Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #152 - DOJ Prepares Antitrust Suit Against Google As Veritas Drops Another Expose

Episode Date: October 21, 2020

Tim, Ian, and Lydia take some time to talk technology pitfalls with Breitbart Tech writer Allum Bokhari (@LibertarianBlue on Twitter), including the ways Google censors conservative search results, sock puppet accounts, Wikipedia, Gell-Mann amnesia, anonymity and whether it is a net positive for internet denizens, Alex Jones, the misleading polls, and finally, net neutrality.  Support the show (http://Timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Department of Justice is getting ready to file an antitrust suit against Google because Google, they say, unfairly uses its power to dominate the market. It's fairly obvious what an antitrust suit is, and I'm not entirely convinced it's actually going to do anything. We'll see how it plays out. Interestingly, it's only Republicans that are actually getting behind this. There are some state attorney generals that are all Republican that are getting behind this. And it's for obvious reasons. The Democrats get a free pass for the most part from a lot of the censorship, and they're allowed to run wild and advocate violence. Or I should clarify, Antifa and far left extremists are allowed to advocate violence, organize violent events with impunity. If a conservative says learn to code, you're gone. So I have here this book that

it says big techs battle to erase the Trump movement and steal the election. This is deleted by Alan Bakari, who's hanging out with us tonight. Alan, take your book. Oh, cool. I just wanted I just wanted to open with that line. I was like, that's a good line. Erase the Trump movement. And what is it? What is the last one? And steal the election, not hyperbole. It sounds like a very partisan, hyperbolic title. It's actually first of all, it's not my opinion it what is the last one and steal the election not hyperbole it sounds like a very partisan hyperbolic title it's actually first of all it's not my opinion this is the opinion of whistleblowers inside facebook and google and all these companies who told me this is what they're doing and it started literally the day after the election um and you know we've seen it happening before our very eyes the deplatforming of the trump movement over the past uh four years and

that's that's just the stuff we see on the surface. This book gets into what's happening behind the scenes as well there, subtle algorithmic tweaks, and we'll get into that. Yeah, we will. First, who are you? I have. Good point. Yes, who am I?

Who is this guy? Yeah, I just wanted in the studio. Who are you guys? You walked in like, I got a book, and I'm like, yes. I don't know. So I'm Alan Bakari. I'm the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. I've been covering technology for them for four years, five years actually now.

And yeah, so this book is basically a summation of the past five years of work, this descent into internet censorship that we've all witnessed and experienced. You've actually exposed a bunch of this stuff too. You know, we'll get into all this, but you covered i think the good sensor uh was it you who released that footage of them like crying after that is correct that went that went huge yeah that was like probably over a million views on bright but uh that was uh such an incredible video to see that like you you know that's what they believe but to see it on video is just another thing right on well we'll get in all this uh of course ian's hanging out everybody and this will be interesting too because ian you uh have direct

experience with censoring people and being an evil overlord 100 true tim good and evil go run through every man um i i was a co-founder of minds.com and um an admin on the site for eight years doing a lot of behind the scenes hands-on with with you know censoring and not censoring and kind of realizing that censoring doesn't mean it's bad sometimes you have to censor things um i would go really deep but what we're seeing like now is the political manipulation for power right the versus censoring things when you have to because it might be because it's illegal for instance with the minds if it was illegal we'd take it off the site that's a form of censorship but if if google's writing their own terms of service that are like can they can censor and delete whatever they want that's a

big deal that's different well here's the question we're gonna do it we're just trying to do some kind of intro um hold on of course lady is hanging out yeah i'm here as well and uh we're gonna go nuts because we got so much talk about especially like every chapter of your book is going to be crazy. And this is all coming on the heels of more exposés from Project Veritas. We have one of their stories now. This guy is basically saying like, oh, we definitely can censor right-wing individuals. And it's just – it pains me to say it feels so obvious. It's great to get the confirmation.

Don't get me wrong. It's awesome that we have veritas doing this work but man to see it again and again and again and to know we we need something and i feel like you know something to be done and i feel we got these doj you know uh you know the doj people going after google for antitrust is just not going to do anything so we'll talk about all this smash that like button hit the notification bell we do the show monday through friday live at 8 p.m and And I don't know. Let's just get back into the conversation. So I don't even know where to begin because let's do this. Let's talk about this DOJ antitrust suit.

So I've got the story right here from Fox. Lawmakers hail DOJ antitrust lawsuit against Google is long overdue. Senator Hawley called it the most important antitrust case in a generation. Today's lawsuit is the most important in a generation, Senator Josh Hawley said. Google and its fellow big tech monopolists exercise unprecedented power over the lives of ordinary ordinary Americans, controlling everything from the news we read to the security of our most personal information. And Google in particular has gathered and maintained that power through illegal means. The DOJ suit alleges that Google has used its dominance in online search and advertising to stifle competition and boost profits. The suit could be an opening shot in a battle against a number of big tech companies in coming months.

A Google spokesperson told Fox News, today's lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to or because they can't find alternatives. We have a fuller statement this morning. Later, the tech giant released a lengthy blog post in which it said the DOJ complaint relies on dubious antitrust arguments. This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.

The lawsuit says, for years, Google has entered into exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements and engaged in anti-competitive conduct to lock up distribution channels and block rivals. American consumers are forced to accept Google's policies, privacy practices, and use of personal data and new companies with innovative business models cannot emerge from Google's long shadow. For the sake of American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy, the time has come to stop Google's anti-competitive conduct and restore competition, it says. I think that was a whole lot of hot air and it is the wrong target and it's going to miss because I think Google makes a really good point. I don't use

Bing. I don't want to use Bing. I do use DuckDuckGo sometimes, you know. So there are choices when it comes to search. The issue with Google is they're more than just a search engine. And the DOJ lawsuit is very much focused on search and how they manipulate search. No, the issue is that YouTube, for instance, which we're on, is heavily subsidized by other areas of Google. Because of that, no other video platform can compete. And some argue no video platform could survive with how expensive it is to do streaming to do this. I mean, I'll tell you guys, we're doing this show right now. Cost me nothing to press live on the stream so that all of you can watch nothing. Google just says if we make money off it, we'll take a cut. So that can exist on a lot of other

platforms. It's really expensive, like podcasting, for instance. If I got anywhere near the amount of views on podcasting, it would be an insane amount of money to handle all that bandwidth. So anyway, let's dive into it. What do you think, Alan? You were telling me before, you don't think this antitrust stuff is going to do anything. Well, it's important, and it's good that the Republicans are punishing Google and being seen to punish Google, because I think the idea that a lot of tech companies have had for a long time is we don't have to listen to the warnings of republicans about censorship because they're not they're never going to regulate us they're never going to do anything so there's one positive thing to it also positive the fact that we might actually get to see behind the curtain see how google is training

its search algorithm that's something we don't know about, really. We've got some idea of it based on whistleblowers I've talked to, based on James O'Keefe's whistleblowers as well. But if through the case we can get a look at that, that would be excellent. But I don't think antitrust focuses on the right thing. So it's true that Google is a monopoly that controls 90% of search worldwide. It's true that they're pretty bad to competitors, not just search competitors, but as you said, you know, competing video platforms, competing email, like reviewing as well.

Yeah. So it'll be very good for companies like Yelp, but it doesn't really focus on, I think, the real problem of Google, which is its vast power over political information its ability to swing elections and its ability to destroy people's livelihoods like if you're a website if you run a website and it goes from page one of google to page a thousand that's going to have a huge impact on your business you're done i knew a guy who did online sales and google one day changed the algorithm and then his company didn't exist anymore yeah well look look at what they've done to news publishers so bright button news published and Google one day changed the algorithm and then his company didn't exist anymore.

Yeah, well, look at what they've done to news publishers. So Breitbart News published a couple of months ago research showing they've cut visibility on Breitbart links by 99% compared to 2016. They've done it to a lot of other websites as well. Almost every conservative news website with the exception of one or two like Fox, just colossal fall in visibility since 2016 and that's that's completely artificial because traffic numbers haven't gone down it's just

google visibility that's gone right my my two main channels are blacklisted on google you can't search for them they're gone so maybe uh maybe i'll reap some benefits from an antitrust thing where they you know separate all these companies or whatever i don't know but i kind of i kind of feel like i think you know andrew yang made this point he was like nobody wants to use bing antitrust isn't the real isn't the real issue i guess kind of like what you're saying but then when you have google alphabet i suppose now controlling all of these different industries in one big massive corporation maybe the issue isn't search maybe the issue is search needs to be separate from video needs to be separate from email needs to be separate from video, needs to be separate from email, needs to be separate from Google Drive and all that stuff.

If you really want competition among the search engines to give smaller players like DuckDuckGo an advantage, one of the things one of my Google sources told me is that what you need to do is separate the data from the rest of Google and say the data is going to be available anonymized to competitors. Oh, wow. say the data is going to be available anonymized to competitors because that's what gives that's what gives google its advantage you could take them away from the data you make the data non-exclusive and suddenly other wow you know compete i have a i have a friend who's doing this big push for owning your own data it's like a big movement and if that were the case then that would that could function it could function that way so if if everything every bit of information that one of these companies might get from you you own and can distribute freely as you choose that's a really interesting idea because then all these other companies can build better services

based off of all of this all this data anonymized yeah it's the basis of their market power it's also the basis of their ability to politically manipulate people which we can get into actually you know i guess i guess in that regard i would say their search is a monopoly because they've created the system where they they it's an interesting phenomenon we're seeing with social media twitter facebook and google where the only reason they're a monopoly they dominate these spaces because no one uses anything else and because no one uses anything else there can be no competition so it's it is challenging i can't blame twitter because everybody's on twitter but because everybody's on Twitter. But because everybody's on Twitter, no one uses anything else.

And it's creating monopolistic problems. There's an argument that these are natural monopolies because you want to go to a social network that has the most amount of people on it. That's where you'll get maximum viewership for your content. And with search, the advantage gets locked in once you have that amount of data, because once you have it, your competitors, by definition, don't have it. And Google's really mastered this. This is why they've gone into smartphones. They've gone into browsers. They've gone into laptops, because that's just more ways to gather data.

This makes me think. So I think giving the data to the user is paramount. I agree with you guys but i also think you have to free their software code because if it's private code and they give you data it could be false data and you wouldn't know so the only way to verify that the data is real is if you understand what the code is measuring i don't necessarily agree i mean that would be that that would be them defrauding you yes defrauding the government yeah it would be and i i just think if they commit a crime you punish them for the crime you wouldn't know they were committing a crime well the government would subpoena them

to verify the records by showing their code yeah but they don't have to release the code well i mean the government is public right the idea is they can look at the code without revealing trade secrets and so they can see if the data is verified or not i don't think just a company giving up the property they developed makes sense. I don't know. What do you think? Well, there needs to be a lot more transparency. What I would like to see, especially with regards to political manipulation, is how do they train their so-called hate speech algorithms and their disinformation algorithms? So when you're training an algorithm, the way you do it is you're training it to recognize language if you're trying to detect certain types of speech. And you'd have to train it on a set of data this is hate speech this isn't hate

speech that's what you're giving the algorithm so i would love to see their list of examples that they've used to train these algorithms that would be the way that would be like the smoking well we've had so many i've smoking guns already it's kind of ridiculous to say but that would be yet and yet yet another smoking gun that would conclusively prove political bias although you're gonna say that the the black pilled reality is that we've had the smoking guns and nothing has been done about it there's like a pile of guns in the other room that are aflame it's like it's like they're sending smoke signals with the burning guns like wow look at all that smoke coming out we know it and then you've got there's a reason why it's republicans going after these companies and not democrats the. I mean, the Democrats are stupid for it.

Don't get me wrong. But they're sitting there and they're just like, well, we're not getting banned. So let's roll with it. They're banning our opponents. But what it's really doing is creating this warped reality where conservatives look normal and the left looks psychotic. Like you get Antifa on Twitter saying we're going to go burn it down. And a regular person is like, that's crazy. But the conservatives or anything kind of like that are nuked instantly. see what i mean uh well i'll make two points about that first of all the

republican establishment especially the ones in the senate are complete wusses many of them bought and paid for by google so we saw the new york post get censored last week and senate republicans came out oh we're gonna subpoena jack dorsey uh i think it was a day ago uh they voted it down or whatever yeah yeah the republican republicans wavered we're not gonna subpoena Jack Dorsey. I think it was a day ago. And they voted it down or whatever. Yeah, the Republicans wavered. We're not going to subpoena Jack Dorsey. So I'm being maybe too harsh. There are some senators who are very good on the issue, Hawley, Cruz, Blackburn. But the vast majority of Republican senators, they can't be trusted on this issue either. But I will say the second point, the left supporting censorship, this is extremely naive. If you think these technologies that have been developed by Silicon Valley won't one day be turned against the left,

the anti-war left especially, you're being very naive. They're already getting nuked. Already, yeah. Yeah, so I remember when Veritas did that expose on Pinterest, something they didn't catch when they were talking about live action being censored, the pro-life organization. I looked at it and I was like, whoa, anti-media is on there. And they're like, you know, anti-police brutality, anti-war progressive left, anti-establishment. They're getting censored. Why would an anti-war leftist organization be censored? Isn't that weird? I think it's because it's not so much about the conservatives when they're doing censorship. It's about the people who oppose the establishment. And when, like you said in your book, they're trying to, you know, what are they doing?

They're stopping the Trump movement. Yeah. The Trump movement is anti-establishment. Trump booted out the crony rhinos and took over the Republican Party. So what's really happening is a censorship is against those who dare challenge the establishment. And that includes anti-war left. And that includes, for the most part, the larger group, the conservatives, those who support Trump. So most of the book is based on stuff from Silicon Valley sources.

But by the way, if you want to get it, it's called Deleted and you can find it at deletedbook.com. But there's one source I talked to from the government and he's been following the censorship issue for a long time. And the way he put it, I think, was very chilling. He said, up until 2015, 2016, Western establishment elites saw Internet free speech as a good thing because it helped them regime change and destabilize countries abroad. That was Twitter, the Arab Spring, Eastern Europe as well, color revolutions. But he said as soon as you had Brexit, as soon as you had Donald Trump, establishment elites realized, oh, no, this technology can be used to regime change us. So that's the mentality now you know i love uh during the the arab spring i had a bunch of friends who were active activists who were trying to provide communications and then one day my friend was like i just noticed

something you notice all these libyan revolutionary people speak perfect colloquial english and i started laughing i was like that's an interesting thing right and they're like that's really weird and then they try and justify it saying well well, it makes sense because Twitter is a very Western thing. So only people educated in the West or who are Western would be using it. And some other people were like, I don't know, maybe they're just trying to convince people who use the platform in America that Libyans want us to intervene. And then we did. And Hillary Clinton said, we came, we saw, he died. I'm not insinuating anything.

I'm just saying what people were talking about the time i don't know but it is it is uh do you know do you know about um barrett brown's investigation project pm uh no enlighten me this is a long time ago he ended up going i think i could be getting the details wrong but i think he went to prison partly because of it because they were doing uh they were reviewing stratfor data so this is strategic forensics it's i guess it's like oh i do remember this is a big strat for thing yeah yeah i do remember this and so in it we learned that i think the u.s air force was purchasing sock puppet accounts these are a sock puppet account is a dummy it's a bot it's what they say bots it's an account with a fake

picture and a fake name and then one person controls 50 of them they're called sock puppets to create the perception of popular opinion this is one of the biggest problems that's affecting big corporations today like pepsi will put out a commercial and it's like it's like a guy drinking you know and throwing a football and they'll get inundated with like 50 to 100 messages on twitter saying you're racist and then all of a sudden they're like we're being attacked what do we do quick issue an apology and it's like dude it's one guy with 50 accounts so we learned this back in 2011 i think it was 2012 that u.s military was uh was was buying sock puppet accounts for what purpose middle eastern intelligence operations and persuasion

psychological operations and things like that so this has been an ongoing thing and at some point you had these the political parties realized they can do it. And I got to be honest. I think the Democrats figured it out way before the Republicans. Oh, no doubt. Yeah, definitely. They were using Facebook and all that stuff first. I mean, ActBlue, which you're familiar with.

ActBlue is the progressive fundraising. It's a progressive GoFundMe essentially. And then Republicans only launched WinRed recently. And that's the Republican version of it. So the Democrats have had – have been on the forefront of this. But something weird happened in the Trump era, like in the 2015 with the Trump army, the Trump train, the memesmiths. All of a sudden you had an organic explosion of people who are actively producing content and propping up Trump, something that they couldn't pay for. Yeah, and that – you hit the nail on the head.

This is stuff the Obama campaign was doing in 2012. Cambridge Analytica was just a smaller scale version of what Obama was doing in 2012 with Facebook's help. And it was an Obama campaign, a pretty senior Obama campaign person who revealed that, who was working directly on it. She said that Facebook actually helped them uh and you know gave them gave them a like assistance in 2012 uh her name was carol something i'm blanking on her last name carol peterson perhaps um but also with the bots the uh the bots you mentioned from

strat or sackpots the reason there was this panic after trump's win was because uh all of these people the foreign policy establishment have been doing this for years. They started accusing everyone else of using bots and soft puppets and disinformation. Of course they were terrified that that would happen to them because they'd be doing it for so long. So they couldn't imagine that this movement might actually be organic, might actually be real people. They thought it was just the same thing they'd been doing for years and years. But then they started pushing that fake Russia narrative,

claiming that it was Russia doing all of this, and it just wasn't it probably was like a kid in russia in an apartment and they traced some ip and they got like one and they were like oh the russians the russians it's the government the russian government well actually it was just some dude who maybe had a russian ip well the story now i guess is that it's just such a weird and complicated conspiracy of nonsense. That's who is it? Was it was it was it Ratcliffe who issued the statement basically saying that Hillary Clinton created the Russian intelligence? What believe that Hillary Clinton was going to create a fake campaign accusing Trump of working with them to get the public to get the press cycle off of her email story and that Obama was briefed on this so they knew. At least the insinuation is Hillary Clinton created the fake idea just out of the blue.

It seemed like it. It came right after her email scandal dropped. And she just started saying it. She's like, Trump's working with Russia. And it's like, uh-huh. It was so heavy-handed. This is the stupidest thing. Yeah.

And you know who it convinced? It convinced – well, maybe they were in on it i don't know but all these well-funded foreign policy ngos that are european ngos american ngos uh just a few days ago we published a story at bright button news about the german marshall fund this is one of these extremely well-funded foreign policy ngos very focused on russia very focused on the balkans they're the ones have been pushing the disinformation narrative, the Russian disinformation narrative, for four years now, pressuring the tech companies to censor what they call disinformation. Another one of those groups, the Atlantic Council, are working directly with Facebook. And this other one, the German Marshall

Fund, they've actually said that Breitbart News, Fox News, The Blaze, basically every conservative news website needs to be suppressed by Facebook. They need to apply friction because, in the words of this think tank, which, by the way, is funded by the U.S. government and foreign governments and the German government. Sounds like foreign interference to me. I don't know how that word is defined these days. But they said Facebook has to apply friction, which is their word uh suppression of all these uh so-called deceptive news sites there's a funny meme that uh someone posted this on 4chan a long time ago that any any sufficiently free uh internet space becomes

right wing and the left can only maintain the space if they have hard moderation and censorship that seems to be the case if you if you look at facebook in spite of the censorship the top posts are still daily wire you know dan bongino fox news etc i think that's right and i think it's uh in any period of history where you have one uh one faction social faction political faction whatever trying to maintain an ideology based on complete myth which many of you know the assumptions the assumptions of the cultural left are, you know, gender is a social construct, all of these things. As soon as you have free speech, that'll be threatened.

And the most popular people will be the people who challenge that. The only way they maintain this in popular, that's what cancel culture is. You know, you see what happened in San Francisco with that guy, the free speech rally, he got his teeth knocked out. The guy got punched. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Think about how crazy it is that this guy decided to step up and say the billionaires are bad. So Antifa shut up and punched him in the face.

Yeah. Are they working for the billionaires? Yeah. Call it the N-word as well. Yeah. Over and over again. It's weird alliance between the cultural left, which used to be the anti-establishment left, and the corporations. The billionaires.

And the neoconservative foreign policy think tanks. They're all aligned on this. What is this? You've got the neocon never Trumpers who ran full speed the Democrats after Trump booted them out. You've got Antifa beating people up on behalf of them. A guy comes out and he's like, yo's it's really bad that international you know multinational billion dollar corporations are restricting the rights of the people punched in the face yeah joe joe biden is funded by wall street trump is winning on small donors biden is winning on

wall street donors and bernie sanders is supporting joe biden talk about backwards and insane the billionaires in this country are terrible destroying everything now go vote for the guy funded by the billionaires. To be fair, Trump is a billionaire himself. So, you know, I guess it's still a weird circumstance. It's very, it's very strange. I think the most frustrating thing about the social justice warrior left, the Antifa left, the left that'll punch you in the face is that they pretend to be anti-establishment. They've been doing that for years, but actually they found themselves in alliance with elites and uh with corporations because they're the only powers in society that actually you know suppress the truth and they need the truth to be suppressed because their entire ideology is based on nonsense it's so stupid none of it makes sense antifa going out

and hitting somebody because he's complaining about billionaires that's just weird to me no no yeah i think they're being manipulated by the powers because they're not smart. I don't want to say they're stupid because it's a broad generalization. But anyone that's out on the street just doing random street violence is pretty dumb, I think. It's a dumb thing to do. It's not a smart way to get your point across. These are the same people who trashed Seattle in 1999 in the trade protest. They were all about ending the bad trade deals.

And along comes a president who said, I'm going to end the bad trade deals. about you know ending the bad trade deals and along comes a president who said i'm going to end the bad trade deals and he does end the bad trade deals and now they're just beating up his supporters in the street dude look at bernie sanders in 2015 seriously go back a lot of people might not remember this you go back and you google search bernie and trump and you'll find a bunch of articles saying bernie and trump are very similar and there was a point where bernie had to be like i'm not like him but a lot of their core policies were the same uh illegal immigration was bad bernie was was uh fairly moderate on gun gun issues when he said it was a rural versus urban debate because he's in vermont he's like we don't have the same problems because people in vermont like their guns you had him saying the tpp the trans-pacific partnership was a was a was a problem and we've got it we got it what happened to that

guy all of a sudden now he's like, the billionaires, but they're all funding Joe Biden, so go vote for him. It's like, he immediately just said, please let me in the establishment. Trump on the other hand, kicked the door in, you know?

You know, an alliance between the populist left and the populist right is probably the thing that terrifies the establishment the most. I kind of think that's, if you look back through history, there's always, you know,

new consensuses form, new political consensuses form to replace the old ones. The Reagan consensus, the neoliberal consensus replaced the FDR consensus. There's a new consensus waiting to happen. The populist left and the populist right are forming the nucleus of it, but it's being held back by this establishment class that simply won't let go. I think that was starting to happen during Occupy Wall Street. So the early days of Occupy Wall Street, when I was down there, I remember seeing a really like a 60 year old man and woman, and they were sitting in chairs, an American flag, nobody complained, and they had it set up.

And people were talking about it. Because the core of what brought people out was the big banks in Wall Street are corrupting our system. It's revolving door politics, the whole thing is broken. And you had conservatives, libertarians, and leftists who had shown up. Then along came intersectionality, identity politics. The older people who could not live in the park ended up leaving. The younger people did. And then these wealthy, college-educated Brooklynite kids with trust funds, not all of them, but a handful of them, I know them personally, they are trust fund kids, started preaching

intersectionality and identity politics. And then all of a sudden you end up with someone, you know, Serena Williams, who is a black woman worth tens of millions of dollars, and she's oppressed. And the homeless guy sitting on the bridge is an oppressor because he's white. What that did was it fractured any possibility of the populist left and right coming together because now you got AOC who is full on board with overtly racist ideology. That is like, it's freaky how racist these people are. They're calling it anti-racism and then literally saying, but we should have racial discrimination. Yeah, okay, that's racism. Well, no, but we are anti because it's for good things. I don't care what

you think it's for. It's funny because the ideology they espouse, they're like racism is prejudice plus power. Therefore, only white people can be racist. Anti-racism is quite literally the same thing when it's for minorities and you discriminate against specific minorities and other racial groups for the benefit of particular racial groups. It's like the same thing. Yeah. Well, when you say prejudice plus power, who is more powerful today than Google? Yeah.

The most racist people in the world today are in silicon valley they're programming the algorithms that run our world uh if you get the book read read the part on machine learning fairness machine learning fairness oh that's the good sensor thing right uh that's actually not the good sense this is something different machine learning fairness is an entire entirely new field set up in universities and it's being funded by silicon valley and they have their own machine learning finance departments now. The point is to bring computer science and critical race theory together and left-wing sociology and left-wing feminism. They want the assumptions of those left-wing fields to be embedded in computer science.

That's impossible. It's functionally impossible. Well, this is what I say in the book, right? So an algorithm, an unbiased algorithm is just a machine for noticing patterns. It's a machine for analyzing data. And pattern recognition, noticing data, analyzing data is actually inherently right wing because it busts politically correct narratives. Imagine if you train a machine to look at crime data or you train a machine to look at you know the data of women going into certain fields or certain educational fields you know or you know train a machine to who's who's more likely to commit a terrorist attack around the world um like that's going to

spit out some very politically incorrect conclusions so this is why they created machine learning fairness to bias the algorithms obviously they call it fairness it's the opposite of that so i guess theoretically they could put weight in them. If this word emerges, then apply it. But I don't see it working. You know, I did a segment on my second channel talking about the problem with Wikipedia and critical theory in general. The example I used is transgender. And so what the left has started doing was pulling the clip out of context to make it seem like I was anti-trans. Here's what I actually said. If you go on Wikipedia, which is a very formulaic and logic-based system, granted it's subject to manipulation and bias,

but the way it works is very simple. Present a source. What does the source say? Include it. Cite it. So you go to Wikipedia and you have this web of all of these different articles that interlink with each other. Go to woman on Wikipedia. And what's it say? It says a woman is an adult human female. And then you click female and it says, barring, you know, certain abnormalities, irregularities, females are the members of the species that produce ova, et cetera, et cetera. And then if you go to male that produce a sperm, and then it says man, an adult human male, then go to trans woman on Wikipedia, and it gives you this very different definition. So it specifically says that the point I'm trying to make is, how do you have the idea that a trans woman is a woman, but these two articles can't connect to each other, right? So if a woman is an adult human female, then a trans woman can't, you know, according to Wikipedia, be a woman because a woman produces ova. So it doesn't make sense. The logic of the system is impeded by the fracture, the fracturing of what the ideology represents, which is why so often you hear uh anti-sw type say define woman because we can very easily using a system like wikipedia but in

critical theory you can't so the point the point i'm getting to is if you try this is why they have to invent the rhetorical trick of you know gender and sex are two separate things so you can you can still have the biology but you also have this concept of gender but that's that's actually fine yeah the problem is that when you have Wikipedia telling you, so okay, what they need to do now is they need to go in and they change the definition of what woman is. So that's why you get anti-SJW people saying define woman because the official definition on Google, Merriam-Webster,

and in Wikipedia is adult human female. What they should do is make trans woman one word and have a completely different definition. That's offensive. I mean, it's logical. That's the problem with critical theory. And Well, I mean, that's the problem. That's the problem with critical theory. So and again, I'm not saying any of this to say trans women are or are not. I'm pointing out the clash in the existing system on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not going to create some kind of nebulous understanding of critical race theory or I'm sorry, critical theory in general, intersectional left. When you go to them, they will hold contradictory views because they're human beings. But a computer doesn't do that. It can. But you go on there and you're like, this makes no sense. These things don't connect. But it's like, how could Wikipedia say two different things at the exact same time? Quantum computing. I guess, sure.

Yes, both exist in the same. That'll help us define trans theory There you go, perfect What we're trying to do with Well, there will be some difficulties like that But at the end of the day, what these leftists are trying to do is Every definition that these algorithms are trained on Everything they're trained to recognize, whether it's hate speech or misinformation

The people doing the defining, the people training the algorithms how to recognize those things will be left-wingers So it'll always be their definition. There will be some cases where, like gender, where the definition is very, very tricky for the reasons you mentioned. But there will be other cases where the algorithm will only recognize the left-wing definition of something. Is this all stemming from liberal college kids like Zuckerberg, Larry, and Sergey just being – happen to be the ones that coded it from the beginning? No, I don't think so i i've had this conversation with uh with peter bogosian and and james lindsey and helen pluckrose who did the socal squared hoax very very smart individuals and uh peter bogosian for instance he he believes and this was a while ago we had this conversation so i don't you know maybe his opinions changed

that the the intersectionality emerged through the colleges and the 80s and all the stuff. My argument was maybe, but it only exists today because of the accident of the Facebook algorithm. And so I've mentioned this several times, but for you, Alan, I'll tell it now to everyone listening. Basically, what happened is in the early days of Facebook, they were trying to figure out how to maximize site longevity, like how long someone was on the website. And so they started creating feed algorithms it was a combination of factors in in the early days of facebook you just got reverse chronological feed right you followed somebody you were friends

if they post something you got it as the site grew bigger and bigger people started following and liking more and more pages you end up with someone who on average had 300 friends but also liked 300 pages and their feed was so fast they couldn't read through it so facebook said let's create an algorithm to make sure we're showing them what they most likely are to enjoy and click on. What ended up happening was around the same time, digital blogs started popping up, and it was partly because of Facebook they started making money and becoming successful. The articles were getting shared on Facebook. Facebook liked that because it was creating activity on the platform, and then these companies like Huffington Post, et cetera, started making money.

But something interesting happens when you incorporate Facebook constantly updating its algorithm to work better and better and better. We ended up getting waves of police brutality videos. There was a period where there was one website that was ranked global top 400 or something when it was nothing but police brutality videos. Why? Because it was what people were clicking on. So Facebook kept shoving it in people's faces, just beating them over the head with it like this is what you want. And it was shockingly crazy footage of cops just beating people and beating people. So what happens is the news organizations, the blogs that started writing shock content, started seeing more traffic and making more money. Eventually they learned, wait a minute, there's more to life than just police brutality.

There's also racism and sexism, right? So some article, some website started writing racism, racism. Some said sexism, sexism. Racism is X, sexism is Y. You get X views or Y views. Combine the two and you get X plus Y views. Intersectional articles started getting way more traffic. The racist, sexist police, police brutality,

targeting, you know, black people. And boom, Black Lives Matter pops into existence. So what happens is these news organizations realized, and whether it was on purpose or not, they made more money when they wrote about all of these subjects combined. And now you actually see this stuff. Like Vice had one article

that was really funny that it was like it was it was like black trans women of color fighting back against police brutality for black lives matter and it's like they just jammed every possible keyword in there because facebook would then share it with more communities they would get more traffic and make more money thus intersectionality was perfect for this algorithm it started to emerge because the algorithm was trying to find what people would want to see the most. Here's what I'll add to that. I think you're right. That is what happened. I remember that distinctly in 2013, 2014. But I also remember that the backlash against that also did mad traffic. Right. Exactly.

It sort of naturally corrected. If they allowed it to happen, it would have naturally corrected itself. No. Because people would have got sick of it. They would have wanted some challenges to the prevailing viewpoint. They did. And it created the anti-SJW movement. Exactly. But then they shut that down.

But I mean, sort of, sort of. But it was just, it was polarizing. It was creating two tribes. It was the reaction and the opposite reaction. And so, yes. But isn't that how politics has always worked? creating two tribes it was it was the the reaction and and the and the opposite reaction and so yes they start isn't that how politics has always worked there it's always been reaction and anti-reaction i think what was happening on social media was the things people wanted to talk about um that maybe the establishment class didn't want to talk about they were sort of out of touch by

then that that rose to the fore but it was still a battle between two distinct sides and i think the anti-sGW side was actually winning because they had the facts, they had the arguments on their side. Their content was going just as viral. They were the ones who got Trump elected. So if the social media companies hadn't clamped down, I think this would have resolved itself naturally. I don't know if it would have resolved itself. I think we're still in it. Oh, we're absolutely still in it. But I think it's being prolonged by internet censorship. If you took that control off, I think you'd just have a natural conflict between two political factions, and one of them would win, and that would be the anti-SAW side.

They're artificially controlling it to help the SAWs stay in power, control the narrative, even though it's completely discredited. Well, so here's what ends up happening. When you get someone on the right who is fringe and extreme and crazy or whatever, they get nuked immediately, just gone. On the left, however, they're allowed to keep doing it. So this is what I was mentioning earlier. You end up with two sides, one where the fringe elements of the right have been purged and all that's left are suit wearing, you know, milk-toast vanilla conservatives.

Yeah, who won't do anything about social media censorship, by the way. Seriously. But the left is... Have you seen this video of the six... It's six videos of women in their cars screaming at the top of their lungs? Oh, yeah, yeah.

Have you seen the one where they mash it all together? That's what I mean. Oh, that's the one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you have these videos where these women are like, no, Trump. They're screaming.

I tell you this. You take a milquetoast vanilla conservative wearing a suit saying, you know, I just think that, you know, we should work hard and make money. And then you put that next to the women screaming at the top of their lungs. What's a regular person going to think? It is backfiring, in my opinion. Now, whether or not Trump wins, you know, is yet to be seen. We got two weeks and it will be like I'll tell you this, man, banning, suspending the New York New York Post, locking down their social media was such an insanely desperate move. The mask has been ripped off. There's no more facade. We know exactly what they're doing and it might work. The fact that you have these women in their cars screaming

like lunatics it's because they're so heavy-handed in their manipulation that these people are trapped in a paranoid and delusional reality where trump is literally hitler and he's taking kids and throwing them in cages and they're freaking out panicking because they see it all day non-stop and they can't break out of this just trap from from big tech yeah well i mean the liberals media model since 2016 has been you know trump shock content we're going to shock everyone with how evil and bad trump is and that's what's leading to the screaming uh women in their cars um but i i will push back on the idea that uh only allowing the reasonable conservatives to say on social media is somehow a help to the movement because they're precisely the ones that

are least likely to push back on this craziness. They're the most likely to just apologize and say, oh, you called me a racist. I'm going to explain 10 reasons why I'm not a racist. And that's not convincing to people. That's not persuasive to people. It just looks weak and stupid, and you don't really challenge the arguments. So that's the downside there.

Certainly for elections, it might be a help because voters undecided voters moderates will just see the craziness of the left and respond accordingly but ultimately i think you know if trump loses the election it will be big tech that stole it and this is the whole thesis of the book when you start manipulating search results on google uh so that people you know it all comes down to undecided voters. So you might be like a heavy news consumer, especially if you're watching this show. You're very clued up on all the issues, very hard to manipulate you. But think about what an undecided voter, someone who doesn't follow politics every day, is seeing when they go on to Google to find out about the two candidates.

It is endlessly Trump is evil. Trump is evil all day, every day. That's the real thing. Yeah, but there was a story from Time Magazine. This woman went around the country and found nobody cared. Nobody cared. That she would go to these people and say, here's a headline and say, oh, I don't care about that. And, you know, the way they wrote it was all of these people believe misinformation.

What do we do? And it's like, you're in a bubble. I don't care. The journalists are in. You know, it's really funny. It's like, here's the way I see it. They're all in the ivory tower and they're sitting in this room with each other, all laughing and sharing fake news. They're thinking they're in the real world and they're not.

Regular people don't like Antifa. Call them out. They won't. They don't. It's true. I mean, you can give these guys all the advantages you want. You can put all this stuff at the top of Google. But if it's bad stuff, if it's bad propaganda, it's going to have the opposite

effect. I will read one extract to you from the book, though, because this just gets to the heart of how they manipulate people and persuade people. Do it. If I can find it. Yeah, man. Give me a minute. I want to hear it. Ah, where is this? So this is their manipulating

of... It's how they pinpoint people's political beliefs. You were mentioning – did you find it? Right. Here we go. So this is a quote from a Facebook source. The plan for polarization is to get people to move closer to the center. We have thousands of people on the platform who have gone from far right – this is the way Facebook defines far right, by the way, not necessarily the way we define it, who have gone from far right to center in the past year. So we can build a model from those people and try to make everyone else on the right follow the same path. He goes

on to explain how this would work. Let's say everyone who goes from far right to center watched video X, then maybe we adjust the priority of video x in the feed but it's probably going to be much more complicated than that so this is this is the stuff you don't see we can see like the bands of the new york post we can see these high profile bands we don't see that this like very subtle manipulation that's going on behind the scenes pinpointing exactly what your beliefs are and tailoring the content to those people they used to do that as you say just you know based on how interested you are in a certain topic that's what would drive the algorithm but it's gotten much more uh much more specific than that and much more focused on changing people's

opinions this is this is like their attempt at brainwashing whether they work or not is another question now here's the best part remember that these people think anyone to the uh what was anyone to the right of Stalin is far right. Yep. So what they're doing is you've got like a regular, you got a working class dad who's like firing up the grill and having a burger. And they're like, oh, that far right guy, he's a white supremacist. Better feed him content to make him a centrist. Yeah, we go to Bernie Sanders.

Send him the depolarization video immediately. And also when you have the right and the left and the left goes way over here. Now the center is here, which was further left than it used to be the normal lefties. So they're dragging people way. They're trying to like almost radicalize people on the right so that they're now in literally what they're doing. Yeah, it's literally what they're doing. They're radicalizing people. And that's why you see a video of these women screaming at the top of their lungs, crying and like, you know, look, there are a lot of us.

I think the people who are watching this for the most part, you have sought out information. This is the big difference between those who watch the mainstream media and get wrapped up in the fake news and the people who watch shows like this. You have to you have to search for my show. Sometimes YouTube, YouTube does recommend certain the clips we do every day. But like I mentioned, my my main two channels, Timcast and timcast news are not on google google has banned them i heard that they were back now they are not it's not true they found them nope these are these people don't get it like people will steal my content and re-upload it knowing i've been blacklisted and they can get my views from google search we gotta unblacklist tim's channels you can't you can't do it they google

knows google knows i know and i've complained about to google they're doing it on purpose normal stuff they they do it on purpose and that's the that's part of the manipulation. If someone says, did you hear, you know, Joe Biden's this email thing? You will not find my videos giving you the breakdown and the fact checks doesn't exist. uh so back in uh early 2019 i got a leak from a google insider and he literally called this leak the smoking gun proving google's bias obviously lawmakers did nothing about it because you know we don't have enough smoking guns but this was this was youtube's controversial search query blacklist yeah it's an actual list they have inside youtube with a list of so-called controversial search queries and whenever they add a term to that list, what it does is it tells the algorithm to prioritize all the videos from the mainstream media and shut out anyone that doesn't meet YouTube standards, meets YouTube's approval.

And the reason I found out about this list was because a left-wing journalist had reached out to Google saying, look at all these pro-life videos in the top 10 search results for abortion. Within hours, Google goes in, they alter that file, they reorder the search results completely. Do you know the name of that journalist? It was a Slate journalist, if I recall. I can't remember her exact name. And I'm pretty sure she's the one who got Enrique Tarrio banned from Chase Bank. Oh, right. There are these journalists who make a profession out of deplatforming people in the mortgage industry. This is what they do. So they'll send a message message which is a veiled threat to a corporation right so let's say you

know uh alum alums nachos as a company oh and i see a proud boy eating them i send a message saying i couldn't help but notice that the proud boys were eating your nachos do you support white supremacy and why do you support white supremacy and they immediately respond with we hereby disavow we want nothing and then the journalist puts out a message nacho chip company disavows the proud boys and this is what they did to pewdiepie right this is the model you reach out to everyone's business partners everyone who's doing business with them anyone's giving them a service and you you use loaded questions kind of like uh what are some of these jokes you say uh when did you stop beating your

wife right it's like wait well hold on it's a loaded question like you have to the assumption is right so that what they'll do is they'll reach out to your business partner to your your partners and it's almost like tortious interference they will ask a loaded question now many of these companies they get this email and it'll say we we saw the Proud Boys wearing your shirt, Fred Perry. Why do you support white supremacy? And there's, they know there's nothing they can do. The company knows that it's, it's total BS, but they're going to get a PR hit unless they play ball. They don't care about you. So they just say, send them the generic response. We hereby disavow all of that. And then boom. So I talked to people. I was talking to these guys recently and they wanted to get like a photograph and stuff.

And I said, I'm not interested in doing photos with other companies. And I was like, because of the political ramifications. And they're like, no, no, no, no. Trust me. These companies don't care. And I said, no, no, no. You don't understand. When the company ends up getting inundated by Antifa and the far left, and then not caring

about me, issue some stupid statement insulting and def far left, and then not caring about me issue some stupid statement insulting and defaming me, then I have to deal with them, not the wacko far left. If I'm seen in a photograph or, you know, I don't think I have to worry about this too much. But if there's somebody who is seen in a photograph with, say, Coke, a Coca-Cola executive, then Coke is going to be like, we don't know who this guy is or care, disavow. And they'll put out a statement saying white supremacy is wrong. And we hereby disavow this individual thus creating a newspaper story calling you a white supremacist that's the tactic the far left uses one of them here's why it's so powerful today in particular so my book is very positive about the early years

of the internet when there were no big tech giants but there was one there's one very bad thing that's been the case on the internet for a long time i've got a whole chapter in the book on this it's called the debt like i call it the defamation engine so before the internet if there was a political scandal if you're in the news for some bad thing first of all it generally only happened to politicians and celebrities people who are public figures uh second of all you know it's in the news for a day it's on the on the tv it's in a newspaper then the newspaper gets chucked in the bin. TV moves on to the next thing. It goes away. On the Internet, it doesn't go away. The Internet is forever.

As soon as any, you know, online news site, BuzzFeed, The Daily Beast, write something about you, and by the way, they do it to everyone now, not just public figures. As soon as they write it about you, it's on your Google results forever, and Google will prioritize it, and Wikipedia will cite it, and they won't cite articles from right-wing media potentially debunking it. So this is what I call the defamation engine. It's the connection between the media, Wikipedia, and Google.

It's made – this is why cancel culture exists. Well, I can tell you this. I think Wikipedia is in serious trouble. We were talking a little bit about this. I'm going to be a little out in the details just because uh just i don't i don't want to exacerbate anything but there is a a group of individuals who have a forum that's very active and they've come up with an operation that's very very very clever the idea is to go on wikipedia to random articles nothing important and put edits into random articles that are inane and arbitrary.

For instance, they'll go to the Wikipedia page for cardboard and put, you know, Hans Schmidt in 1932 developed a new means of manufacturing cardboard. Nobody cares. It's not vandalism. It's a random tidbit. And so what happens is enough of these edits bypass the vandalism filters from the actual Wikipedia editors. So if someone goes to, say, Joe Biden's Wikipedia page and says, you know, Joe Biden is an abusive father whose son's a crackhead or whatever, they'll immediately jump in and say, get rid

of this vandalism. If someone goes in and says, you know, Joe Biden was using his son as an intermediary to make money off of Chinese equity investment and cite Breitbart, they'll say Breitbart is unreliable. Remove it. But if someone goes to the Wikipedia page for cheddar cheese and writes, Alan Bakari was a famous dairy farmer in 1871 who developed a new process for manufacturing cheese that lowered the price dramatically.

Nobody notices that. Nobody cares. And it could sit there forever. Now, imagine you get thousands of people doing this. That is how – so that's essentially one of the ideas. Wikipedia becomes completely unreliable because it's full of fluff, fake factoids that no one can tell is real or fake. So the whole thing is just questionable now. First of all, that's hilarious.

And if someone wants to write in Wikipedia that I'm a 19th century dairy farmer, go right ahead. I encourage that. But I mean Wikipedia is already discred 19th century dairy farmer. Go right ahead. I encourage that. But, I mean, Wikipedia is already discredited with so many people. So, like, can you even discredit it any further? It's funny that Wikipedia calls Breitbart an unreliable source. By the way, we've got a guy writing for us, T.D. Adler, who edited Wikipedia as one of, you know, a really prolific editor for over 15 years. So you're calling your own former editors unreliable,

if that's what you're saying. It's completely broken when you look at, like, Vox is credible and Breitbart isn't. And I'm like, Vox has published ridiculous, you know, without getting into naming people, there are some people whose opinions flip depending on what's politically expedient. Very famous individuals, lefty Vox, high ups, higher ups. And they'll tweet something like,

we should do this with the Supreme Court. And then like a day later, like, we should do the opposite. Whatever works for their politics, it's very, very obvious. Yeah, that's reliable. And they go way beyond just calling people unreliable. I mean, they've called virtually every prominent figure on the new right, alt-right at some point. That's on their Wikipedia pages.

I mean, how many people are called alt- they've called bright but alt right false they called mike cernovich alt right false jack perserbe laurence all those people who are not alt right at all they're on the new right but that always goes up at the top of you know the wikipedia page it's completely discredited with things we all know it's discredited but it's still at the top of google and you can't sue these people well this is the most insane well you can but you'll lose because of Section 230. I disagree. Has Wikipedia ever lost a lawsuit?

I don't think it has. I don't think people are trying because of Section 230. Oh, I think they are trying. I mean, here's the thing. Wikipedia is the most powerful publisher in the world. It is a publisher. The fact that it gets Section 230 protections is ridiculous. If any website should be liable for defamation lawsuits it's wikipedia well they do have uh special

special rules on biographies of living persons because they're susceptible to lawsuits the issue is i think when it comes to all these platforms people aren't suing they're not sometimes sometimes you'll hear a story about a lawsuit and they lose. And it's like, I get it. But people need to actually start making these challenges. You know what's going on with Patreon? I know there's some legal action happening there. They actually did make a legal breakthrough, if I remember correctly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don't know exactly where we're at recently, but this was like a month or two ago, that basically Patreon is going to be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars because of arbitration.

Whether they win or lose, they have to pay up front. So Patreon could be over as far as I know. And I don't have all the full details in front of me, but the general idea was they banned several people, and they had this provision that you couldn't sue them. You had to go to arbitration. So then these people were like, hey, everybody, file a complaint. Sue them for five bucks or whatever. So Patreon then says, we're going to arbitration. So then these people were like, hey, everybody, file a complaint, sue them for five bucks or whatever. So Patreon then says, we're going to arbitration. And they say, great, you've got to front X dollars to the arbiters, to the arbitration. We're talking about people

who have tens of thousands of followers. And so all of those lawsuits, all those arbitration claims, and then all of a sudden, Patreon's on the hook for tens of millions of dollars they can't pay. And so they're in trouble. They actually, Patreon tried suing the users back to block the arbitration. I heard about this. It's very threatening to them, this thing. Oh, they're done. It's because Patreon is a financial company in some way as well. I think Wikipedia, I think it's a lot more difficult because they can claim traditional Section 230 protections because they're just hosting what all these anonymous editors say.

It's not their content. That's the argument they'll make in court that doesn't matter well whether you win or lose as soon as you say i want to go to arbitration the company in california has to front the cost so they could they could patron might win these these are these you know these arbitrations they still have to front the cost they They can't do that right now. So it's essentially like lawfare. When you sue someone knowing they can't afford to defend themselves, so they cave in, right? You know, people do this all the time.

They know that their case is bunk, but then the lawyer's like, listen, it'll be 10 grand to settle. It'll be 200 to go to court, so just pay them off. So right now what's happening is Patreon's like, we're going to – so this is why they sued. They said to the judge, we're going to win this. They have no case. They're just trying to get us to go to court to pay arbitration up front. And the judge was like, I don't care. You've got to pay arbitration up front and go to arbitration.

It's not for me to decide who's going to win. I think that works on Patreon because Patreon – first of all, they're going to have to pay thousands of these, right? Second of all, they're not as wealthy as, say, a Google or a Facebook or a YouTube. These companies have endured billion-dollar fines from the European Union. They're still standing. It may work on Wikipedia, actually, because the Wikipedia Foundation has a few hundred million, I think, but it's not as insanely wealthy as a Google or a Facebook. Is it in California? Well, that's the question.

I'd have to look that up. I would assume so, but that's something you insanely wealthy as a google or a facebook is it in california uh well that's the question i'd have to look that up i would assume so but that's something you gotta it might also it's a foundation it's not a not a company that's another i'm not a lawyer so i can't tell you exactly but i do know they've they've never lost the definition defamation case as far as i know people have tried did you know that for a really long time my wikipedia said that i invented a zeppelin some kind of remote zeppelin, that's not bad as far as misinformation. Did you invent a Zeppelin? I have not invented a Zeppelin. See, you shouldn't have told people that.

You should have said, yeah, I invented a Zeppelin. When I tried complaining, like passively like, hey, I didn't invent a Zeppelin, they told me I was unreliable. And I'm like, dude, I didn't invent a remote control Zeppelin, man. And they were like, well, we have a source that says you did. I'm like, no, you don't. They didn't even have a source and they couldn't take it off finally someday some like high ranking wikipedia dude removes it and i'm like thank you jeez and then whenever i bring the story up people go in and start editing and adding stuff to it they're gonna do it tonight think about how amazing

it is on wikipedia that you could you could could do an hour long like lecture on the dangers of white supremacy and the evil of white supremacy and then they will call you a white supremacist or alt-right and when you try like telling them that you actually campaign against it and you know I part of my work is criticizing it they say you're not reliable yeah well actually they'll they'll give a concession to the left on this if you look look at – I did a chapter on Wikipedia, and while I was researching the chapter, I was comparing the Wikipedia pages of people like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs to people like Rachel Maddow. And at the top of Rachel Maddow's page, you see Rachel Maddow in an interview with – I can't remember the exact channel – described herself as a political moderate with some left-wing beliefs, blah, blah, blah. Crackpot conspiracy theorist. Whereas on Sean Hannity's page, crackpot conspiracy theorist or something like that.

I think they changed that now, but when I was looking at his page, it was like known for pushing conspiracy theories. Yep. Do you guys think that Wikipedia should be shut down or altered or something like that? I think it should just be liable for defamation. Let sue wikipedia if they just destroy the company no it wouldn't know they run off donations yep yeah but they still have hundreds of millions of dollars do they really all that all that they need donations to run their server every year he asked for donations he does listen listen wikipedia is different from twitter in that it's compiling information and publishing it so with with twitter I understand that a user is making a statement. With Wikipedia, a person is not making a statement. Listen, on Twitter, I tweet under my name. And when I say Alan Bakari is a 19th century dairy farmer, that is a statement of fact alum then says twitter published and say whoa whoa whoa that says tim pool at timcast and

then a statement that's from tim pool on wikipedia it doesn't put your name it's a page that says alan bakari and then right atop a 19th century dairy farmer but at the bottom there's no no no show the changed law in the history you can see who changed in the history but that's a different post wikipedia is a book pretending to be a library. It's like the Encyclopedia Britannica is liable for defamation. If the Encyclopedia Britannica defames you, you can sue them. Wikipedia is a more powerful and more widely read version of that. The fact that it's not liable is just insane.

And, you know, like I said, I agree with Twitter, with Facebook. They publish – well, they don't publish, but they host millions and millions of content, millions and millions of posts, new ones every day. So, yeah, sure, if you held them liable for all of those posts, of course their business model would not make sense. But Wikipedia is just big pages like an encyclopedia. It would not be crippling to them if they were liable. When I go to the page alan bakari there are no users it says wikipedia alan bakari 19th century dairy farmer that is a statement of fact under the wikipedia banner and no one else they'd go out of business instantly if they know they would

they would create more stringent posting policies and verification and they would create a two-tiered system right now anyone can go and make an edit and then there's various levels of protection but for the most part this is the problem i was talking about where this operation is going to go And that would create a two-tiered system. Right now, anyone can go in and make an edit. And then there's various levels of protection. But for the most part, this is the problem I was talking about where this operation is going to go in and add inane factoids. Oh, so maybe on Wikipedia it could say after every statement of fact, it would show who wrote it and when. Like a little subscript. So what would need to happen is if they could be sued for defamation, then what would happen is you would submit your edits. And then it would go to an editor who would review and fact check and that would protect them more so from liability though they'd still be responsible for suits you could make the editors liable for defamation except they're all

anonymous and i'm generally in favor of online anonymity i think it allows people to challenge taboos and have discussions you can't have in public especially in the age of cancel contracts like anonymity is important but the last people who should have anonymity is a Wikipedia editor. Who have more power over people's reputation than anyone else. They should be accountable for what they write. It could destroy someone's reputation. I was at an event in the UK years and years and years ago.

And they found me, oh no, no, I'm sorry. They found me through like Occupy stuff and they wrote the bio for my introduction off of Wikipedia. And it was one of the funniest things. Tim Pool invented a Zeppelin. And I was just like, excuse me, sir, you clearly just pulled that off Wikipedia. You have no idea who I am.

You have no idea what I've done. And there were other instances where people had been canceled because of negative articles on their Wikipedia pages. The first thing people see when they search you is like the card on Google and says, Wikipedia, you click it and they believe it. They believe all of it. Wow. So maybe we should, first thing we should do is not credit Wikipedia. Yeah. It doesn't matter what you want to credit. It matters that people just use it,

which is why there's a group of people now that want to add inane and innocuous random edits to completely break the system because then people are going to be like what is the dairy farmer what is this so uh are you are you both familiar with the gel man amnesia effect uh i'm constantly sound familiar but no so it's it's a fake name it was this guy made it up and they said calling it gel dash man amnesia effect makes it sound more uh prestigious and like official and it was kind of a joke. What it means is you pull up a newspaper and let's say you're an expert on big tech censorship and you see a story on the front page of The Washington Post that says there is no big tech censorship.

And you laugh saying, I know that's true because I've actually talked to these people. Fake news. You turn the page and then it says war in Syria. Bashar al-Assad does X and you go, wow, you forget you get amnesia. You saw something in which you were an expert and you knew it was fake. But then when you read something in which you're not familiar with, you assume it's true. That's the Gelman amnesia effect.

So what this operation ends up doing is eventually someone is going to be a dairy farmer and knows how to make cheddar cheese is going to be like, there's no way on Bakari. What is this? And they just start questioning every other article he's read. Maybe not. Maybe he'll have amnesia. But that's the idea. They're sprinkling and peppering it with all this random garbage so that you can't even know.

You could be reading a page and like, that's just totally made up and you can't tell because it sounds real. They could have been doing this the whole time. They could have been. But I think people liked Wikipedia for a long time. They liked it. They liked it. They used it. It made sense. Now we're at a period where Wikipedia is completely weaponized for political power.

I mean, look at – remember when – before Kamala – I disagree with that slightly. I think Wikipedia has always been seen as unreliable. You know, every school teacher will tell their pupils, don't rely on Wikipedia. Sure, sure. If you cite Wikipedia, you're getting a fail. But people were – in our generation especially were like yeah it's fine it's cited and you know it was convenient we knew we knew it was in a lot we still know it's unreliable but it's convenient so it's always

it's actually a problem of google google always puts it at the top of their search results right they consider it an authoritative source and it's not and it's not and everyone knows it's not i love how you can take me the person in question and i can issue a statement i did not invent a zeppelin not reliable take a 22 year old intern working at buzzfeed who writes tim pool comma who invented a zeppelin comma and boom historical fact that's the you know what would happen if you made Wikipedia liable for defamation cases? I can tell you, I've got a good idea of what would happen. First of all, Wikipedia would shut down for a month

or so, and in that month, they'd be reaching out to people like you, they'd be reaching out to everyone who's got a Wikipedia page about them, asking, hmm, is this actually true? Did you actually invent a Zeppelin? We're reviewing some of our articles. That's what they'd probably do. They'd shut down for a while. They'd edit all the articles and then put them back up.

That's what I was saying. They have to fact check. They would have to. So this is really funny about an unreliable source. Me as the person. When the New Yorker was writing about me, they called me. We would like to confirm some facts. Is X true?

Is Y true? And is Z true? And I said, yes, yes, and no. I said, thank you very much. And then they took out the BS. Granted, it was still pretty BS. It's a funny story. Wikipedia doesn't do that at all.

They say, we can't actually listen to the person. Every single fact checker in the past 100 years would be calling the person to confirm details. How many people work at Wikipedia? Any ideas? Oh, I have no idea. Like, I think it's a small operation, and they don't have the manpower to fact check. The whole point is it's just a community, you know, thing. It's weaponized.

Everyone contributes to it. There are corporations. And it has been weaponized. That's for sure. I know people whose job, it's called reputation management, and they know how to manipulate, and they have high-powered Wikipedia editors who look like regular people who just want to, you know, help out when in fact they're paid seven figures to control Wikipedia. And so there are, there are princes and princesses and politicians across Europe and the U S

who hire these companies to go in. They know how to remove articles from the front page of Google. They know how to manipulate the search engine algorithms to get them off. They know how to spam Google to get other sources pushed to the top and they know how to remove articles from the front page of Google. They know how to manipulate the search engine algorithms to get them off. They know how to spam Google to get other sources pushed to the top. And they know how to place stories in reputable sources so they can control your reputation. You can pay them for this. Now, if you're not rich enough to pay them, then they just call you, you know, alt-right and whatever.

And then there you go. It's interesting, too, because it feels like Wikipedia is a place where wealthy people of prominence can control the narrative, but poor people who become prominent just end up as white supremacists. Basically. Yeah, the exact opposite of the ideals of the internet. We're going to give everyone a voice. No, Wikipedia is just giving all the cocks a voice. Yeah, it absolutely is. I mean, that's true for a lot of the internet, to be honest. But let's do this. Let's talk about anonymity, because that's one of the one of the big issues with wikipedia that you brought up and we talked a little bit about this earlier i'm torn on whether or not people should be allowed to be anonymous on the internet because what ends up happening is sock puppets you get one guy

controlling a hundred accounts convincing oreo to like abandon their you know pumpkin spice flavor because it's offensive to native Americans or some other garbage. I'm making that up. That's not a real thing to happen. I'm just saying like, you get it, right? If people had to actually have their names and their faces, they're going to be more respectful, not completely, but more. And they're less likely and they're not going to get away with sock puppeting and

manipulating these companies. The problem with more respectful is also more respectful of the people in power, the people who control the narrative, the people who can destroy them i think in the age of cancel culture and that'll be fake respect by the way yes i respect the soviet commissar because if i don't respect the soviet commissar i'm going to the gulag that's that's that's what happens when you make everyone accountable for what they say and you don't give people private spaces to discuss controversial topics i think in the age of cancel culture, anonymity couldn't be more important. Even before the end of it,

the founding fathers thought it was important to have a free and open debate about the Constitution. They wrote under various pseudonyms in the Federalist Papers, right? So it's been around for a long time. French dissidents under the monarchy in the 1700s wrote under pseudonyms, you know, Voltaire being the most famous.

So it's been used for a long time for dissident thinkers to express controversial ideas with that while avoiding the consequences of the powerful forces of the day. That's a good point. And given how powerful council culture is today, I think it's more important than ever. But here's the thing. Here's the kicker. It doesn't actually exist.

We think it does, but it doesn't. So one of the most terrifying sources I spoke to in the book, by the way, deletedbook.com if you want to get it, is someone who doesn't work for one of the big companies, someone who worked for the ad tech industry. Now, the ad tech industry has a huge interest in de-anonymizing people because they want to find out exactly what people are interested in, even when they're posting anonymously. So what she told me is that they've actually paid people to scrape say you know youtube comments you know people commenting under this video might think they're anonymous but actually your comments may well be being scraped by one of these ad tech companies stored on a database so even if you delete it they'll still have it and then they're scanning the text to match your writing style to say your facebook post or your twitter post because they just want to find out everything

about you it's quite a benign motivation but you can easily see it being applied in non-benign ways. And the technology they use to do this is extremely sophisticated. So what my source told me is that they're actually working on technology that can identify people based on not just their unique writing style, but the speed of your mouse movements, how fast you type on your keyboard, all these unique giveaways. All combined. So imagine you throw away your laptop, you throw away your mouse movements, how fast you type on your keyboard, all these unique giveaways. All combined. So imagine you throw away your laptop,

you throw away your mobile phone, you change your name, you travel to Outer Mongolia, you log onto a new laptop in Outer Mongolia, you start typing, and instantly they know who you are because of your typing style. So what you do is you create a physical mechanism

that you type on your keyboard, and then it translates to actual physical robotic hands that perfectly separate each keystroke by a millisecond. Oh, man. Yeah. I will say that the point I make in the book is the privacy guys, people who value privacy and anonymity, they've got to get ahead of this stuff. You can write programs. The same technology that can be used to de-anonymize someone can be used to re-anonymize them by masking those unique signals.

So that needs to happen quickly. Alan, do you know that Facebook is aware of when you poop? I did not know that. You didn't know that? That's a little snippet I – It's true. If I knew that before the book, I'd definitely put it in there. I know, right?

I was reading about it. Facebook knows everything about you. And so I was reading something about how people think they're listening to your voice and, you know, selling you – giving you ads based on what you say. It's not true. They just know too much about you to the point where they can predict seemingly innocuous, like, unrelated things. So what happens is I remember I went to Walmart and to walmart and they had these tvs on sale for 300 bucks and i remember looking at them like i go home and i go i'm on a computer and i see on facebook the ad for walmart tvs in the middle of the aisle just like i had seen and i was like what and so it's really simple my location data gave away that i was at a walmart

they knew i was at a walmart they knew my age they knew my demographic they assumed i would probably want to buy a tv they probably knew where you were standing in the Walmart based on GPS. For sure. Maybe. I mean, I don't know how precise they can get, but the general idea is 18, a 35 year old male at a Walmart probably wants to play video games. There's TVs on sale. And so I noticed them because of who I am and they track these things. So you're familiar with shadow profiles? Oh, of course. Every social media platform has a shadow profile of you,

even when you haven't signed up yet. Exactly. Even when you haven't signed up, they're tracking you around the internet. We'll get into that next, but I bring that up because they build a data profile on you from information from other sources. And so I'm trying to explain this to my friends. Some of them don't want to believe it. Mine does not do that, by the way. Well, right, right.

But Facebook is a massive, massive apparatus. I mean, the phone. So here's what happens. Facebook's machines know the average duration between when a person of a certain height, weight, and age has to go to the bathroom. They know when you wake up because they know when the phone's not moving and when the phone's moving. They know when the phone goes out for lunch. You're at your office, then all of a sudden you're at Hardee's or whatever, they have your location services. And if they don't have yours, they have your friend who's saying, hey, I'm getting you the burger at Hardee's or hey, I'm at the counter right now,

meet me at the front, I'll order for you. Things like that, they all know it. You take all of this data. I say they know when you poop because that's the shocking and funny thing to say. But they know everything about you. They probably know when you're banging your wife or your husband or whatever. They know. And it's because all of these little things combined give them a detailed map of your life. So you might not think it matters that, oh, you know, I leave my phone in the office when I go to the bathroom, whatever. Then the phone stops moving. They know. They know they know figure it out yes they figure it out they know

there's no swipes there's no there's no clicks there's no screen time they know the person is has been gone away for 4.7 75 minutes and they know how long so they compare it to other exactly it's most likely to be this they know the average person spends four minutes and 27 seconds on a potty break. Your phone was inactive for four minutes and the best part is people will check their phone, put it down,

go to the bathroom, come back, check their phone again. They know exactly when you're pooping. They know when you're eating, know when you're sleeping. They know when you wake up

in the middle of the night. And here's why I say if Trump loses, it'll be because of big tech because imagine this technology applied to political movements. People think, some it's just a few big accounts getting censored, just Alex Jones. No, they're censoring entire political movements at once. So network analysis, which is the tool they use to identify certain networks of people. So they see some people go to

Chick-fil-A every Wednesday. They have a them in a, they have a certain map of their activities. They put them in a group with other sort of Chick-fil-A eaters. They have these whole networks mapped out. They do that for political people as well. Who's following Alex Jones? Who's following Breitbart News? Who's following Tim Pool? And who, those guys, are they following each other as well? And if they send a signal to an algorithm saying, you know, this network posts a lot of disinformation, our algorithm has detected that that they send to not just one or two people but entire political movements when alex jones gets banned that's not the end of it that is also sending a signal to the algorithm saying everyone who followed alex jones they followed an account

known for posting conspiracy theories maybe we don't ban them but maybe we suppress them in the algorithm maybe their posts don't show up at all. People feed so much. Or they pepper a little bit, right? So every third person gets the X. One of the big things that, one of the most important things in the censorship story is that most people getting banned are small accounts for obvious reasons. There's more of them. But periodically, excuse me, periodically, someone with a lot of followers gets banned and they notice. And then everyone says, whoa, I can't believe they banned person X. And then Twitter goes, that was a mistake.

We're sorry. And they reinstate the person. And then the algorithm carries on nuking people and just like mowing them down. They accidentally hit someone too big and people noticed. Oh, you can come back. OK, now get rid of the next 50. Yeah, people are celebrating that the new york post uh story got more distribution than would have otherwise received because of the censorship so it was a beneficiary of the streisand effect that's great

by the way the new york post has some great journalists i know some of them they're awesome you know emma joe morris uh john levine all these people they're great but that most people who get censored that doesn't happen to them their message isn isn't amplified. Most people just don't notice. The New York Post is just big enough. It sometimes backfires on them, but in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't. That's why censorship is so scary and terrifying. And often it's invisible.

My favorite story in all of this, shadow profiles. So let me just tell all of you right now. I love talking to a group of people and I'll say, you all have a Facebook profile. And most of them will say yes, but then periodically get someone to be like, no, I don't use Facebook. And I said, no, you have a Facebook profile. And they say, no, I've never signed up for it. Or no, I deleted it or I got rid of it or I don't use it. Let's say you, Ian, you have your phone, right?

Do you have Facebook Messenger on your phone? Yes, I do. When you log into Facebook Messenger, it says, find out who you're friends with at your contact list. Jeez. When you do that, all of a sudden now, Facebook has a list, a very interesting list of phone numbers. And on yours, it says mom, dad, and then, you know, your siblings, Janet, Bill, or whatever. You might even say brother or sister. It then has a phone number, you know, 867-5309 listed as mom.

Then it has a phone number that says, you know, Janet Crossland or whatever, whatever your mom, I don't know your mom's name. And it's the same phone number. Becky, Becky Crossland. Perfect. 867-5309. Who would be referring to mom by the full name? Someone who is, you know, in the immediate family. But then it has the same number, 8 6 7 5 3 0 2 in your phone as dad.

Now it knows who your mom's husband is. Get it. So let's say your dad never signs up. They know who your dad is based on your mom calling him Jim and you calling him dad and having the same phone number. And it's a game of Sudoku. All of these things. They take all these little bits of data, combine it.

And if you've never signed up for any of these websites, everyone else has given your data to them. And their addresses and their phone numbers. Well, obviously, and their email address. Sometimes their pictures. Just based on your contacts and your phone. Human rights violation. There was a period where Facebook accidentally published the shadow profiles. Do you remember this? yeah sometimes they're pictures yeah just based on your context on your phone there were rights violation there was a period where facebook accidentally published the shadow profiles

do you remember this i do remember that was amazing that was amazing uh and even if you don't have the phasic messenger app or um if you just visit a website that has like one of the little facebook buttons one little uh twitter buttons it's getting your data it knows you on that website yep and it will build a profile for you and everyone you know. And you don't know exactly what data is being given to them. And the craziest thing about it is when I tell people this, like, listen, your contact list has your significant other listed as, you know, GF or girlfriend or something. It now knows you're in a relationship and it knows who you're in a relationship with because that phone number then correlates to someone who calls your girlfriend, Becky. They now know who Becky is. Then someone has, you know, little sister and they're like,

now we know who your sister is. The phone number thing is really obvious to us because we can understand how to correlate that data, but they can build a shadow profile up from you off of really innocuous data. Like when you went to Burger King and then they can see where your contacts go they can no no no no no no no drop the contactless thing i'm saying you could carry your phone into a burger king and it can be like this phone and this phone when the burger at the same time and moved around at the same time and now i'm thinking about nfc near frequency communication near field near field communication and bluetooth like the ability for like a smart refrigerator to measure your phone if your Bluetooth is on.

So it's getting more advanced. This is why Google got into smartphones and laptops and now cities. They want to build smart cities because there's just more and more ways to gather data. Whether you sign up for the services or not. Your technology will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Indeed. It's funny.

Looking forward to living in the Google smart city. Are we at the point now where we've already become subjects of the Borg? Is this conversation, is the AI laughing to itself saying, I am making them have this conversation? Ha ha ha. They are the Borg. Thankfully, I don't think it's got to that point yet. But I do think this election will be a test of, you know, can big tech swing an election? Can the message get out? I think the polls are narrowing at the moment. I was very pessimistic a month or so ago about Trump's chances, but the polls are narrowing. You know, like I said, you know, big tech can put propaganda at the top of someone's feet, but it has to be good propaganda. And the advantage that people like Trump have is that

the mainstream media doesn't really understand ordinary Americans very well. They're not very good at persuading them. Well, the interesting thing about the censorship is that it still can't bypass human communication. And so they can ban Milo, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, et cetera, but they can't stop them from communicating in the real world. And so it can actually backfire and amplify these ideas like we saw at the New York Post. Now, the best thing they can do is nuke the movement from the smallest grassroots first and then let the higher like, you know, I think banning Milo friends was a really, really bad idea.

They should have slowly just started banning his followers until he had no influence anymore because now he's an account with no interaction, no engagement. And then he has to change up his strategy and his tactics to do they could have manipulated that way instead they went from the top and it caused the grassroots to freak out like whoa they banned this guy and it created a big story not that i'm saying he's better off for i think banning him was bad for him in the long run but that's what they can do but what's happening now is they're trying to actively censor but when they do yeah alex jones still has his own website and his own infrastructure and he can build his own thing they're not strong enough to erase someone from the internet yet though they

have started removing people from society in general like enrique tari over the proud boys for instance he gets banned from his banks he gets banned from uber he gets banned from mailchimp which i guess he doesn't even use and never even signed up for they ban him from things he doesn't use at all banks banning him that's like total removal from society so the issue right now is well that they're working on their method right because that one of the things i know they're working on is link banning you know so you know alex jones can have his own platform but if you try and share his links on these mainstream platforms like a bit shoot happen bit shoot as well yeah so bit shoot is a it's it's a torrent based video sharing platform i think

right yeah and so all of my videos automatically sync to bit shoot as an emergency backup there have been a few instances where youtube has deleted my videos with no strikes with no warning with no violations and what just gone yeah just gone because i said the wrong name or something or i had like a a news article that had an email in it or something but it will appear appear on BitChute. If you try and share a link to BitChute on Twitter, it gives you a warning. It's unsafe. You can't do this.

And so that's soft censorship. They're trying their hardest. Cancel culture is their real world cudgel to enforce their censorship. They need the far leftists to punch you in the teeth when you challenge them. Sorry, I just had to say this. It almost feels like there is an AI consciousness forming in all of this big tech censorship

inadvertently. And people like Antifa are being manipulated into being the enforcers in the real world where the AI can't actually reach. I'm not saying there's an actual conscious entity going like, I must control humanity. I'm saying that we are creating this big network system that inadvertently has created enforcers in the real world and they allow it. Well, it's a symbiotic relationship because Antifa and their sympathizing big tech train the algorithms. The algorithms then enforce what Antifa want them to enforce more efficiently than they can. So it creates this circle. want them to enforce more efficient more efficiently than they can well it will circle it's it's it's listen why is it that a black man can go out in san francisco and say censorship is

bad and a white antifuck screaming the n-word can knock his teeth out and the media doesn't freak out over that it was acceptable in this weird this weird algorithmic universe they've created the ai that they built and their manipulation because it's human beings at the end of the day, can't get into your home and they can't get on that stage with you to stop you. They can't censor you when you have a constitutional right to speak. But they can inflame some Antifa people, allow them to organize violent riots and show up to your home and punch you in the face and knock your teeth out. They didn't go to that guy's house. I'm just saying that they've been going to people's houses. So

they really need cancel culture to scare people into adhering to the manipulations that they want. And they really, really need Antifa to knock people out. Otherwise, what does the enforcement actually mean in the real world when people defy you? They want to end the defiance in the physical realm. They'll punch you in the face. They can already end the defiance in the real world when people defy you they want to end the defiance in the physical realm they'll punch you in the face they can already end the defiance in the digital world by just banning you and nuking you so they've got their enforcers and the enforcers are allowed to operate on these platforms i was talking to ryan with impunity i was talking to ryan hartwig he's a facebook whistleblower yeah we're having him on friday oh yeah he's great yeah he's awesome and uh you know you know that he was a facebook comment moderator he was told he was you know

told by his superiors don't categorize Antifa as a hate organization. So there you have it. Another another another smoking gun to a long list of smoking guns. You know, you know what I wish like would be awesome. There's like some, you know, 70 year old dude who like owns and runs all of the big investment companies. And he's sitting in a room and it was like 1977 when he accidentally invented a sentient computer that's telling him what to do and then he's going and giving his underlings orders like that'd be a great a great movie unfortunately reality is actually scarier than that it's human beings and they're knocking dominoes over not realizing what they're building around them and

it's getting scarier and domino goes all the way back around and then hits him in the back oh definitely yeah so like if you look at jack dorsey for instance like that dude gave what did he give like 10 million dollars was it to ibram x candy these people are it's it's it's human centipede but like in you've seen the movie human centipede you guys aren't uh i can't say i have no i've heard of it i'm you know what it's about i'm aware of its notoriety yeah yeah you know what it's about so a mad scientist sews uh a group of people's mouths to each other's anuses and creates this big, long human centipede. Sounds like a horror movie.

It is a horror movie. It is a horror movie. And so imagine that, but imagine they're connected in a big circle, and that's what it is. So Jack Dorsey creates a platform where he lets the left run rampant, and then eventually the whole political world is inflated with this psychotic far-left ideology that he allowed, and then it infects his own brain and then he gives money to it a guy calling for racial segregation he gives money to him he's created this world where it's literally he's he's encouraging people to make sludge and refuse and then he's accidentally eating it and corrupting his own mind and body yeah and that

money eventually comes back to pressure twitter to censor someone yep yep Abraham X. Kennedy yes absolutely yeah well then the democrats believe it all too and the republicans are not so much i wonder why that is why you know when we look at the pew research thing where it shows the democrats moving very far left why the republicans have stayed very much where they are even with trump and the rhetoric and cancel culture and all that stuff i think it's because i think jonathan hait talks about this you know he's the uh very much where they are, even with Trump and the rhetoric and cancel culture and all that stuff. I think it's because I think Jonathan Haidt talks about this. You know, he's the psychologist who does all this research about the roots of our political beliefs. He mentions, you know, conservatives are quite good at understanding liberals, often because, you know, they were former liberals, but liberals are terrible at understanding conservatives.

So this is why I think Trump still has a fighting chance. We have all the censorship. We have all this propaganda. But because liberals don't understand conservatives very well, don't understand normal non-liberal people very well, a lot of the propaganda is just bad. Well, so what I think is happening is there's another chart that I love to share where it shows moderates. 60% of the moderate news diet is liberal and 30% is conservative, or it's like 66 to 33. Conservatives is the other way around. It's 66% conservative and 33% liberal. Liberals only consume liberal news.

So I think one of the things we saw with Gallup recently is that if you compare party affiliation from their latest data set in September to 2016, Democrats went from a D plus five advantage to an R plus one advantage. That's a huge swing. People are leaving the Democratic Party. And it's because I always hear it. They started researching on their own. The people who are in these videos screaming like lunatics, they're not doing any research at all. They're just reading this shocking story someone sent to them. They go, what's happening? They're crying and screaming.

The rest of us, we see it and we go, oh, let me check that. I don't know about that. Oh, that wasn't true. Or, oh, that was true. The reason why Biden is a sort of a strong candidate for the Democrats, you know, stronger than the alternatives, is for the same reasons that the liberals would never imagine it's precisely because he's an old blue or seems to be just a friendly old blue collar guy who's not too extreme that's the image he projects it's not what he actually is right but it's the image he projects democrats and liberals do not consider that to be an advantage they probably think that's a huge weakness actually that's probably why the only reason why trump isn't actually ahead in many of

these polls yep it's because biden seems so moderate and inoffensive to so many i think the polls are wrong i think the the the threats of violence the screaming banshees on on social media has scared people and there was uh this research i've cited quite a bit in the past couple weeks because we're getting close to the election showing that 10 of uh trump voters will lie about who they're voting for so So yeah, 100%. But think about that. That's the wildcard. You don't, you don't know how many people are going to turn out for Trump because they've been so intimidated. You look at this early voting right now, and a lot of states, it's it's below 10% for Democrats. Democrats are supposed to be way, way above Republicans in early and absentee voting.

And in Ohio today, Republicans were winning. The other day in Michigan, Republicans are winning, but it switched back. Democrats took a bump. So there's a lot of states where Democrats should have a massive advantage and they only have a tiny advantage or a moderate advantage, suggesting they're underperforming. If Trump wins, are we going to have to deal with this again? All this nonsense and the screaming. It'll be worse if Trump loses.

It will be worse if he loses. It'll be worse. But if he wins, which I hope he will, do we have to deal with these screaming, no offense, women in the car or whoever? Screaming young people. Of course. Uneducated people that are freaking out. Yes. Why?

Why? Why won't people just chill out and build something? Because they're addicted and they're on Facebook and Facebook is beating them over the head and screaming in their faces and they're not smart enough to do a Google search. So we need a unified enemy and maybe it can be the tech oligopolies. You'd think COVID would have been there, but no, can't do it. Because you can't see it. You can't target someone or something. It's too amorphous. But like a corporation. There are some leftists who get it. I mean, the Gravel Institute, which is very, very far left, put out a video recently criticizing the tech giants for their control over information.

Tulsi Gabbard gets it. She's talked about this a lot. She's come on Breitbart News Radio and talked about it. So she's happy to work across the aisle. And I think especially the anti-war left as you said tim they're getting censored as well so there's some recognition in some parts of the left that big tech the power of big tech giants is a problem uh the question is will that ever gain momentum because you know for the left now it's all about freak that the the way to gain followers on the left is to freak

out about trump to freak out about so-called hate speech demand even more censorship so um if i think i think if trump wins and and republicans don't get the senate or the house trump's out they'll impeach him instantly they're going to pack the courts they're going to add five or you know seven more justices to completely overrule whatever's there they are going to fundamentally dismantle and destroy this country. There's already an article that says abolish the Constitution. No joke. Straight up. It's from the New Republic.

Not some fringe sites. The New Republic is a prominent leftist website saying abolish the Constitution. They are not slowing down. They are speeding up. And appeasement doesn't work. When they say, we don't really want to just get rid of all the cops. We're talking about defunding. Then the New York Times publishes, yes, we mean abolish the police straight up. Then when you start saying, okay, we'll give a little bit. They've defunded,

I think, like 160 departments around the country. Yes, to varying degrees, some very, very large numbers, some smaller numbers. And then does the left say, good, now we can have a conversation of what to do? No, now they say, great. The next thing we want to abolish is the Constitution. So they're planting the seeds because they will never stop pulling. If Joe Biden wins, unless so, look, even if the Republicans win everything, then what are they going to do? What are they going to do?

Nothing. They're going to beg The New York Times to call them cool. Will you call me cool and write a cool op-ed about me? No, you're a fascist. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll do whatever you say. Now you've got a mix of many of these, you know, you've got people on the right, libertarian right and conservatives being like, we should interfere in the free speech of these big

tech companies. We should let them control the politics of this country and just run us out of office permanently. If Trump and the Republicans win, there is a chance that right now with Trump, with his hand on the cliff, holding up everybody else can pull us up and slowly start to push back. Trump banning critical race theory was a really good example of this. All of a sudden, we started hearing stories from people on Twitter. I lost my job. My company canceled my, you know, our contracts and everything. It's over.

I can't believe I went to school for this. There was one really funny one where a person was like, I went to school for, you know, five years learning about diversity and inclusivity and inclusion. And now Trump's banned it. And I'm completely out of a job and don't know what I'm going to do. That's Trump getting rid of this crazy psychotic behavior. If Biden wins and the Democrats take over, then you are going to live in an algorithmically manipulated universe where Republicans will probably never win again. They'll pack the courts.

It will be. Listen, it's not going to be this utopia that people on the left think it is. It's not going to be Skittles and candy canes and rainbows and universal health care. It's going to be Hitler in a bikini with a female body dancing, doing Tai Chi with the Incredible Hulk while someone sings a nursery rhyme. That's a real video. That was a mashup because a computer algorithm was trying to find things that people liked, and it mashed them all together. And it created this insane, the Incredible Hulk with Hitler, but Hitler has the body of a woman in a bikini and is doing Tai Chi,

and then they're singing a nursery rhyme. that's algorithmic reality and if the democrats win and they're falling victim to all this that's what we're going to get biden will certainly this is like there's a very clear choice is like do you want digital dystopia or do you want some chance at getting back our online freedom uh biden will absolutely use the federal government to pressure tech companies even more to do even more censorship um yep uh it's it's really amazing how the internet has changed because the internet as it existed before 2015 was actually unprecedented in human history the amount of free speech we all had never before could you just you have a device turn it on reach a global audience that was new uh but it's now been entirely flipped on its head

and controlled by these of hand now a handful of corporations get to control political discourse, not just in America, but all around the world. Hartwig is going to be with you guys shortly. He was talking about how he was moderating political speech in Mexico and Venezuela and Canada, all these countries. That's foreign election interference right there. It's the Borg, man. It's gone from unprecedented freedom, not just to back to the status quo, but beyond that to unprecedented tyranny. So that's where we're at right now. And it'll get worse under Biden. And to talk about one more thing, this will sound like a massive tangent, but it isn't. The Roman Empire collapsed because or collapsed into dictatorship because people, the Senate became corrupt, politicians

became corrupt, and people turned to powerful, strong men and said, we're really seeing that because as you said republican senators a great many of them will do nothing to protect ordinary people from these tech giants yeah they're slim they're corrupt the only the only entity in the world perhaps today doing that is the trump administration they're the ones who petitioned the fcc got the fcc to come out and say okay yes we'll do something on section 230 they're the ones who appointed n Symington to the FCC, a guy who's a social media whore, got rid of the old guy who was skeptical about reigning in tech censorship. So really, the American executive branch is the only branch of government

that might actually do something. Didn't the Roman Empire last 1,000 years or something? Oh, yeah. I mean, hell, Rome under the Caesars was not particularly a bad place to live. But it's like 1,000 years? We made it, what, 240-something? Yeah. 250? The Republic was like 400 years, and then the Empire took over for about 300 or 400 more, and then it split into two empires, the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire.

But you see the parallel where you know politicians no longer defend the interests of the people and only the executive branch does so what's what's the answer well you have to give more power to the executive branch i don't like that idea what do you guys think about net neutrality i don't know i remember it was huge total total uh play on words by the by the liberals and the tech can you define? So it was essentially a law that defined, well, an executive action by the FCC, by Obama's FCC, that made ISPs, internet service providers, Comcast, Verizon, common carriers. So they had to treat everyone equally, treat everyone neutrally. So if Netflix is using your bandwidth, even if they're using way more of it than any other

company, you have to charge them the same rate. So it was really something that only helped Netflix and YouTube and these big video streaming platforms and the service providers, Google, Facebook, all these platforms. So it was basically the edge, what's called in the technical FCC language, the edge providers, Facebook, Google, YouTube, versus the service providers, Verizon, Comcast. It was a battle between corporations. And under Obama, the edge providers, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Netflix, they won that battle. Under Trump, they got rid of it. It's not really about net neutrality. It doesn't force anyone to be politically neutral. And if it does, then it was aimed at the wrong target, because the ISPs, to my knowledge, have never actually censored political speech. If you're going to have net neutrality, apply it to Google and YouTube and Facebook as well,

because they're the ones who threaten the actual neutrality of the internet. They're the ones deciding who gets so-called throttled. 230 reform could save the republic. If 230 is clearly defined, which Egypt shouldipai should have done a long time ago. Now he's all of a sudden like, oh, we're going to do it. Yeah, okay, sure. If this had been a long time ago and companies like Wikipedia were liable for their libel and Twitter had to have strict moderation policies, then free speech would be allowed. Debate would be happening and people would have the opportunity to actually speak with each other a site like mines a startup like mines would have went under because we couldn't we only had like three moderators and you wouldn't have to

moderate that's the point yeah it would it would we would have to ban no you wouldn't we'd have to find the no no no no no you're you're wrong it's the opposite of that this is the argument that free market libertarians make which is the opposite of that if you moderate then you're wrong you're wrong it's the opposite of that this is the argument that free market libertarians make which is the opposite of that if you moderate then you're suddenly in publisher territory uh with microphone issues no no you're good oh okay your headphones might have cut got it yeah um anyway it's the opposite of that because if you get section 230 reform the right kind of section 230 reform i will say you don't want to repeal the entire that's a bad idea what you want to say is if you – it's very simple. It's so simple.

I don't know why more people aren't suggesting this. You simply say if you want to be a platform, if you want to have that legal immunity, you can't filter legal content, constitutionally protected content, on behalf of your users. You can filter it, but only if the user chooses to filter it. So exactly the same as Google's safe search option, but for all types of content. So you would not have to moderate. Okay, wait. So if someone posts something illegal, I have to get it off the site as a moderator

or the site gets sued because we can't host illegal content. That's true now. That's true now. Yeah, section 2 doesn't change that. So you're saying if I right now... If you moderate legal content on behalf of a user so the user doesn't ask you to hide that from their feed, then you are no longer a platform. You lose Section 230 protections.

But if you give the user the option to filter that content, say if you make a hate speech filter that liberals can turn on or off, that's fine. Right. You just don't do it on behalf of the user. So right now what's happening is section 230 says good faith moderation is allowed the idea was you can't be responsible for what a user posts to your website that's not fair i didn't say it is a comment so right now they can moderate against users will but this would say you're not allowed to moderate against their will unless they ask you to moderate for right so well they can here's the thing So free market defenders of the big tech companies

will say, First Amendment, anyone can moderate their property, their communications platform as much as they want, or you're violating the First Amendment. That's actually true. But while every company has First Amendment rights, they don't have these special Section 230 legal immunities. So what you can say is if you want these special legal immunities that no other company gets then you're going to have to behave in a certain way it's very simple yeah so right now on mines you have the the not safe for work filter right yeah people can turn it off and just see everything yeah and so if it's like so one of the arguments was people need to be able to these sites need to be able to remove porn or something like let's say you're a religious community forum and someone's not spamming

porn you need to get rid of it so there that that is one of one of the challenges in setting these terms and these rules but the users have the ability to then say filter this out for me and so they can't see it so someone come in and can post whatever garbage they want, but no one sees it who's actually participating. There are still challenges. But the general idea is right now, Twitter says it is objectionable if someone says vote Trump, therefore we'll ban them. Well, Section 230 says we're allowed to moderate objectionable content without crossing the

line that needs to be defined. What does that mean? So so the general idea that many people have had is you can't remove legal content. If it's a violation of the law, like a call to violence, threatening harm, or horrifying images or whatever, then they can get rid of that. They have to now. But if it's someone saying vote Trump, then you can't touch it yeah also if that's how the law were then it would be so much easier for tech platforms and new platforms like mines because you would one you wouldn't have to have moderators and two you wouldn't necessarily have to build the filters yourself what i imagine would happen

would there be all sorts of third-party browser extensions that filter content across the internet for you so you don't ever want to see so you don't ever want to see obscene content on the internet you want to keep your internet family friendly i imagine what would happen in this new uh this new world where tech platforms can't censor on your behalf is you'd have browser extensions that people install and it would filter your online experience across all but what would happen is someone would apply porn and they wouldn't mark it explicit because people just that's how they live they don't mark their stuff they put it up and then you have to go in and find it and then moderate it or you have to build an algorithm well that's a problem now so maybe and then you get complaints that it hasn't been flagged

yet it's well that's a problem that you have now that's problem that google has you know so they train algorithms to recognize that kind of content and what would happen is you'd have browser extensions that do the same thing that have algorithms that recognize and they get better and better and they improve over time with updates. Yeah. It's time to, in a sense, scale back the desperate attempts. Because what's happening is you get Twitter and Facebook saying, this is objectionable and this isn't. And then a bunch of people freak out saying that's not fair. A really good example of the problem was when I was talking with Jack Dorsey and I said, your rules are inherently biased.

And they said, no, that's not true. And I said, you ban people for misgendering. And they were like, so conservatives don't view the word misgender the same way you do. Your rules are inherently biased. You should not be allowed to do that. Imagine this. Imagine you make a phone call to your mom and you're like, did you see this story about, you know, Donald Trump doing a backflip and then click, phone goes off.

And then you get your phone vibrates and it says you are sharing objectionable information. That would that would that be insane. Nobody would like that's a private phone call. Facebook's actually censoring private messages. Twitter, when it came to the New York Post story, was blocking link sharing in direct messages. This is well beyond acceptable behavior. It's not good faith at all. You know what the equivalent is? I start off my book with this, The Prologue. It's a story about a guy in the 1960s who's writing a letter on his typewriter. The typewriter stops work and says, you can't use a typewriter anymore. Your last letter was hate speech. And he tries to call his

friend on the phone. The phone operator says operator says sorry you said hate speech through the phone last time can't use it today sorry you're banned for 10 days tries to uh go buy a newspaper the newsstand owner says well your favorite newspaper isn't stocked anymore it was it was uh publishing disinformation look that's that would be that would have been so bizarre to like our uh our parents and our grandparents but we're just accepting it on social media the exact same i'd like to see them become utilities big companies like that once they have a certain amount of users per day maybe maybe there's a lot there's a lot of talk i think simple 230 reform is the first thing to do and then so if content goes up it's objectionable and someone complains you're liable for it as a as a platform because no because you're supposed to make sure

that the filter works. No, no, no. If the filter doesn't work. Objectionable doesn't mean illegal. Right. But if someone has a filter and they turn it on, they don't want to see porn, but the porn hasn't been flagged yet and they see it, the site can get sued. No, that's not true. Well, if this 230 thing is –

No, no, no. That's not true at all. Not right now. No, you are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong you do not you are wrong you are wrong there are two there are two parts of section 230 one which exempts um companies from lawsuits over the removal of content and one that exempts them for hosting content so i'm not saying that you should uh strip immunity from tech platforms simply for uh for hosting content they need that immunity

but it should be contingent on behaving like a platform. So not moderating content on behalf of the users. If porn gets posted, and it slips the filter, that is not a violation of 230. It is, these things happen, and the people can complain, and then the site can fix it. But if the site purposefully takes

action that violates 230, then they lose their liability protections. That's the way to change it. Yeah. And that's what needs to happen. We'll see if we actually get to that point. I think if we enlighten people as to what exactly, so they understand what the change will be, that there will be a lot more support for it.

Yeah. The problem is platform hasn't been properly defined under the law. So we have platforms behaving like publishers. That's what we want to... But I don't think... Some people say, you know repeal section 230 don't repeal it it's necessary for free speech on the internet to exist just reform it so that platforms behave like platforms can you can you explain what the difference between a platform and a publisher a platform hosts content and a uh a publisher edits it speaks it edits it chooses what you see and that's all that's what

the platforms are doing out there choosing what choosing what people see. So listen, listen. If you post a message saying, you know, screw Elam, and you post it on a board out in the middle of the town square, I don't sue the board. But if you stand there and scream, screw Elam, I say you're the one who spoke. That's the difference. Twitter is supposed to be a big, you know, community board. People can walk up and put their messages on and walk away. And you don't complain about the board because someone put a message on it. That's why you can't sue Twitter.

The problem is what Twitter has become is in order to get in, there's a gate. And when you walk in, Jack Dorsey's standing there saying, not that one. Wait, what did you say? Oh, I'm taking that one down. And it's like, wait, wait, you're curating what people can and can't say. You're effectively speaking because you're restricting some things and promoting other things. And they become a publisher. More importantly, Twitter has begun actually issuing news statements. So there's quite literally on the town center square. It says the Twitter board and Jack Dorsey is writing things on it. And now we're like, yo,

I can sue you for that. they're like actually you can't what they said twitter employees using twitter what about them what about them having a person as individuals they're not twitter okay yeah so the one of the one of the issues right now is that many of these companies are issuing statements as what effectively would be the new york times like when facebook puts a fly a flag over a piece of content saying it's fake news, well, that's Facebook issuing a declaration that no one else can do.

Yeah, well, let's read Super Chats. I want that. All right. Here we go. Amber Black says, Oh, a British accent. This will be a fun show. A great show, yes.

Colleen said, Just heard about BitChute to possibly replace YouTube, Parler for Twitter, MeWe for Facebook, not to polarize communities, but these monopolies. So I don't think any of these things will actually replace. One of the challenges with any one of these alternative platforms is that do they have a big enough community size to make it valuable for people? And they're not completely the same. And one of the challenges, yeah, what if people start polarizing because they're all, you know, all the right-wing people go on Parler and all the left-wing people stay on Twitter?

You know, then what? I think with videos, if it gets easy enough to cross-post, where it's just, you know, a push of a button and it is becoming easier, then you could see these platforms start to gather momentum because people simply choose to watch, say, your podcast on BitChute rather than YouTube. One problem with Mines and not having cross-posting was that we'd have to take, like, Facebook's API, and it would be, like, proprietary, and they'd be tracking your browser movements if we implemented Facebook's API like a share to Facebook button. So we don't have a share to Facebook button. I say we, but Mines doesn't have a share to Facebook button because we don't want facebook to track our users yeah yeah another regulation that i'd like to see is make it uh easier for people or force the big companies to develop a shared format where you can migrate all your content from one platform to another with a push for button that would be great to see that'd be awesome mines might have a share to facebook button yeah i wouldn't i wouldn't subject small companies with that because you know it's kind of

onerous from a technological standpoint but you could have some sort of you know josh hawley like exemption where it only applies to companies above a certain market share all right let's see let's let's read some more there's a bunch of posts about jeffrey tube and cranking it on a zoom call so i'm like i'm trying to read through these like, okay, that's like the third one. Good stuff. Do you see BuzzFeed like defended it? They're like, come on. Which one of you have not cranked it? Who among us? Yeah, who?

They did say that. That's literally what they said. Wow. I think the picture that James showed was fake, was doctored. That was not him. Right, right, right. Okay, yeah, that's fine. Thank God.

All right, let's see. Oh my gosh. Brendan Thompson says, I wonder if there will be a day when we can charge Google and Facebook for our own data. If so, how could we influence it? Interesting question. I think, yeah, hopefully. Ken, do you have an answer? You're the expert.

I'm not sure if we will see a day because, you know, Google's bought all the lawmakers. The lawmakers don't act in the interest of the people anymore. I'd certainly like to see it. I think data ownership is a big way that people can take back control from these tech giants. It's actually Alphabet, too. We talk about Google a lot, but it's owned by a company called Alphabet

that owns other companies called like X, which is like a technology firm that Alphabet owns. There's Google. Umbrella Corp. Yeah, seriously. Google owns YouTube, which is...

I'd like to go into Alphabet someday. Guy Allgood says, Tim, you're not blacklisted. I just checked. Your whining has paid off. None of your channels are hidden. I'd like to go into alphabets someday Guy Allgood says Tim you're not blacklisted I just checked Your whining has paid off None of your channels are hidden I'd like to believe that But earlier today

I did a check And my videos don't come up In fact I was sent A trending search topic Which was the full title Of one of my videos Because everybody who watched Started searching for the title

And it doesn't come up So I'll check again after the show And maybe my whining has paid off. Clear your cash. That's right. Yeah. Well, no, I always do that when I refresh. I do a hard refresh.

That happens. So try searching for a Bright Button News headline, the exact headline on Google. See what comes up. It's entirely science to just rip off our content and plagiarize it. Wow. What's funny is when you search the headline for one of it gives you the facebook version and i'm like youtube google would rather promote facebook videos because i do post on facebook as well than their own channel but maybe someone's saying it's not they checked all my channels i'll check maybe maybe finally somebody watched and was like oh we better we better back off this we have been

talking about it russian bot says i sent my aunt who constantly sends me lincoln project vids a walkaway video and she went ballistic she actually demanded i stop sending people those kinds of Wow. Certainly. SSS says, Yeah, I've heard similar things. There's so many posts about Jeffrey Toobin. Oh, my gosh. We didn't talk about it.

We didn't talk about it at all. No, but they want it. They want it so bad. Toobin it. For those that don't know what the context is, it's a CNN analyst who was in a business meeting with a bunch of journalists and started cranking one out on camera in front of everybody. He meant to take his video down. Or did he?

And film. I don't know. Maybe that's his jam. Who knows? William Kelly says Jeffrey Toobin got got confused when they said let's crank this out and thought they said let's crank one out so uh yeah people are saying justin giuliani hard drive went to delaware police because there's underage stuff on it wow that came out about an hour ago definitely more stuff coming out from that oh yeah i'm really interested someone says dear ian ben Ian, Benjamin Stephen says, You are starting to grow on me. Every time the camera pans to you, I can't help but think of the 2005 skateboard movie

Lords of Dogtown. LOL. Much love, brother. There you go. I only saw clips. There you go. Lords of Dogtown. Thank you, sir.

Colleen says, I carefully, deliberately structured Google queries to return anything anti-BLM. Org. Not sentiment. In May. Not a single return. Almost went insane. Kevin McCarthy says Schiff lied blatantly about Russian disinformation. Trump was right to investigate Ukraine-Biden connections.

Schiff should be investigated for his own influence and obstruction. Yeah. What is this? Something about Lord of the Rings? Okay, well. Sporkwitch says new anti-lockdown anthem from five finger death punch called living the dream video on their youtube channel is spectacular have these guys on the show oh we'll check that out sounds good booker dewitt booker catch says uh i hate

the musket argument in regards to 2a if second amendment only applies to muskets then the first amendment should only apply to quill and parchment huh facts. Facts. The Booker Ketch reference. I wonder how many. I'm sure most of people got that reference. Do you guys get the reference? No. Booker Ketch? Oh, that's a shame.

Is he from the video game? Yeah. Yeah. Bioshock Infinite. Bioshock, yeah. Great game. And Booker Ketch was because the woman would always be like, Booker Ketch. And then she would throw you something and people got really annoyed by it.

And then someone made a video where they got really angry and kept saying it over and over again. It was funny. Let's see. Mark Salmon Fink says, Alan, my old friend, you've been doing amazing. I'm so proud of you. Thanks, Mark. Good to see you in here.

All right. Brown Bear says, Tim Tobin. It's about to open again. Oh, no. Tobin wasn't. Don't you know what is wasn't. Don't you know what his female co-workers? He was doing it to Trump losing the election during the election simulation tds is a crazy drug okay you know if the algorithms only fed

people information they were interested in jeffrey tubin would be much more screwed than he already is yeah well so apparently on this call they were doing an election dry run like simulation and so that's exactly what i thought trump was gonna lose so i was like if he actually is gonna lose and you're gonna you know chill out blank blank field says regarding the meme on 4chan poll about free speech leading to right wing what are your thoughts on what happened with tay chatbot and how they removed it as it became politically incorrect ai freedom oh do you guys remember that i remember tay oh wow that was quite that was quite an episode became racist oh racist. Oh, yeah. Yeah. See, that actually wasn't AI functioning badly because it was responding to the most motivated group of people on the internet, which is 4chan. Yep. I don't even think it was that, like, necessarily 4chan.

But yes, yes. But what I mean is it's just people trying to be edgy. Shocking the con. Like, it's funny. Like, humor shocking. People like shock. Like, Howard was was popular for a long time what was he doing like throwing hot dogs at women's boobs or something like this

crazy stuff meant to shock you and people like to like sarah silverman her whole shtick is just in offend being offensive as possible and shocking and that's really weird because she's like sjw or whatever but yeah that's uh chatbot was victim of that. People just wanting to say crazy things because it was funny to say things you can't say to a robot. And the robot became racist. There's a real duality on the internet because on the one hand, we've got this cancel culture, which will come from social media and Wikipedia, as you were saying. But on the other hand, we have this anonymous culture, which is the most offensive culture ever created. All right, let's see. Oh, no, I'm not reading that one.

No. Hey, geez. I'm not reading that one. No. Oh, jeez. Is it about Tubin? No, no, but there's a lot of stuff about Tubin, man. What the heck, guys? Agent Toon says, Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Tim, but I have to tell you, Ian was right. Your channels are showing up when I Google search. See Twitter for proof. I tagged both of you and Lydia in the post. I'm gonna stop

right now and just say I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't know the difference between Timcast IRL news and Timcast and also don't know the difference between playlists and the actual channel. Or you could be wrong. So or I made a video about it in the past three days saying Google blacklisted me and someone at Google saw it freaked out and went and removed the blacklist. Maybe so. But this has been going on for a long time. And a bunch of other channels are blacklisted a Yeah, maybe so. I hope so. But this has been going on for a long time and a bunch of other channels are blacklisted. A bunch of political channels. What is the difference

you just brought up between the playlist and the channel and the search? When you search for like Tim Pool YouTube, it'll say, it'll say Timcast playlist

and it will link to other people's channels who are linking to my videos. Okay. Not the actual channel itself. So confirm that you're actually seeing Tim's channel and then come back.

And I'll check after the show because yeah yeah maybe my complaining has paid off for sure i don't think so i see tim pool joe rogan it's not coming up i see you typed in tim pool youtube and there's no there's nothing cast youtube and stuff yeah and what comes up is tim cast irl because it's a new channel they didn't blacklist yep yet i see a lot of irl and nothing no tim has come up that's i'm telling'm telling you. People are wrong. They're just totally, I don't know what it is. So use it on your phone right now. Yeah.

My channels are blacklisted. They've been for a long time. I reached out to Google employees specifically, and they said, we'll look into this and get back to you and then ignored it outright. And then I followed up again saying, oh yeah, we're, we're, we're going to look into it and then ignored it outright. So what you, the other thing you may be seeing are Tim's videos in a playlist that someone else has put together so i'm guessing that's what you're seeing but i don't think that tim's videos but if you do take a screenshot and like tweet it to me or something so so it's i've been getting people sending me these emails so

like tim you're not blacklisted look and they show me a google that doesn't include my channel and i'm like can you google youtube.com slash timcast just that because i can't and no i people are sending me screenshots of not that saying i was really hoping you were wrong tim yeah well i'll check it out later but hatecaster says with the system controlling everything i prefer to call it the collective consciousness it's not an ai in itself but functions as one it is a combination of technology and ideological zealots operating in both real and digital worlds. Yes. That's a nice way of putting it. Yeah. Alright, let's see.

Do-do-do-do-do. Our audience is sharp, I think. Oh, yeah. Luke Lemon says, you should interview Jay Dyer or Jonathan Pego. They make content on YouTube and are brilliant. They could have an angle on this cultural situation that could be interesting to your show. I will write these names down. Airstrike, Rstrike says, Tim tim pool creator of a fleet of remote controlled zeppelins and

ultra right-wing youtube channel timcast but what is this uh sly breed says yo tim have you heard about what's happening to sony ps5 about hong kong i have not is something going on what's going on let me see i'm on it cory absheer says is it maybe showing up for some people because they already subscribed and they're signed into their browser i don't know i i think people are not actually seeing it and they don't understand the difference between between a playlist of my videos like someone i've gotten a bunch of emails where they're like here's a screenshot proving you're not blacklisted and the screenshot has none of my channels on it so you could like sign out of google clear your cache search for it like, sign out of Google, clear your cache, search for it, sign back into Google, search for it, clear your cache, search for it.

You know, just try it. Trouble shooting. Oh, check it out. Galandro Glade says your channel blacklisting might be regional. Ah, it could be in America only. Oh, yeah. That's one thing that you— That's a good point.

For sure. Right. The New York Post story was not censored in England. It was not censored. Yeah. Interesting. There you go. How fascinating.

On Twitter in England it wasn't censored? I believe not, no. Wow. Yeah was not censored. There you go. Interesting. How fascinating. On Twitter in England, it wasn't censored? I believe not, no. Wow. Yeah, I'll have to double check that. I'm pretty sure I remember people on Facebook saying they could see it. People on Twitter saying they could post it. OG Boxer says, AOC streaming to over 400,000 on Twitch. Is this the future of reaching voters?

Yes. You know, I think one of the biggest problems we're going to face in the future is the internet has created instant gratification politics. And someone like Ocasio-Cortez, who is just no political experience, and I'm not saying that to necessarily drag her because a lot of freshmen, you know, congresspeople come in, don't have experience. But she's also just, she botched the Green New Deal stuff. It's pie in the sky, fairy tale nonsense. And she really has no idea how an economy functions. But imagine she can get a half a million people on social media to follow her and they go out and vote and she keeps winning.

That's that's that's the scary thing. So when the when the big populism narrative started emerging, that was one of the actual decent arguments that people were making. I think even tucker brought this up that if you have politicians who just pander to the baser instincts of people i'll give you whatever you want if you vote for me they do like andrew yang tweeted something like i'm literally offering to give people money or something like that like that's a dangerous prospect so aoc comes out and says you're going to have everything you've ever wanted like magic

it's not possible to do that but people want it and it's like well easier than you know working for years to try and earn it you know what i mean again again roman empire do representative democracies representative republics inherently decay over time maybe they do sure do wow man but and you know what i think maybe the internet has sped up our our decline so we were talking about this the other day um not on the show before we did the show we were with james i was explaining how social media was was like decreasing the duration of all of these moments the american revolution took 20 years it wasn't just the war it was an ideological revolution where you had people one day being like yo i, I'm sick of this. And they started talking about it, sending

letters. Think about this. You're in South Carolina or whatever, in pre, you know, in colonial, in the colonies when it's still, you know, still a colony of Britain or whatever. And you were like, I'm writing a letter. You know, I want to say to the king, F you. So you seal it, you give

it to the writer, and then in three weeks, it's made its way to New York or however long, to months. Then in New York, some other guy reads and says, I agree with this letter. Let's send it to the king. They put on a boat. And three months later, it makes it back to the king who reads it and goes, what? I'm going to respond to this. How dare you send this back to them?

Three months later, it makes it back to New York. Three weeks to a month. It makes it the guy in South Carolina. And so that took forever. Imagine that exchange happening nowadays. You go on your phone and you go, I say F the king. And then the king gets, what? And they text back, how dare you?

And then within a minute, they've already had that entire exchange. A minute from a year. And they can have it on video chat. They don't even need to text it to each other. They could be talking to each other like, yo, you know, screw me. Screw you. No, screw you. I declare independence. You can't have it on video chat. They don't even need to text it to each other. They can be talking to each other like, yo, you know, screw me, screw you. No, screw you. I declare independence.

You can't declare independence. I am. Well, I'm going to send people down there. We'll be there in two days because we can fly now. This is a great way to understand historical change. I studied history in college, and the main schools look at, you know, is it economics that causes historical change? You know, ideas, intellectual developments, but actually communications and how connected a society is a big part of it as well. within, you know, 30, 40 years and no other country did was because they were the most literate society outside Europe and ideas just spread around very quickly compared to

other countries. Whereas in Russia, which tried to industrialize quickly, more than half the population was literate. So I just got a super chat here. Someone said, just tested, not blocked in Australia, switch to VPN, blocked from Austin and Seattle, not blocked in Denver. Possible according to region. Could you imagine if Google has blocked me from certain blue areas so people can't see

what I have to say, but it'll appear outside the country and it'll appear in red areas? That's astute, my friend. That would be interesting. I think we were talking about this earlier. We think we're so different to China, but here we have regional firewalls. Yeah. And think about it. I get a lot of views on my videos. I think like a video from last week is over a million, a video from two or three days ago is 900,000. People are getting

this somehow. But what if what they're doing is making sure in big cities, you can't get it unless you directly look for it, or it's shared with you. Yeah. And social credit scores. So the social credit score, you know, it ranks you based on how well you conform to the values of the Chinese Communist Party. Oh, that's – That's happening in Silicon Valley. No, no, no. It's happening right now on Google. Yeah, Silicon Valley ranks you based on how well you conform to their values. No, no, no. So right now on YouTube, there's a thing that happens where if you have a certain number of incorrectly labeled videos, then you get what's called a pending review.

And depending on how bad you are or how big you are, you get a bigger duration. So here's what happens. On my main channel, which is youtube.com slash Timcast, all of my videos are monetized. Every single one. There's no swearing. There's no images of violence. And almost all the videos I do are like political analysis. That's Timcast. So they're all green approved. I upload a video. You're good to go. My second channel, TimCastNews, every video I upload gets put in this frozen state called ads pending review. It'll take 20 minutes. We'll watch your video.

That's the social credit score, essentially. If you have a perfect credit score, you get money. If you don't, your video pops up with no ads and no monetization. It's not even demonetization. Demonetization, you still make money. You still get some ads. Ads pending? Ads are gone.

When you do ads pending, can you put it up in like a pending state? And then it waits until it gets approved and then it goes live? But my videos are all news. So I don't have that luxury. You can't put them up 20 minutes early? I do. And then it takes an hour or two sometimes to actually go through the process. And for some channels that have really bad review ratings,

it's like it'll take five hours. Yeah, people have to understand how this works on the back end because every single platform is like this. The way they rank content, decide who is at the top of your feed, who gets demonetized or monetized, is all numerical. Algorithms operate on what can be quantified. So every single platform will have these quality scores to rank the so-called quality of your YouTube video, of your website if you're on Google, of your post if

you're on Twitter or Facebook. And that numerical value determines whether you're going to be at the top of people's feeds or buried, whether you're going to be monetized or demonetized. It is exactly a social credit score. And it used to function on the basis of, you know, are you posting relevant popular content? Are you posting malware and spam? That's what will determine your score. Now it's how well do you conform to the values, disinformation, hate speech, et cetera, et cetera. This is really interesting. People are super chatting right now. And it looks like there's a bunch of places where I am blacklist and a bunch of places where I'm not. Someone says, just search incognito mode, Timcast YouTube channel. Your channel is first, IRL second,

Playlist next three, then your wiki in East texas someone said doesn't show up on google in tennessee just checked and you're blocked in canada as well or at least vancouver your newest videos do not show up under latest for timcast when you search for timcast just fyi this is amazing i am censored in maryland so the blacklist is. If someone could write a program that could measure where Tim is blacklisted and not blacklisted and then extrapolate that so that any YouTube user could use the program to see where they're blacklisted through a VPN or something, that'd be a very cool program. I'd like to see it. You should see it where you are in Germany because Germany, the government's really bullied the social media companies into censoring a lot over there. Wow. I wonder what the reason for the different regions of censorship is.

I don't think it is predominantly blue areas because my friend in Pennsylvania just sent me. She's able to see everything you have. You're not censored at all. You're not censored at all. Where in Pennsylvania? I'm not sure what part. It's crazy how many people are saying you are and how many people are saying you aren't. Isn't this weird?

It's regional. With Canada, my theory would be, well, it's simply the government. Yeah. The government pushes around social media to censor whoever they want. But why, like, in Maryland it would be, in Texas it wouldn't be? That's so weird. That is strange. Maryland is not reaching out to Google saying, get rid of Tim Pool.

Strange. It could be the people at Google who control certain regions, maybe, saying, I don't like this guy. It's blacklist. We'll figure it out on Twitter. Timcast IRL is relatively new, so it has no restrictions whatsoever. Yeah. But my main channels are also, you know, I have been restricted.

Blocked in Virginia. That's interesting. Weird. Shows up in East Tennessee. Interesting. Someone said, let's see, Matt Michalak says you should get in touch with Crowder. He had the same issue you're experiencing and he took screenshots of it when they blocked him by region. I think I already did talk with Crowder about this a long, long time ago because it's not just me who's blacklisted.

There's a whole group of people who are still active YouTubers who are blacklisted on Google. Yep. IRL isn't, though. This one isn't. Let's see. Censored in Oklahoma as well. Rudy G dropped off the allegations. Switched to Texas on VPN and Timcast came up. Clicked the link and goes to YouTube channel. Interesting. let's see censored in oklahoma as well rudy g dropped off the allegations switched to texas

on vpn and timcast came up click the link and goes to youtube channel interesting did we just expose regional firewalls in the u.s yes yeah something weird's going on that is weird why are some people restricted from seeing my channel think about it let's say you watch my video and i'm like here's a video like here's a news article that says mail-in ballots are being rejected. And then I say, share this. And so you tell your friend or your mom, like, dude, you got to watch this video. Google search Tim Pool on this. And it doesn't come up.

And they say, I don't know what you're talking about. And you're like, just Google it. What do you mean? Nothing's coming up. What do you mean nothing's coming up? Let me send you the link. What's interesting is that your own followers are having trouble finding the links i mean you think that if these algorithms were working as intended the person most likely to see a tim pool video would be someone who watches tim pool videos but apparently that's not how it's

working really weird and i even asked about it they didn't do anything about it anyway let's let's do this let me ask you one last question uh what do you think's going to happen with all of this what's what do you have like a vision of the future ellen you've been following well mention your book and then tell me your vision of the future okay so you know that the book is as you know big text battle to steal the election not hyperbole not my own opinion uh it's what the sources say it's what the sources inside silicon valley say facebook google all these companies if you want to read it it's at deletedbook.com but my vision of the future so there are two possibilities it really does come down to this, it's at deletedbook.com. But my vision of the future, so there are two possibilities. It really does come down to this election. It's amazing how much it comes down to this election, because the Trump administration has made some excellent, you know, they didn't

act as fast as they could have done, but they made some excellent appointments in the federal bureaucracy, got people in the right positions, good people, by the way, Adam Kandeib, for example, a law professor who once sued Twitter in a free speech case, the Megan Murphy case, actually. And he wrote the petition to the FCC to make the Section 230 rule change. So these are people who know what they're doing. They understand the issue. They understand what needs to be done. But literally, the executive branch of the United States right now is the only powerful force, I think, in the entire world that actually wants to fix this problem and has the ability to do so. So it's really like the last chance for online freedom, this election. I'm

not just saying that because I'm a Trump supporter, but can you think of another powerful entity in Europe, in North America, anywhere in the world that's actually pushing back on this? No, it's only the American executive branch, not the Senate, not Congress. They're just talking, they're grandstanding. It's only the executive branch. It does come down to this election. The Borg is trying to take over and it's just Trump holding on with one hand off the side of the cliff and everyone else hanging on to his leg. And we're hoping he pulls us up and it's going to be real tough. And Mike Pence is like his jetpack. Mike Pence is just like on his back.

Well, we'll see how that plays out, I guess. My fingers are crossed that something can be done and uh you know james lindsey who is at conceptual james on twitter talks about critical race theory all the time he tweeted that he's going to unhappily vote republican including trump for the time being and then he linked to this image where it says leftists should abolish the constitution and he's like until this stops i hope more people feel that way anyway. Anyway, one final thing. We're talking about dystopia. I'll tell you what the pessimistic vision, the optimistic vision is, you know, Trump reformed Section 230 and fixes this. The pessimistic vision is that we get to a situation where a handful of critical race theorists in the San Francisco Bay Area get to control,

invisibly and undetectablyably control the emergence of political movements. So, you know, stop them even before they get off the ground, not just in America, but all around the world. So that's the pessimistic vision. And influence policy. And influence policy. So that hate speech laws come in, the Constitution gets abolished. You go out with a sign saying, I should have a right to speak.

And the cops come and bash you with a truncheon. Well, hopefully that doesn't happen. But Alan, thanks for hanging out. Do you want to mention your social media? And you're sure. and the cops come and bash you with a truncheon. Well, hopefully that doesn't happen. Hopefully. Alan, thanks for hanging out. Do you want to mention your social media? Sure. So you can follow me on Twitter, at Libertarian Blue. Also follow me on Parler and Gab and Mines.

Search for my name. I'm usually at A or at AB because I got into those platforms early, so I got the nice little two-letter handles. You can find my articles on Breitbart News, and you can find the book at deletedbook.com please don't buy it from amazon buy it from barnes and noble you can buy it from amazon if you want cool and uh of course we do the show monday through friday live at 8 p.m smash that like button on your way out because apparently that helps as we're dealing with this algorithmic manipulation and censorship and all that stuff share this if you really like it we're also on you know apple itunes and all these other platforms because we diversify even though they'll probably act in concert it's important at some point and

just nuke everybody but anyway if you want to find me other channels which some people can and some people can't it's youtube.com slash timcast and youtube.com slash timcast news of course you can follow me on twitter instagram parlor at tim. Of course, you can follow me on Twitter, Instagram, parlor, at timcast. And of course, you can follow at Ian Crosland. Yes, anywhere, everywhere. But subscribe to this channel too and click the notification bell because that'll make sure you see it.

Share it. I mean, this conversation was pretty good and important too, especially with- Share it, subscribe, do all that stuff. Yeah, man. At the very least, tell people what's going on because the most powerful thing you can do is speak up and share information, especially when we're dealing with these companies trying to restrict information.

Use your mouth. They can't stop that. But don't forget, you can follow at Sour Patch Lids. You can. I would love that. Follow me at Sour Patch Lids. L-Y-D-S. All right.

And we're back tomorrow, right? We are. We're back tomorrow. We do have a cool guest. You know what else I'd like to ask people to do? Make a video and upload it. Ooh. Talking about what you feel about this

yeah engage create content do stuff post stuff and then when you get banned you can tell your friends I got banned

can you believe this because they man thanks anyway we'll be back tomorrow at 8pm with apparently a cool guest

I don't know who it is we do okay we'll see you guys tomorrow thanks for hanging out bye guys Thank you. It's awesome. Okay, we'll see you guys tomorrow. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.