The Ben Mulroney Show - G7 roundup, leadership, tech and the pitfalls of social media breakups

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Trump/Carney make a deal to make a deal -Dr. Oren Amitay on what it takes to be a leader -Carmi Levy on tech -Lawyer Christopher Yu on social media breakups If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We hope you're enjoying your Air Canada flight. Rocky's Vacation, here we come. Whoa, is this economy? Free beer, wine, and snacks. Sweet! Fast free Wi-Fi means I can make dinner reservations before we land. And with live TV, I'm not missing the game. It's kind of like I'm already on vacation.

Nice. On behalf of Air Canada, nice travels. Wi-Fi available toplane members on Equip flight, sponsored by Bell Conditions Apply, SierraCanada.com. This episode is brought to you by Dzone. For the first time ever, the 32 best soccer clubs from across the world are coming together to decide who the undisputed champions of the world are in the FIFA Club World Cup. The world's best players, Messi, Holland, Kane and more are all taking part. And you can watch every match for free on Dazon, starting on June 14th and running until July 13th. Sign up now at dazon.com slash FIFA. That's D-A-Z-N dot com slash FIFA. You are listening to the Ben Mulroney show on this June 17. I believe it is Tuesday. Some people say Tuesday, Tuesday, June 17 2025. And we're in the second hour of the show. And we haven't even talked G7 yet. But it's going on in

Kananaskis, our new Prime Minister, the host of what I think is probably the most significant summit that he will attend this year. He had a lot of grand designs on hosting this event, and he brought in not just members of the G7, but some special all-stars in the form of the president of South Africa, the prime minister of India, the president of Ukraine, the prime minister of Australia. I mean, it's a who's who. In an attempt, I think, to leverage the G7

to the benefit of all, but specifically, Canada and Canadians. And some, you know, it got off to a great start. It really did. Let's listen to our Prime Minister referencing our neighbor to the south, Donald Trump. Nostalgia isn't a strategy. We have to change with the times and to build a better world. And some of you, such as you, Mr. President, have anticipated these massive changes and are taking bold measures to address them.

All of us around this table are reinforcing our militaries and security services for the new world. But we all know that there can be no security without economic prosperity and no prosperity without resilience. And in a world where shocks flow across the borders, that resilience comes from cooperation. So listen, that's what you've got to do.

You've got to be magnanimous and you've got to be a good host. And so when you welcome people into your home, you don't hit them over the head. You welcome them in and you make them comfortable. And one of the ways you make Donald Trump comfortable is you flatter him. But I've been not for nothing. This feels like it's going according to the script that every prime minister has read from since the beginning of time. And this does not jive with what the Liberal Party successively sold enough Canadians on the campaign trail that our old relationship with

the United States is over. And it is now time to build a new relationship. I mean, every Prime Minister could say that. My dad, when he came into power in 1984, could have said that about the Canadian-US relationship because he was gonna do it far differently than his predecessor, not necessarily immediate predecessor, but the Trudeau regime that had great disdain

for the Americans, antagonistic disdain for the Americans, antagonistic disdain for the Americans, Brian Mulroney came in and reset the relationship. So it was not a, it's not a new relationship, it's simply a new chapter because the players are new, but the fear worked and now he's gone back to the script of just building a new relationship as one does. So it got off to a good start. There was a hope that perhaps a side conversation with the president could have led to, I don't know, some sort of ratcheting down of the tariffs.

That did not happen. But there was a commitment for a new trade deal. It's a plan for a plan because we have now, the clock is ticking, and both sides have agreed that we will have a plan in place in 30 days. I don't know what the point is of announcing that because now the expectation has been set that 30 days from now, everyone's going to come together and sign a deal. And if that doesn't happen, then it will be viewed as a failure. There's no prescription for this. They did not have to set a timer, and yet they did. So I'm now expecting a deal in 30 days. And if it doesn't materialize,

I will have to hold the government to account. So this is on them. They chose to do this. And, and we'll have to see now. Yesterday, we predicted that all the grand designs and of our ambitious prime minister could be scuttled by the Iranian situation. And it's that's exactly, apparently what happened because the president left the summit after less than a day after dinner. He got on Air Force One and said he had to go deal with the Iranian situation that is changing in real time.

And Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, said of the president of the United States that he didn't leave because of Iran, and Donald Trump did not like that. He posted on True Social, publicity-seeking president, Emmanuel Macron of France, mistakenly said, I left the G7 summit in Canada to go back to DC to work on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a ceasefire. Wait, that doesn't make any sense. I thought he was leaving because of the ceasefire. Yeah, because he said so on the plane. I don't know, maybe Emmanuel Macron was right. Anyway, moving along, we know in Canada that our prosperity cannot forever be tied to the United States. We have to look elsewhere. And we have to look inward. And all parties agreed in the last election that breaking down internal trade barriers was essential to our prosperity.

And so the One Economy Act, Bill C-5, which is legislation to be tabled by the Liberal government, aims to reduce internal trade barriers by recognizing provincial certification and regulations and fast track natural resource projects by declaring them of national interest. The bill is branded as part of the nation building by the Liberal government, except that if they don't make the commensurate changes to the natural resource and extraction killing bills of the Trudeau Liberals, I don't know how this is meaningful.

If they don't get rid of the production cap, if they don't get rid of the tanker ban, if they don't cut all the red tape that comes from keeping the the no new pipelines bill, if they don't get rid of that then these things are gonna cancel each other out I think. Now that being said, this bill C5 passed initial fast C5, passed with an initial fast track vote of 305 to 30. That was late yesterday. It was supported by the Liberals and the Tories. No surprise it was opposed by the Bloc Québécois, who don't want to build a nation, so why would

they want to build a national economy? The NDP, because the NDP, and the Green MPs. I mean, look, the NDP because the NDP and the green MPs. I mean, look, the NDP voted against that. I guarantee you Wab Kanu is the most successful NDP leader in the country would have voted for it. They really should be looking in the mirror. They really should be looking in the mirror and asking themselves,

what exactly are we doing here in Ottawa? So this marks a shift in alliances big time. A previous liberal minority relied on the NDP and the Bloc, and now I think in a great show of national solidarity, they're finding common cause with the Tories, and keeping in mind that the Tories and the liberals made up about 85, 80% of the vote across the country.

If you take Quebec out of that, it's closer to 90% of the votes across the country voted in favor of this. So that to me is a very good sign that the leadership of the liberals, they should get credit for that. Again, though, the context of those other bills, those other laws have to be addressed. The conservative position was that they supported

Bill C-5, but it doesn't go far enough. Again, they want the liberals to repeal the impact assessment legislation. And they describe the current laws as obstacles to investment and development. So they're actually saying exactly what I saw, what I said. Like you've got the groundwork that was laid by the previous government. And this is this this was is the problem with the reskinning of the liberals. The old liberal are the old liberals the same as the new? Well, if they don't change the very laws that they voted to enact, then they are. If it's like trying to put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. And so this is where the rubber is going to meet the road, folks. A lot of us voted for the new liberal party because we were told they were a new liberal party.

This is where we're going to see how new they are. This is going. How willing are they to cast aside the blunders and mistakes and dumbfoundingly stupid decisions that were made over 10 years? If they can do that, maybe they are a new liberal party. We'll have to wait and see. All right. When we come back, we are going to be talking with Dr. Orrin Amate about the effect that protesters have on our world leaders.

Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney show. Welcome back and thanks for joining us here on the Ben Mulroney show. You know, I've been I've been watching a lot of politics and protests and the interaction between the two and I can't help but cast my mind back to when my father was in office. There was, look, he was at times very popular and other times less popular. But regardless of where he was in the polls, the protesters always seemed to find him. And it never seemed to bug him. And I always thought that was interesting. And we're now living in a time where politics and protest are interacting

at a fever pitch. And I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation with somebody about how politicians respond to protesters. So joining me now to dig in a little bit is Dr. Orrin Amate. Doc, welcome to the show. Thank you, Ben. Yeah, I always wondered, Doc,

about having people screaming in your face, you know, you show up to do a job, and somebody comes and shouts you down and tells you, not only are you terrible, but you should quit and leave and possibly be arrested. And it should weigh on people. But for some people, it's like water off a duck's back. water off a duck's back. Yeah, and that's for several reasons. And anything we talk about, because we're talking about leaders, of course I haven't diagnosed any of them. So this is all just descriptions of personality traits and psychological profiles and behavior patterns. So no diagnosing from afar to be clear.

Of course. Yes, so for some people, it's just they have a really thick skin. Things just don't get to them. They don't take it personally. For others, they are so intent on either getting their message across or getting their agenda set that no matter what they hear, it doesn't deter them from their mission. And those are two very different reasons, but sometimes people have both.

Yeah. Well, my dad also lived in a particular time. I think he he understood the motivation of some of the protesters, because some people protest for very good reason, right? Some people, and so those people, I think, at least in the eyes of the politician, are worthy of listening to. And for example, I'll give you a perfect example. There was one woman who protested my dad every day. She stood on the lawn of Parliament Hill,

and that was David Milgaard's mother. And at one point he found her, and he brought her into his office, and that led to the reopening of David Milgaard's case. And he was found to have been incarcerated and found guilty of murder when in fact he was perfectly innocent and he was released and so and so dad the humanity of that woman came up came across to my dad but in other cases they're professional they are paid

by organizations to protest and those those are the people that I think you can discount immediately but I've got to ask do you think because we've got a prime minister who presents as very different from Donald Trump, and during the election campaign, for my own partisan reasons, I liked to make a flyover comparison of our prime minister and the president. I said, you know what, they're more alike than you think. But you could make a case that despite their political differences, there are commonalities between a lot of world leaders. You don't get to that level unless

you've got certain things that drive you in a similar way. Well, exactly. And that's why I gave the caveat earlier, because to be a leader, first of all, there are three things that people have to distinguish between there are narcissistic traits, there is narcissism, and then there's narcissistic personality disorder. Those are three different things. So the narcissistic traits that virtually all leaders have is this, let's say, excessive belief in their abilities.

One might call it grandiosity, right? And a belief that they should be in charge, that they have the ability to lead and that it's almost their destiny. So that's what most leaders have in common. Now for some, whether it's grandiosity, whether it's narcissism or whatever it is, as I mentioned earlier about this mission, this belief that I need to have an impact on the world, whether it's for the good of humanity or for my own legacy, for my own, I want to be in the spotlight, I want to be known as the special one who saved the world, whatever it may be.

So that's one of the commonalities. And you are right, again, I'm not diagnosing, but when you look at Carney and Trump on the surface, they look so different, but scratch a little bit and you do see some of those similarities, especially when you, it's very easy to see with Carney. He presents very, you know, he has this calm, almost assured look on his face, but then you ask him something he doesn't like and you see this flicker in his eyes, this contempt almost.

Yeah. Okay. Right. That's what people have to see. Trump's contempt obvious he makes it yeah yeah he's trying to contain it he's trying to constrain this almost rage that he has and again I'm not gonna diagnose here but some would call that narcissistic rage how dare you yeah I try to expose me yeah it's a it's a it's it's it's interesting that all three of those categories that you bring up they all use the same sort of narcissistic header.

But narcissism, I mean, if directed properly, can be healthy and can be good for that person, but also for the country. Exactly. Again, that's if it's narcissistic traits or narcissism with narcissistic personality disorder, still even then, it's like, let's say for example, somebody spends a hundred million dollars to get a wing of a hospital named after them and they do it only because they want the glory, they want that name out there. But hey, if it benefits the rest of society, why not?

That's right, that's right. But I've wanted these, we know, we're living in a time in cities like Toronto, but indeed everywhere, where protests are right in our faces. You know, I'm living, I'm interacting with protesters, if not regularly, then pretty close. And that's weighing on me personally. And is there, do you think there's an effect to what they're doing at the G seven, where the protests aren't happening anywhere close to to where the action is the the the G sevens in in Canon Asciss, but the protesters are in Banff and in Calgary.

Yeah, I mean, the example you gave them David Milgaard's mother, I mean that's I think a perfect it overlays very well with this because if you're able to dismiss this as just a rabble, as noise, that paid protesters, you know, and especially if it's in a distance, it's very easy to, you know, disconnect a human being. You see, you know what, they're not just a pay protester or a rabble rouser, they actually, you know, they have good intention and, you know, and you can personalize them. Then that, you know, personal story could have an impact. But for these leaders, like really, I mean, the only thing that they really care about, quite frankly, and this is true of all leaders, is what's in my best interest.

Okay? Well, hold on, I'm going to push back a little bit on that because in a lot of cases they say, no, I fought for my vision. I got the requisite votes, which means I got buy-in from the country that I get to work on that vision, enact that vision. And if before I've even had a chance to do it, people are trying to get in my way and act as roadblocks for it, well, then they are the impediment.

They are the problem. They don't have the mandate, I have the mandate. Well right, but I'm saying it's what's in my best interest once again. My best interest as a leader is power, is control. So if, I think that's what I'm saying, if these people, if I think that they are an impediment and I can squash them, then they have no real impact. If I think that they're an impediment that I can't overcome without can't overcome without, you know, acquiescing a little bit, then that's gonna dictate how I act. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, but lastly, where do you put, where do you put Jean Chrétien and the Schwenningen handshake in all of this? You know, such a famous incident. You know, I think that was just a moment of almost rage, basically. And, you know, everyone's trying to see him as a little guy from, you know, and everything like that. I think the true Christian came out the true

fighter. I mean, that was just savage. I was a doc, I was no fan in the moment. But in the world that we're living in right now, that that that guy right there, that's the hero we need today. Doc, thank you very much for joining us today. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ben. Yeah, I mean, look at all the protests that have been happening all across this country. It's just noise to me at this point, but David Milgaard's mother's quiet protest asking the government to consider that an innocent man

was rotting away in jail for a crime he did not commit was probably the most effective protest that I have ever seen in my lifetime. And I am proud of my dad for everything that he has contributed to my life and to his work for Canada. But his ability to see that the pain of a mother was rooted in truth, The pain of a mother was rooted in truth, and he used the levers of power at his disposal to right a historic wrong in Canada is at the top of the list of things that make me proud. Whether it's a family member, friend, or furry companion

joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Condition supply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to Volvo cars.ca for full details. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show and thank you so much for

joining us. I always like to say we want to find our listeners wherever they are. So if you're an old fashioned listener on the radio, we'll take you there. If you decide to listen to us on a streaming app, we'll take you there. If you're a podcast kind of person, we will take you there. If you're a podcast kind of person, we will take you on Amazon, on Spotify or Apple podcasts. And of course now, if you enjoy pictures with your audio, you can find us on YouTube.

So thank you very much. Joining us now to talk tech is tech reporter and tech journalist, Carmi Levy. Carmi, thank you so much for joining us on this Tuesday. Thanks so much for having me, Ben. Great to be with you. So I sort of had this realization a few a few weeks ago. I was like, my God, I don't think I've ever spent more time on YouTube. I rely on it for so much of

my news and entertainment. And I guess I'm not alone in that case. But a lot of people are falling victim to misinformation, disinformation, hate speech on YouTube, and they've quietly changed their moderating policy. Yeah, the New York Times has discovered that they made the change to the policy. It used to be that if offending material did not account for more than 25% of the video's duration, then that was okay. They would keep it on the platform. More than 25% then it would be a candidate for being pulled down. Well, they very quietly changed this a few months ago to 50%.

And so now you can have a lot more offensive material in the context of the video before YouTube decides that it wants to get rid of it. They have all sorts of exceptions as well, if it suits the public interest, if it's educational, if it's artistic, scientific, but it's that change from 25% to 50% without telling anybody that they only stumbled on because they researched it that's really rankling a lot of people, especially given the spike in misinformation and disinformation online and YouTube being a major source of that with its videos. But Carmen, what determines if something is offensive?

What determines if something is misinformation? And I'll give you an example, like a real world practical example. We're living in a time where we as a society cannot agree on a set of facts about like, let's talk about the Middle East. What constitutes genocide? What constitutes colonialism? What constitutes an apartheid state? You've got two people looking at the exact same situation, screaming at each other,

claiming something that is either real, something that is real is a lie, and others are saying the exact opposite. That's really the problem here is that there are no common standards and so YouTube uses its own approach which it says it reviews each video, each asset on its own merits. Meta has its own policies, X has its own as well and nobody can agree on any one and of course there are no laws in place that require companies to do this.

And in fact, we've seen a trend across the industry to dial back those content moderation efforts. And so the teams of human moderators who would be doing this work, they've been getting cut, X got rid of its teams entirely, and the criteria are being shifted. So yeah, no one really knows. And people are just making it up as we go along, which means it's a very imperfect science. And as a result, we're probably never going to agree on what constitutes misinformation at all. Those lines, very fuzzy. Yeah, you know, like, I just don't see us going down a path of trying to regulate and moderating what is and isn't information versus misinformation. I was asked on a podcast recently with the hub dot C.A. by journalist Rudyard Griffiths, like what do we do in a world of new media when some of the people who

are in new media don't subscribe to journalistic ethics and the code of conduct? And I said, well, that's not their job. You've the only way to fix it is for the consumer who is choosing to consume that to smarten up and to learn and to figure out who they are, what they're looking for and sort of consume as much as possible, knowing what their bias is and filter it through that. I mean, there's no other way to do it.

That's precisely, I've been saying all along that we need better education, we need to become better consumers, content, better filters, more, you know, more cynical, more critical, more willing to do the homework and dig deep into understanding where something comes from, what is the context, what is their agenda, so that we can decide what is and is not. It's just it's the same thing with street proofing our kids. We're not going to clean up the downtown core, but we are going to equip our kids with the tools they need to navigate that.

I think the digital space is exactly the same thing because we are probably... One of the problems that a lot of these platforms have said, and I agree that this is an issue, is that every time you try to moderate something, you run hard up against freedom of expression. You're trying to maintain that balance. Where is your right to have freedom of expression? Where does it end with my right to be protected from misinformation? And again, those lines are also fuzzy. No one seems to agree, but if we were better educated, and if we have the tools as navigators of this landscape

to kind of figure it out for ourselves, I think we'd all be in better shape. But as you know, we're not quite there yet. Well, I love that you used the expression in navigating this landscape because we all try to navigate streets and roads and Tesla wants to take us all there. But there's also this expression in media,

if it bleeds, it leads, and it doesn't matter how safe self-driving cars are, all it takes is one test to show us that, that they're not, it's not perfect. Self-driving cars are not perfect. They aren't. And so this comes to us from an organization called the Dawn Project,

as well as another another couple groups, Tesla, Takedown and Resist Austin. So we kind of know what their agenda is. Yeah, they tested a Tesla Model Y running the full self-driving software around a school bus that had been stopped with its lights on, its signs extended, and they ran eight tests. And in all eight examples, it blew through the lights. And of course, that could have led to a very serious accident, possibly fatal. So the video is jarring. It sort of jives with what we've heard about the FSD

software that it has a tendency to drive into semi-vehicles, 18-wheelers as well as emergency vehicles. Now it's got a problem with school buses. Yeah, there's an agenda here, there's some context, but this adds to the growing pile of evidence that this is not full self-driving, this is not autopilot, it's being marketed as full level five autonomy. It is clearly not ready for prime time.

You still have to have a human controlling that technology otherwise we're looking at a tragic outcome so what do you make I think last week there was a story in the news about Tesla's sort of new darling baby the cyber taxi being rolled out in certain cities I don't know about you I'm not getting in one of those yet and I listen I appreciate rationally over the course of billions upon billions upon billions of rides, I'm sure that mathematically it's a very safe option. But I don't care.

I don't care. I don't know what is the underlying technology. I do appreciate self-preservation in human drivers not wanting to kill themselves and therefore I won't get killed I don't understand what's going on behind the the wheel because there's nobody there Yeah, and I think we will I'm with you I think we will get there eventually But that it will take time and it will take

billions of more kilometers and billions of more hours of testing and and your piles of data To ensure that the technology can account for every single edge case and it can do it better than an equivalent human and I look forward to the day when I don't have to worry, gee, is that car reading that smartphone because it was technology. Well, yeah, but I'm also I'm also worried about sort of the value judgment that's been because there's got to be AI is gonna be involved in this. Like what what values did you train into the AI?

What if you know what if there's an accident that is predicted in front of us and the best way to avoid the accident is for the car to drive me off a cliff? Yeah, and that is the, they call that the trolley car conundrum. And of course, where you have sort of two less than optimal options and the technology has to choose between them.

And we haven't even begun to have those ethical and moral and legal questions about how AI decides things that humans have been deciding all along. But what scares me here is that you have a for-profit company that has been mismarketing its technology as being far more capable than it is in cars that you and I can buy today. Yeah. And now it's proposing a completely autonomous technology. There isn't even a steering wheel in those.

Yeah. Not ready for prime time. Exactly. All right. And so, so if I'm on my, if I'm on my bike, I will be taking another ride. Thank you, Carmuelevi. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Ben. All right. When we come back, we're going to be discussing airing your dirty laundry as a couple in public the impact that that can have on your relationship moving forward. Obviously, this is happening in the context of Elon Musk and Donald Trump. One of the worst breakups we've seen in public in a very long time. Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney show. You are listening to the Ben Mulroney show or you might listening to the Ben Mulroney Show,

or you might be watching the Ben Mulroney Show on our new YouTube channel. Just search up Ben Mulroney Show. There it is. God love the internet. Thank you so much for joining us and speaking of the internet. We were, we were glued to it a little while ago when the breakup of all breakups was happening in real time with Elon Musk and Donald Trump trading barbs over their respective social media platforms, even though on accounts, they both own their own platforms. And it was spectacular in its intensity

and with potential impact in all of our lives. But it opens up a broader and more important conversation about how best to handle a breakup, be it personal, be it a boyfriend, girlfriend, be it a marriage. And so, because there are real implications on airing your dirty laundry online, which is happening more and more often.

And so to talk about this, we're joined by Christopher Yu. He's a family lawyer and a partner at Schulman & Partners. And I welcome you to the show, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me, Ben. Yes, I mean, there is a, you know, we're backing into this with a little bit of humor, but the implications of airing a couple,

and I say couple broadly, a couple's dirty laundry online can have really negative knock-on effects. Yeah, absolutely. Ben, I always tell my clients, you know, whenever we're talking about social media here, less is usually more, particularly when you're going through a divorce. And it's, it's for very simple reason that when, when something goes online, as we've seen from Trump and Elon, it stays online, even if you delete it. So whether that's a parenting issue or whether it's a financial issue, less is almost always more. Yeah. And, but that, but that is, try convincing, users of social media that that is the right approach for anything. I mean, there are people out there clout chasing. There are people out there who

have an overestimation in terms of how important they are to their followers. They feel, I have to put out content because my followers demand it and they need to hear from me on every issue, including the minutia of my personal life. And that can have terrible effects. As a matter of fact, I remember just last week, there was a video circulating online of a wife explaining to her followers her very strict rules for her husband, which is she doesn't cook for him, she doesn't clean for him, she doesn't to her followers, her very strict rules for her husband, which is she doesn't cook for him,

she doesn't clean for him, she doesn't do her laundry, she'll do that for the kid, but if her husband is hungry, he's gonna have to cook for himself because he's a grown man. And it was stitched together with her next one, which was he kicked her out of the house and filed for divorce and she had nowhere to go. Now I'm not relishing in the in the misfortune of others,

and you never want to see something like that happen, but I'm pretty sure you can trace a direct line between this woman airing her thoughts on her marriage to the public and her husband's decision to go it alone. Yes, certainly. I mean, in a case like that, there's, you know, we can tell because of the evidence is right there, but there were definitely some problems going on in that marriage. I can tell you that, you know, when we're talking about people that are in divorce, that's why they have people like me, that's why they have family lawyers. And I know how much people like to share things online. If you've got a channel, let's say it's about knitting, keep sharing those, keep sharing that

content. Just, you know, maybe keep your private life and your divorce and things about your ex off of that social media. So, Christopher, let's look at it from the perspective of a hypothetical client that you have. If you are out there and you're in a contentious divorce, like it's not amicable, people don't like each other. A lot of blood has been spilled metaphorically In an attempt to better your clients position, would you go to the other side's social media and find?

With the hopes of finding things that could help your case. Oh Absolutely, then I'll do you one better. I'll give you an example. Yeah, I want to give you two examples one for parenting issues and one for financial issues. Let's say for the parenting side, one of the factors that the court will consider is whether there's a willingness and an ability to foster or promote the child's relationship with the other parent. So when my client goes on to their spouse's social media and they find a post that says, you know, my effing spouse is a dumb ass or commentary like that, that directly contradicts that parent's ability to say they're willing

and able to foster their child's relationship with their ex-spouse. So that's evidence. You have to remember everything you put online, you have to assume is going to be read by a judge. So, so, so that person who posted that negative feeling about their ex, they may be going into that post thinking this is going to help me because I'm going on the record in real time talking about how, how terrible this person is, but you're saying it could have the exact opposite effect when they are trying to better their position in a divorce.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And I'll clarify that. I don't think people are necessarily thinking it'll make them look better. I think sometimes people just try and event. Sometimes they're just oversharing, but the best case scenario about posting something like that is nothing. You're not going to further your position based on what

you post on social media. But the worst thing that can happen is it could severely damage your case. Now, all things being equal, if a judge is looking at a case, does a judge, generally speaking, at a case. Does a judge, generally speaking, do they look more or less favorably on someone if they are avid posters of their dirty laundry? So if they're avid posters, that's got no effect. But if you're avidly posting dirty laundry and talking negatively about your spouse or your ex-spouse. Or, you know, if you're posting things that are damaging or contradictory to what you've been saying in the court case, obviously that's a bad thing and that's damaging to the case. And, and in, in certain cases, if, if somebody has proven that they are somebody who tries to weaponize social media against their ex as part of a conclusion to a divorce settlement.

Can it involve limiting what the other side can post? They could say, listen, you're now divorced and as part of the settlement, you have to agree never to talk about your ex again. And if they do, they can come back and, I don't know, take some money away from you. Yeah, it depends, Ben. Oftentimes people in their separation agreements,

that's just the document that you know, finalizes the terms. Oftentimes it will include a clause that says you won't speak negatively about your ex. And sometimes I've seen people include clauses like we're not going to post pictures or videos about the kids on social media. I've seen that done. So yes, people can go down that route. And if it's important enough where someone's regularly airing, you know, airing out during laundry, I can see that being the case. So it's an RRU like, do people normally get it when you're talking to your clients? I have to imagine that there are certain people who've been so consumed their entire lives for

years since 2012 have been consumed with living their lives online. Is there an element of deprogramming that you have to do with some clients? Cause you can have a conversation with somebody and say, I don't want you to post. And then they'll think like, okay, I shouldn't post, but I can post X, Y, and Z. And then you got to bring them back in and say, no, I told you not to post. Do they get it? Or are some people so obtuse or so ingrained that you actually have to deprogram them?

Yeah, that's on a case by case basis, Ben. Often, I find that most people that I tell this to, I give them a really strict warning and they don't do it again. Sometimes you'll get this straggler that might do it once and then I'll say, hey, let me remind you, let me reforge you this email I sent you telling you not to do it.

So it happens, but most times people will listen. and then we only have a little bit of time left but I'd love to explore the I think the the most insidious aspect of this airing of dirty laundry because it's one thing to say oh my my my husband is a creep it's another thing to post revenge porn which in certain places an actual crime. Yeah I know I mean, I thankfully never had to deal with that. I think you'd be nuts to do something like that. It does again, that does nothing but damage your case. And I would never ever recommend that. What do you say to somebody who's thinking, well, I'm

smarter than the court, I'll, I'll post under a pseudonym, or I'll get somebody else to post it, I have to assume that forensics can figure out the original source of that stuff. Certainly it can. I have to say, I often find that despite a lawyer's best efforts, the truth usually comes to the surface. So let's think better and not do stuff like that.

Listen, even in circumstances where we are asked to do something we don't want to do, behaving in good faith is a choice and we should all govern ourselves accordingly. Christopher, you I want to thank you very much. It's an important conversation to have because it's, you know, people don't ever want to go through divorce, but if you're going to, there is a path through it where you can still respect the other person. So I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for having me, Ben. respect the other person. So I thank you for your time. of our lives 60th anniversary W network and stack TV invite you to enter for a chance to win the ultimate fan experience by watching new episodes of days of our lives you and a guest could win a three night stay in Los Angeles a VIP days of our lives set tour a helicopter ride over LA and so much more watch weekdays at one and look for the weekly code word to enter days of our lives all new weekdays at one only on W stream on stack TV