his first moves, Musk fired several longtime Twitter executives. Chief Executive Parag Agarwal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Tagal, Head of Legal Policy, Trust, and Safety Vijay Agadi, and the company's general counsel Sean

Edgett. Three days after taking over, he also posted a tweet in a reply to Hillary Clinton sharing a story with baseless allegations about the attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, which suggested Pelosi was actually drunk and in a fight with a male prostitute. Police have since confirmed Pelosi was the victim of a home intrusion, and Musk deleted his tweet without comment. Now that Musk has taken over Twitter, speculation has become rampant about how he will moderate such content on the platform. Specifically, many users are curious about whether he will allow former President Donald Trump back on as he has promised, or if he will continue to

institute lifetime bans on certain users who violate the platform's rules. Musk says he plans to build out a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints that will meet to make big decisions on content and account reinstatements. Already, change has come to Twitter in a big way. Logged out users, or those without an account, can now view content on Twitter.com's homepage. Previously, if you went to Twitter's homepage without an account, you would be prompted to create one to see things like trending topics. Employees say such a change would have previously taken weeks of deliberation, but this time the move happened swiftly with just a few employees' involvement.

Musk has also brought in his inner circle. Dozens of people from his family office, other companies, and his social circle have been added to the Twitter directory and given company email addresses. His personal lawyer, Alex Spiro, is now acting as Twitter's general counsel. Musk has said his priority is removing the armies of bots who operate on the platform and sometimes simultaneously push misinformation. He has suggested charging a monthly fee for the blue checkmark verification badges that appear next to someone's name when the authenticity of their account has been confirmed. This, Musk said, would be a good way to diversify revenue and make Twitter less reliant on advertisers while also making it less vulnerable to bots.

Meanwhile, Musk has been pointing to Yoel Roth, the head of safety and integrity at Twitter, who is leading the charge to address a surge of hateful conduct on Twitter in the last few days. Roth says they've removed more than 1,500 accounts and reduced impressions on the content to nearly zero. From his verified Twitter account, which now reads Twitter Complaint Hotline Manager in the profile, Musk has, among other things, suggested he may purge accounts that are inactive for 30 days, said the platform's commitment to brand safety is unchanged, and suggested the entire verification process was being revamped. He's also insisted repeatedly that nothing about Twitter's content moderation policies have changed yet.

Today, we're going to explore some reaction to must-takeover with arguments from the right is saying. The right is celebrating the takeover, and hopeful Musk will bring balance to Twitter's content moderation policies. Some argue Musk was right to clean house, as Twitter's previous leadership was marred by bad decision making. Others suggest this is the beginning of a new social media era that will have less censorship than the one we've been living in. In Fox News, David Marcus said Musk should let freedom reign on Twitter. So, what could this takeover mean for Twitter and for the country? Musk has promised to restore many banned accounts, most notably that of former

President Donald Trump. This is good news. By all means, unlock the gates of Twitter jail, Marcus said. The real opportunity for Musk to make a difference and achieve his goal of a global public square free from biased censorship is in content moderation. One thing he can and should do immediately is to sever all connections with third-party fact-checkers used by Twitter to judge what is or is not misinformation. The simple fact is that the American fact-checking industry is dangerously broken beyond repair. It was these supposed experts and credentialed institutions that crushed debate over COVID-19 policy under their censorious boot for two years.

It was these same ill-informed technocrats who buried the Hunter Biden laptop story and wrongfully suspended the account of the New York Post, Marcus said. The whole point of a marketplace of ideas is to let the market determine which are good or bad, which are true or false. When a prominent account posts an obvious lie, which happens about once every 15 seconds, there are thousands and thousands of users ready to point their fingers and laugh, bringing attention to the lie. And even if some are missed, it is better that a dozen lies go unchecked than a single important truth be hidden from the people. In The Federalist, Jordan Boyd praised Musk for cleaning house.

By the gnashing of teeth and wailing from Twitter employees, corporate media mouthpieces, and other leftist elites who are quick to defend big tech censors, a stranger might think these Twitter heads were unjustly ousted. In reality, they got what should have come to them two years ago when they knowingly interfered with the 2020 election to help install Joe Biden in the White House, Boyd said. Twitter doesn't like to admit who on its staff is ultimately responsible for the suppression of information that makes ruling elites and Democrats look bad, especially ahead of key elections. But it was under the now-fired leadership's watch that Twitter banned and censored conservatives, COVID-19 jab skeptics, election integrity supporters, legitimate reporting, and those

who told the truth about the sexes. Oftentimes, Twitter executed this censorship with undeniable arrogance and no remorse. That's why when Agrawal openly admitted that he believed Twitter's role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation, he wasn't chided for contradicting the social media company's supposed commitment to advancing free speech, she wrote. Instead, he was rewarded with a short-lived spot as CEO and congratulated by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey for his transformational work. Agrawal quickly used that power to usher in a new era of partisan crackdowns. Gaddy, who handed down the decision to ban the sitting president, wasn't

criticized for unjustly removing the sitting president and the world's biggest critic of big tech. Instead, her attempts to keep Trump and his campaign off the internet were hailed as heroic, necessary, and moral. National Review's editors said we are entering a new stage of the social media era. As we discovered during the pandemic, the government began suggesting what kinds of tweets and posts they wanted to see, the editor said. Right-wing rhetorical bomb throwers like Milo Yiannopoulos were permanently banned. Discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the run-up to the 2020 election was suppressed. After January 6th, a Twitter ban came for Donald Trump. Speech codes have been used to force figures like Jordan Peterson off the site. But when the satire-blind illiterates at Twitter's anti-misinformation crew

went after the Christian humor publication The Babylon Bee, they goaded billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk into action. Musk is certainly no conservative icon, and we are especially unnerved by his close business ties to China, one of the world's most oppressive enemies of free speech. But there is reason to wish Musk well, they added. Musk is an instinctive, not a doctrinaire libertarian. He is a champion of free speech in an age when progressives associate free expression with harm and oppression. Just as we hope that a future Republican Congress does a thorough investigation of our nation's public health response, we hope Musk's takeover of Twitter brings about an audit of this era's social media policies. A republic dedicated to liberty needs not just a free media, but media institutions that are

themselves dedicated to free expression. In Musk's Twitter, but media institutions that are themselves dedicated to free expression. In Musk's Twitter, we may have that once again. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to the left's take. Many on the left worry about the future of Twitter and how Musk will moderate the content. Some are concerned about the return of Trump and the prospect of an ultra-rich person owning another information platform. Others are fearful that Musk will return to Twitter by abandoning moderation because he needs it to thrive if he wants to save his investment. Twas the season of chaos and all through the house, not one person was stressing.

Holla differently this year with DoorDash. Don't want to holla do the most? Holla don't. More festive, less frantic. Get deals for every occasion with DoorDash. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,

which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. In The Guardian, Hamilton Nolan said Musk probably bought Twitter for the same reason

sickeningly rich people throughout history become press barons, to control the conversation. About themselves in particular, and secondly, about their own economic interests, and thirdly, about their own inevitably selfish, bizarre, half-witted political beliefs, he said. Once you have ascended the ladder of wealth past buying real estate and cars and boats and models and the other tawdry baubles that come with money, there comes a time when a hard-working plutocrat begins to be irked by the fact that, beyond their sphere of servants, people are still talking trash about them. After the thrill of bending the material world to their whim has worn off, the desire to bend

the public conversation, and by extension the public mind, to their own liking takes root. Elon Musk is, ironically, the exact type of person for whom Twitter is poison. Wealthy, powerful, and celebrated, he could have kept his mouth shut and let his work speak for itself. Instead, he uses Twitter and reveals to all of us that the richest man in the richest nation in the history of the world is an unfunny meme guy easily seduced by the same sorts of ideas that grab the minds of Reddit-scrolling 13-year-old boys, Nolan wrote. There is a lesson there about the inability of wealth to make someone interesting. But setting that aside, there is a more relevant lesson about the danger of vast concentrations of wealth. Because when you mix

the immature, half-baked, self-righteous grandiosity of a guy like Elon Musk with the ability to buy and sell multi-billion dollar global public corporations like toys, you have a recipe for chaotic, destructive stupidity on a staggering scale. In the Washington Post, Greg Sargent warned about the frightening consequences. The world's richest man buying perhaps the world's most influential political echo chamber is the latest sign of a development that international relations experts have long feared. With tech giants amassing stratospheric levels of influence over global affairs, they are morphing into a species of geopolitical actor with uncertain long-term consequences, he said. Those experts have a term for this development, technopolarity.

The idea is that big tech companies have become their own sovereigns on par with nation-states. The result, an increasingly unchecked level of influence over international affairs that will demand a new kind of political response. Musk's acquisition of Twitter underscores the situation. Musk has already fired the company's top executives, showing he intends to transform it. He's widely expected to relax content moderation, Sargent said. That, too, could have uncertain geopolitical consequences. One possibility is that Twitter becomes more hospitable to disinformation and online influence operations. If so, Russian propaganda designed to distort perceptions of the war and weaken support

for Ukraine in the United States and abroad could become more widely seen. If Twitter permits more violent content, it could whip up violence against ethnic and religious minorities around the world and facilitate other persecutions, such as the campaign China is carrying out against the Uyghur Muslims. In Slate, Alex Kirshner wrote about why Musk isn't going to open up the Nazi floodgates on Twitter. Musk seems to enjoy Twitter. He seems to enjoy being a legend among conservative posters. So, sure, he may be inclined to throw them bones even in a reality where he is mostly focused on Twitter's dollars and cents, Kirshner wrote. He has said he thinks Trump should be allowed back on the platform, and that could set up

an interesting quandary for the former president. Return to a platform he needs like he needs air to breathe, or avoid it in hopes of drawing traffic to Truth Social, his own much tinier corner of the internet. None of this will make Twitter more enjoyable for most people or for many advertisers, but it also won't kill the company. On the other hand, moves that hinder user growth or scare advertisers en masse won't advertise Musk. For his many faults, Musk did not reach this perch in life by doing bad business to win political points, Kirshner said. He makes those points when they're cheap and when they make him feel good, like when he didn't actually own Twitter but could talk about what he'd do if he did. Now, Twitter's gains and

losses are his own. He could be rich enough to not mind lighting a many billion dollar investment on fire. That would be a change of pace, though. Something much more normal would be if Twitter remained a lot like it has always been, just with one narcissist dictating how it changes policy instead of a more varied board of directors with diffused power. Maybe, after years of striving, Twitter can be more like Facebook. Alright, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. Okay, so the dichotomy of Elon Musk was, I think, on full display this week. It is hard to argue with the brilliance and business acumen of the world's richest man. He's a guy who is reshaping the auto industry in a way that previously seemed impossible. He's seemingly leaving NASA in the rearview mirror on space

travel. He's sending internet to hard-to-reach offline places, including in Ukraine. And now he runs one of the most influential social media networks on the planet. This week, he's been active on Twitter, responding to concerns about how the platform might change. He's elevating longtime content moderators, and he's presenting an open mind on what he can do to improve it. At the same time, we've also seen Elon being Elon. For a guy who professes concern about ensuring Twitter doesn't become a free-for-all hellscape, as he put it, one of his first acts was hardly encouraging. He shared an obviously bogus story from a notoriously unreliable website suggesting that the House Speaker's husband, currently sitting in the hospital with head injuries, was not the victim of a deranged political attack, but was actually

caught in some kind of lover's tryst with a male prostitute. The story was from a notorious fake news website that once alleged Hillary Clinton was replaced by a body double in 2016. Musk quietly deleted the tweet later, then trolled the New York Times for writing an article about it, as if it was no big deal that the platform's now most influential account was spreading obvious and actual fake news in his first day on the job. In a lot of ways, Musk is the dog that caught the car. It's no secret that he didn't actually want Twitter at the price he got it for, if at all, and his hostile takeover, which may have been a huge troll job in the first place, has ended up costing him $44 billion. As Alex Kirshner put it, Twitter is the company he tried

to buy, then didn't, then did again, then maybe didn't, and finally did. Still, nobody is rich enough to light 20% of their net worth on fire for no good reason. He is going to try to make Twitter a more profitable platform. He is going to try to make Twitter a better platform, and he is probably going to assemble a very interesting and qualified team to do so. If you can put his sometimes grating personality aside for a moment, nearly all of Musk's suggestions for the platform strike me as smart or at least compelling. Yes, there should be a diverse council of people who make content moderation decisions, not a group of political ideologues who all view the world the same way, as the team that was doing this before has been described. Yes, there should be some element of the platform that is paid,

whether it's for large accounts or verified accounts or to unlock new features. Relying solely on an advertising revenue model for a platform that routinely offends large swaths of its users probably isn't that smart. I don't support lifetime bans on Twitter. I didn't support the permanent ban of President Trump. I didn't support the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Musk seems to agree with me on all of these things, though he hasn't made any big policy changes or announcements yet. We'll see. I was glad when Musk was supposed to join Twitter's board and a bit more apprehensive when he decided to buy it. Since then, based on everything Musk has said and the reporting around

what he's done internally, my position is that in five years, Twitter probably won't be all that different than it is now. In fact, I suspect the entire circus around him taking it over will be looked back on as one of the great overreactions of 2022. If Musk can generate more revenue to roll out more features, actually eliminate the spam bots, which he says is his number one priority, and usher in a more balanced moderation team, it may actually make the platform better in five years. My greatest fear, though, the one that I wrote about last time we covered this, is the uneasy feeling that I can't shake of the world's richest person buying a platform that is critical to disseminating news. Of course, the world's richest man buying up news outlets and information ecosystems is hardly a new phenomenon, but it is unsettling nonetheless. At some point,

Elon will be tested. A damaging piece of news will proliferate on the platform, and this one man will have the power to control it. Will it be a story about Tesla, about his business ties to China, about his unsettling family history, about a politician he supports, or perhaps about how he is mismanaging Twitter as its new CEO? None of that makes me comfortable, and it should make you uneasy too. For now, though, I'm willing to wait and see if and how the platform actually changes and what Musk actually does before passing judgment. I'm holding out hope we'll get more brilliance than bluster. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from

Jesse in Havertown, Pennsylvania. Jesse said, as the midterms approach, I've been seeing and receiving a lot of messaging about grassroots efforts, including one today about President Joe Biden, President Barack Obama, and John Fetterman, quote, hosting a special grassroots event in Philadelphia, end quote. By strict definition, this may be the case, but I've always believed grassroots implied the effort was not just targeting a region or community, but was also locally based. And I question how an event hosted by several nationally recognized figures can be grassroots under that lens. Does the term mean anything these days, or is it simply a buzzword like Main Street?

And how did the use of buzzwords like this impact our politics? Well, Jesse, I think it's a pretty keen observation. impact our politics. Well, Jesse, I think it's a pretty keen observation. I would argue at this point the word grassroots has basically been rendered meaningless. To me, grassroots principally implies an organization led by its members. If there's a grassroots movement, it means the people in charge of the movement and most influential to it are a collection of the movement's members. This would be the opposite of, say, a presidential-led movement or an elite-led movement. Sometimes, for instance, I call Tangle a grassroots idea. To me, that's because I relied almost entirely on Tangle readers and listeners to spread the word about Tangle when I got this thing off the ground. I got about 30,000 subscribers to Tangle

without spending a dollar on advertising. That's, to me, a grassroots push of the newsletter. But even I'm probably pushing the definition of the word a little bit. Anyway, I think a lot of these now meaningless words are thrown around a lot in politics. Reporters making $45,000 a year are often chastised as the lead. Normie Trump supporters are often called fascists. Liberals are derided as evil for advocating for trans rights. Both sides throw out expressions like existential threat or Nazi or conspiracy theory with little attachment to their actual definitions. Unfortunately, that is just the world we're living in right now. All right, that is it for your questions answer, which brings us

to our under the radar story. Behind closed doors, the U.S. government, through the Department of Homeland Security, the DHS, has been pressuring private platforms like Facebook to police speech. There is a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or taken down. Documents collected by The Intercept via leaks and court cases reveal the DHS is broadening its effort to curb speech it considers dangerous online. To this point, the work has remained unknown to the U.S. public. The Intercept has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description.

All right, next up is our numbers section. The number of employees at Twitter is 7,500. The percentage of those employees who will be laid off, according to reporting that Musk has denied, is 25%. The amount of compensation the executives Musk fired were set to receive was between $20 million and $60 million that was before Musk terminated them for cause. The number of monetizable daily active Twitter users, according to the company, is now $238 million. The final price Elon Musk paid for the platform is $44 billion. Musk's estimated net worth is $223 billion. worth is $223 billion. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day section. If you haven't heard about the ozone layer recently, that's probably because we've done an awfully good job restoring it. Anyone who's alive in the 70s and 80s and 90s probably remembers

the panic about holes in the ozone layer and the deleterious impacts those holes could have on the planet. After scientists discovered that chlorofluorocarbons, also known as CFCs, were the main cause of the ozone depletion, a global response to ban the chemicals was swift and effective. Some 30 years later, new data from NASA, released on October 26th, indicates that the major holes in the ozone layer are now shrinking. Fox has a new piece about this success story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for the podcast.

A quick reminder, in our episode description, we do have a survey today about a potential new product we might launch. If you're interested in taking that or having your voice heard, we'd love to hear from you. I think, again, it is fairly relevant to podcast listeners who might be listening because they don't have time to read the newsletter. Either way, we'll be right back here tomorrow around the same time.

And as always, please do think about a way to spread the word about Tangle today because, you know, we're grassroots and all that. All right, we'll see you then. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Sean Brady, and Bailey Saul. Shout out to our interns, Audrey Moorhead and Watkins Kelly, and our social media manager,

Magdalena Bokova, who designed our logo. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our website at www.readtangle.com. We'll see you next time. and all through the house, not one person was stressing. Holla differently this year with DoorDash. Don't want to holla do the most? Holla don't. More festive, less frantic. Get deals for every occasion with DoorDash. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown.

When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.