Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #342 - Australia Deploys Military To Enforce COVID lockdown, US May Be NEXT w/Wilfred Reilly

Episode Date: July 31, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join associate professor of political science at Kentucky University Wilfred 'Wil' Reilly to examine Australia's response to a single case of Covid-19, the case of migration to the US, the fading influence of big-media figures like CNN, Tim's experience with Facebook hilariously censoring a CDC link as 'fake news', Dave Rubin's censorship, and the case of big tech censorship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, Ian. Yes, Tim. How would you define martial law? When the military authority overrides civil authority. What does that mean? What does that mean? Basically, the generals start calling the shots. The generals start calling the shots?

Or the commander, the president, yeah. Where do you get the definition from? That was just off the top of my head, based on what I've known through video games and history. What if the military gets deployed to enforce special non-civilian law is that martial law oh wow it sounds sounds like it so let's say they suspend civilian law impose special laws and then the military comes to enforce those yeah yeah that sounds exactly like you think it's martial law? Yeah. According to at least one report that I was reading from the U.S. government, we cited on timcast.com,

martial law requires a military commander to assume authority to create or execute laws. And so what's happening in Australia doesn't officially count as martial law. Okay. Though many people are saying it is because the military has been deployed in Sydney to enforce the lockdowns. And that's one way of putting it. The other way are saying it is because the military has been deployed in Sydney to enforce the lockdowns.

And that's one way of putting it. The other way to put it is Australia has called in the military to suppress protests against the lockdowns. It's getting hot, to say the least. We've got a bunch of other news, too. I mean, on top of that, in the United States, there's talk of vaccine mandates for federal employees. Now, I believe the firefighters union is saying no to this. The postal workers union is saying no to this. There's talk about maybe a national mandate in general. And now the White House is pushing back saying, no, no, no, no, we're not going to

do that. It's not going to happen. The New York Times has come out with a story saying vaccinated people can spread the Delta variant just as easily as unvaccinated people, which has sparked a major controversy as the White House and other officials are claiming the New York Times is fake news and they're publishing misinformation. And then the Washington Post published something similar. So, hey, YouTube, I don't know what's true anymore. So I'll just say whatever YouTube says in their official rules is the truth and talk to your doctor. Well, we'll talk about this and we'll talk about what's happening in the political landscape,

what's going on with this and these other countries. And we are being joined by Professor of Political Science, Wilford Riley. Great to be here, guys. Will the Beast. Woof. Do you want to just briefly introduce yourself? Yeah, I'm Wilford Riley. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University.

I'm probably a bit better known as the author of the books Hate Crime, Hoax, and Taboo. And I'm glad to be here live with you guys tonight. Right on. I'm pretty sure I've cited your book and some of your writings before on, you know, talking about hate, crime, hoaxes and things like that. So. A good logical move. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. That's why you're here. And we'll talk about a lot of what's going on. Of course, I just asked Ian a question. He's sitting here. That was exciting. That was exciting. That was exciting.

The intro there? Yeah. How would you define martial law? I think that the simplest definition, because you're going back in political science over different sorts of civilization, would be the military taking over day-to-day administration, deciding whether or not you get to do regular, ordinary things. I mean, definitely some of the COVID policy in, for example, Australia, I mean, is approaching that level where you see, I mean, tanks moving around in the streets to prevent people from coming outside

and that sort of thing. So it's a flexible definition. I could get into some really eye-glazing wonkery here. Like, it depends on the legal code in each one of those countries. But in essence, the law that governs the military, what's in that fat green book they give you in the army, governs the civilians. The army's running the country. There is, though, in the U.S., they say

civilians will not be tried in military tribunals or military courts. So it's basically just, at least as the U.S. defines it, or has in the past, the commander takes over, asserts nearly supreme authority, and civilian law is suspended. Well, we'll get into all that stuff.

Ian, welcome. Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, hello. Thank you. Lydia's pressing all the buttons. I am also here in the corner. I'm very excited for tonight's guest. He's exceedingly eloquent, and I'm really looking forward to what he has to say.

So welcome, everyone. Yeah, I'm excited. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com. Glad to meet you, too. Oh, yeah. Before we get started, head over to TimC.com, become a member and you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments of the Timcast IRL podcast

as well as an advertisement-free experience on the website. And that's because we're ad-supported and we're also member-supported. So if you want to support our fierce and independent journalists who write these stories,

break these things down, try to figure out what the truth is, then become a member. Or, I mean, just share the articles you like because, like I mentioned, we have ads too that help support our work and keeps the lights on and keeps more and more journalists coming in. Let's talk about this first story we got here. Oh, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. Smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel.

Share the show with your friends. There we go. There we go. Yeah. All right. Here's the first story we got from TimCast.com. Australia sends their military to enforce coronavirus lockdowns in Sydney. NPR reports the military's help is needed to enforce the restrictions because a small minority of people thought the rules didn't apply to them. New South Wales Police Minister David Elliott told Australia's Channel 9. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has come in for heavy criticism in recent weeks over the slow pace of vaccinations in Australia, where about 14% have been fully dosed. One of the poorest records among any member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. So when they say a small minority

thinks the rules don't apply to them, did they mean by that 86%? Because that doesn't sound like a small minority to me. Now, here's the fascinating part. Of course, they're bringing in the military. Morrison said, if you get vaccinated, there will be special rules that apply to you. Why? Because if you're vaccinated, you present less of a public health risk. You are less likely to get the virus. You are less likely to transmit it. The prime minister told reporters on Friday, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Well, now, according to the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Daily Mail

and many other outlets, you are not less likely to transmit it. So I don't know. That's what they said. I'm not going to say they're right. I don't know. YouTube's rules are all crazy. I will point this out, though. You may have noticed in the past week there were crazy protests.

Do you see these? There's crazy protests all over Sydney. Thousands of people were in the streets in Sydney and, like, London. Yeah. This is not about a small minority of people were in the streets in Sydney and like London. Yeah. This is not about a small minority of people that are defying. This is about thousands

of people in the streets. Chaos erupts in Sydney as anti-lockdown protesters clash with police. There was another story that said basically the same thing. Chaos in Sydney

because regular people were going on with their lives as though there was no lockdown. So what did they do? Chaotic, huh? Yeah. People just continue to do their thing. So what did they do? Chaotic, huh? Yeah. People just continue to do their thing.

So what did they do? Deploy the military. Yeah. I mean, so first of all, I think there's a lot of competition in this race, in these lanes, but Australia seems to have had one of the craziest reactions to COVID-19 of any major state. I mean, I don't ever want to give incorrect figures, but the day-over-day rolling death average there is below nine. I know that. It's an extremely extraordinary way lower. Yeah, it could

be. That's the most liberal estimate I've ever heard sort of past year. The vaccine is available. The thing with COVID-19 is that not everyone is at equal risk from COVID-19. I mean, that's mundane as hell, but it bears repeating. I mean, Tim, you pointed this out to me COVID-19. I mean, that's mundane as hell, but it bears repeating. I mean, Tim, you pointed this out to me before the show. I mean, the total number of people under 40 that have died from COVID, 9,000 or something like that? It's like 9,700 and something. I don't have the full numbers, but it's, yeah, the 9,000. Yeah, the total number of individuals under 18, at least in the USA, because we keep hearing about the children that have died from or with COVID-19 is under 600. It's 331. Yeah, that's a population of 75 million. So I mean, the question with Australia is, have they gotten most of their seniors and

they're very vulnerable people vaccinated? I happen to know they have. I mean, that's where they targeted that first chunk of vaccine that got up to around 15% of the population. So the question is, can you keep healthy, younger people that are mostly at very low risk of death, frankly, from COVID-19 or even hospitalization at home for months and years at a time to prevent nine deaths a week or whatever? I guess the max of that number per day in a country the size of California, Texas. I would say no. I mean, that seems utterly bizarre in terms of how we look at liberty. Well, do they have any there?

A lot of people are making the joke that's like, ah, former penal colony, haha. Okay, well, you know, perhaps I guess. I was thinking about this and maybe there is something to that. We as Americans fought for our independence to win it. People in Australia, it was part of, you know, I don't know the full history of Australia, but, you know, penal colony.

I don't know their full numbers for Australia. I can only really speak to the U.S. But I will say that there was this viral video that was, I just put crazy and hilarious, I suppose. It's a news report of Australia where they're like, one person has been infected. we'll be locking down for the next month and it's like wait what it's like wow people have gone gone really over the top with this stuff i tell you i see some of these stories and i'm like if there was anything if i was if i was trying to advise any of these people to like discourage vaccination i keep doing what you're doing this is this is a great no they're they're trying to get people to get the vaccine but they're just doing basically the opposite you think when you have 14 of your population getting vaccinated

sending in the military is going to make them think you're you have the best their best interest at heart the opposite because you go this route there's no turning back now you have dedicated yourself to authoritarianism. You have sacrificed your trust and credibility. Where can you go after that? Well, I mean, you can go some ugly places, but actually, this is to me by far the most disturbing thing about COVID-19. I mean, the things that the citizenry has allowed to be kind of placed on the table. So even before the vaccination, I mean, in the USA, something like 2.8 to 3.1 million people die every year. I mean, that's that's damn close to 10,000 a day. It's eight or 9000. So even at the peak of COVID-19, I had no objection at that time to

wearing a mask. I actually got one that works, which most people didn't. But you're not seeing a devastating world ending plague. Like even at the peak of COVID-19, there is no evidence, really. If you look at like the West, the Western European studies, the major pieces that were actually published in journals that lockdowns worked better than sort of well done in P.I. You know, stay home if you feel sick, quarantine the sick, clean your body, that kind of thing. But now with the vaccine out, and in most of these countries, including Australia, the truly vulnerable vaccinated, you're seeing these utterly bizarre moves. Like what you described is a factual situation. There was one infection, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that wasn't a death. That wasn't a hospitalization. I don't know the full news story they're talking about. Just like some viral video where they mentioned a guy got infected. Someone got sick, and I think he was hospitalized, but they're not dead, and they're not going to be.

And so they locked down 900,000 people. That's New South Wales. I mean, that's a that's a region that's roughly comparable to one of the Dakotas. It's a huge state, decent number of people in it. I think if this is possible in reaction to that level of risk, like one, let's say death means 900,000 incarcerations for three months. It would be very, very difficult for these Western societies to do anything functional going forward. Not even the stereotypical war with China. But what are we going to do about climate change?

Like this, this stuff's not off the table. Like I foresee climate lockdowns being a very real possibility. They've already talked about masks next flu season. And at some point, people are just going to have to say, no, I'm going to vote for the conservative party or even the libertarians or whatever is necessary to, crazy stuff, whatever is necessary to kind of get this. You should not stop living your life because someone else might die. That way lies a society with no cars,

you know, so on down the line. Some people do think this is the climate lockdown. We saw very early on, after a couple weeks of the lockdown, New York Times posted that story saying the earth is healing. And people started talking, a bunch of articles emerged about pollution and everything clearing up. And then a lot of people said they're probably exploiting the crisis because they have the climate change agenda. But then, you know, I wonder, first, you know, I'll say this.

I don't trust the powerful political establishment and elite. They claim climate change is a disaster, but they buy beachfront property and things like that. So part of me wonders, though, we talked about this the other night with the windshield phenomenon. Have you ever heard of that? No, no, I haven't, frankly. People have started to notice that when they drive their cars, there's less insects than there used to be. And so it's called the windshield phenomenon. And they've done studies

where they found like an 80% reduction from 2017 to 2021. I think those are the dates. Yeah, Denmark. They found a reduction of 80% in insect populations hitting windshields. And a lot of people think that- What you can get grants for in science, by the way,

is absolutely amazing, bro. I mean, that's gotta be at least a million dollar project, but sorry about that. Well, sure, sure. A waste of people think that... What you can get grants for in science, by the way, is absolutely amazing, bro. I mean, that's got to be at least a million-dollar project. Well, sure, sure. A waste of money. Not a waste of money in terms of doing the study, though. But you know they wasted money when they did the study. For sure. How much money do you need to drive the car back and forth

for four years? A million dollars. Because we're going to hire someone to drive... We're going to do this driving in Barbados, home of the next American etymological association conference. Right, right, right. Yeah, but isn't there something that's scary to that? And that's what I'm worried about.

What if there is an ecological collapse and that's why they're actually locking everything down? I mean, would we want to just eat and fart ourselves to death like yeast in a bottle? Or would we need some collective action to stave something off? Or at the worst, are there ideologues who believe a doomsday scenario who have seized the reins of power and are imposing their cult-like ideology over everybody else? That's a fascinating bit of a leading question there. I think we're both skeptical about leadership around the world. But in reality, so there are a couple of different elements to this.

First of all, I am not a conspiracy theorist because I think most people are stupid. I mean, we're both from Chicago. I believe both from that south side area. Oh, yeah. Where by? I was born in the Bridgeport area of the city. Oh, okay. I moved north to Wicker Park pre-gentrification.

I went to St. Mary's. Oh, wow. Yeah. Midway. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And I lived in Bridgeport for a little bit. By Comiskey, right?

Or by U.S. Cellular Field? Yeah, that's right down there. That's all that. That's White Sox country. That's right. I have family in that whole, like, Chatham, Bronzeville, that whole area, sort of black and Irish and south side of Chicago. That's right.

Now, like I said, I personally claim the north side. I went to, I was in Wicker since I was like a little kid. I moved to, I still have a house in East Aurora, like the traditional sort of Latino and Eastern European area of that city. So another blue-collar area right nearby, an hour away now. And what were you saying? You think people are dumb? Yeah. Well, that's –

Hey, what are you saying about Chicago? No, but that's the point, though. I mean, like even watching people I knew in high school try to sell Coke in Little Italy or East Aurora or something. I mean, the percentage of those guys who went to jail is like 65. I don't think that there are actually functional behind-the-scenes cabals where you have one Arab guy, one Nigerian guy, one French guy, two Americans and a Brit that are secretly trying to control the economy of the world or something like that. I do think you have groups. I mean, many of the things that people say in sort of conspiratorial conversations like Skull and Bones at Yale or Bilderberg Group actually exist.

You have groups of rich people that clash with one another and pursue different agendas, just like you have groups of upper middle class people that do this or media individuals. But I do think, first, there was a weird sort of climate porn that you saw in the mainstream media for a while where you'd see these headlines like whales have been spotted in such and such a canal it's like that's because there aren't any goddamn people like you excuse the language but they've they're taking all the the ships out of the normal shipping lanes people are on lockdown that's not a positive uh the best of these articles, either from COVID or within the couple of years before, was The Guardian. Why Genghis Khan was good for the environment.

Because he killed so many people. You see that the smoke from the Cook fire stopped the planet cold. Are there some other people they would like to make those claims about? I don't think so. Well, I think that today, I don't think there's a conscious attempt to usher in a climate lockdown because of covid but last sentence kind of getting to the point here on my end i think that the bigger issue is that the people that are running a lot of american discourse have the same solutions to everything this is so if you notice the climate

solutions like we need to pursue a more socialist, generous policy of X, Y, Z are the same as the COVID solutions and the same as the proposed solutions to our race crisis. So I don't think the issue is so much what the key that opens the door is. It's kind of what comes through, like all of these things are being used by people that want the same agenda to a certain extent. Yeah, it's a it's a standalone complex. We often say it's it's not a conspiracy. It's a bunch of people of similar ideology working in a similar direction because they believe similar things. And then.

But when you look at the Pareto distribution of, you know, basically almost everything in existence, you get the extremes at the very top and at the very bottom. But these extreme, wealthophile, powerful people may be this. See, I don't have any data to back this up, except that, you know, you look at sociologically, there are times when the very, very few will coagulate at the top. And I wonder if there are a small group of people that have been organizing this since. I mean, if you look at the way the Federal Reserve was built by, like, eight guys.

Yeah, Jekyll Island. That was crazy. Cre true but i think the issue of the creature from jekyll island right i think the issue with that though is that well the at the simplest level in political science about half of the rich disagree with the other half i mean that's that's why there's this extraordinary kind of back and forth of like you're well you're funded by the coke brothers well you're funded by george sor. Well, you're funded by George Soros and the sciences. I mean, you have the Chinese billionaires that unexpectedly are kind of coming in often on the right side of things politically. I mean, on the other hand, you have the moon men, these tech bros that are currently flying around in space. So I don't think there's one unified position that people are advancing across, say, great wealth to try to move the world forward.

I think that there are some positions that are more influential than others, because one group of sort of coastal, upper middle class, urban, big city, mostly leftist, happens to control the media, social media, and academia in the USA and Britain in particular. So there are ideas you see more often than you see other ideas. And I think that that is, the climate panic is one of those. But I don't think in practice a Governor DeSantis or somebody is necessarily going to back that actually happening or the billionaires in that state are going to. You're familiar with the journal lists?

Have you ever heard of those? Not journalist, a journal. Like, journal- O dash list. It was a list. It was a web list of journalists that all communicate with each other. Oh, yeah, yeah. This is this is a good example of, I guess, I don't know, it borders on conspiracy in a sense, in that they would all share stories and then agree on them because they were all in the same chat. And then all of these outlets would publish the same stories. Well, to clarify, I don't think conspiracies don't exist. Actually, to talk to kind of the audience for a second, if you don't think there are wealthy, powerful people behind the scenes that sometimes collab together to do things that would get you arrested, you're a fool. I mean, like even at my little level, I'm a member of the lower upper class, and I'm often contacted by friends from the U of I law, for example,

or Freedom Fest, which I just attended, great event, but reasonable, pretty high-level stuff, media figures. Do you want to work on this? Let's keep this low-key for now. We're going to trip them from behind with this one. And I would only imagine what Prince Harry's inbox looks like. So of course, there are conspiracies in that sense. The question, I guess, really is just when it crosses the line to the crazy scenarios a lot of the left and the hard right seem to believe in. So like, for example, my email list right now is, I think, 8,000 people.

Nothing crazy, but 8,000. Most of them are journalists of some kind. They're mostly on the center right. I'm pretty sure I could create a story if I happen to find out some piece of information about a crooked politician. The the only reason that's annoying when you look at the journal list or a lot of the I mean, there are a whole like jobs that are left is still up on Google where they advertise all these left leaning activist jobs. And it's one network of people, many of whom don't admit they're left-leaning activists. So the issue with that, I think, is the pretense of neutrality. So if there's anybody from, say, CNN or NPR on the message list, that's very ethically problematic.

I think both you and I would say, like, I'm heterodox, maybe center-center-right politically. I think the government's a bunch of scumbags. Like, the set group of opinions pretty open about them if you say i'm a neutral reporter for nbc and you are taking talking points from you know junior operative at the dnc that you're sleeping with who's the person ahead of you on the journal list oh my no but i mean you're talking about a real person there uh no of course not a gentleman would not say such a thing but i mean like if you... And that actually is... I have someone in mind, but they don't work at NBC, and it's not particularly relevant.

I know who you're talking about. Maybe. But anyway, like, the point of all this is that if you go on the air and you're saying this BS, and this goes for the right as well, like all these guys talking about chastity until marriage is critically important, Lock the door, Javier. You know, if you're doing that, there's a significant ethical issue with that. I think that's really the only point. There are many conspiracies behind the scenes.

Journalists have opinions. And, you know, I used to think that we would try to have journalists keep their opinions to themselves so they could just do the job and not cause strife. But I think that era is long since passed, you know, because the difference in opinions now is fundamental worldview, where someone's opinion is literally them saying, I support the Constitution, and someone else's opinion saying, I oppose it. And I'm like, well, hold on there a minute. Like, we've got a very, very distinct difference of worldview on this. It used to be a journalist could say something, well, of course I support the United States and the Constitution.

That was not controversial. Now it is. So now, if you came out and said, I believe America should enforce its immigration laws, you're right wing. That's one of the ways they've tried accusing me of being a conservative, is that they're like, Tim Poole has defended conservative

claims about immigration in the United States. I'm like, what does that mean? Bernie Sanders was pro-border barrier in 2008 and 2015. He said no open borders. Just because he went farther left doesn't mean I moved, but that's where we're at. I mean you can literally just say something innocuous and it's literally conservative because the left has become so extreme and revolutionary, I suppose. Yeah, and I also think this moves in cycles. I mean, like, I'm a hip-hop kid, and I remember the moral majority in the 1980s,

although Tipper Gore was part of this, but, like, chasing rappers and hard rockers through the halls of Congress, you know, asking two live crew what a coochie was, like, just this ridiculous, embarrassing crap. I mean, just, you know, and so that sort of thing, like had they gotten their way, we wouldn't be talking about parental warning labels on rapper rock CDs. We'd be talking, or I mean, imagine EDM, Cruella,

and all that. You'd be talking about that not being available on the market. Like Get It Wet would be available only as like a download from some pirate site, same with a DMX or Jay-Z album. So that was the right overextending. And I think we've definitely seen the pendulum swing back into complete lunacy this is one of the

things that i noticed a lot when i wrote taboo specifically because some of it was intended to be edgy like oh let's take on the alt-right let's take on blm but like the immigration chapter i thought was just completely neutral like at one point i think my description was we should let in sane reasonably able-bodied non-criminal immigrants capable of getting jobs which might involve some kind of basic iq or aptitude test it's like well wouldn't it and people started describing this as sort of a far-right proposal like during an interview someone asked me if i would let in disabled women with aids and i said i mean i kind of danced around the question but it was just sort of i wouldn't prioritize that as an immigration policy let's say like there's an element of amoral common sense that you kind of

need to exist as a healthy adult and i think to some extent we need to get back to let's say morally rational shared common sense like the country's flawed but if you openly fight against it we're not going to say that you're the highest form of patriot this is one of the biggest problems we have right now a far right in the colloquial sense opinion on immigration would be shut down oh actually i think it's repatriated repatriation is the right word so you actually see these opinions on the internet where people who are very dumb yeah they're like send them back like but they live here it's like don't care it's like okay that is weird like they moved here they got citizenship and you're like nope cut it all right then you've got a right-wing opinion of we should you know a further right we should lock

down the borders no more immigration then you've got the right we should have sound immigration policy and then you have like a center right where it's like well we're okay with with refugees and borders, no more immigration. Then you've got the right. We should have sound immigration policy. And then you have like a center right where it's like, well, we're okay with refugees and asylees. Then you have the center where it's like a similar position. You start moving to the left and they're like, open up the borders, increase the numbers. If you entertain the centrist position of, like my position literally where they claim it's conservative is, I think we should allow legal asylees, refugees to come into this country and we should help them. There should obviously be some limits so we don't get exploited like people who might come from Africa to Brazil and then try and come here.

That's a lot of questions. I've got questions about that. But Cuba and Mexico, like, yeah, by all means, let's figure this one out. That's conservative. Well, I mean, I do think you need to get into some of the technical definitions. Like, I don't necessarily think, without mocking your position, that you'd be an asylum seeker from Mexico in any kind of real political sense. Like, a lot of the countries, this was one of the things that struck me, because I took some time off from standard academic writing while I was working on the books.

And, like, coming back into this debate, people were starting to use the term asylum seeker for immigrants coming. Economic migrant. Yeah, but people coming from countries like, in terms of a lot of the groups in Chicago, Mexico, Poland, Guatemala. Guatemala actually would be one of the Central American countries that we're supposed to feel the most sort of heartrend for. Honduras, Brazil, Costa Rica. Costa Rica is a pleasant country. It's amazing.

It's a great place. Pura Vida. It's where they filmed Jurassic Park. Great food. But the idea that someone who's a Tico from Costa Rica is a refugee is absurd. Right, right, right.

That's what I mean. I'm talking about, let's say there's somebody who lives in a border city in Mexico and they run afoul of some gangs or something and then they're like, what do I do? They go to the border. in Mexico and they run afoul of some gangs or something and then they're like, what do I do? And so they go to the border. They go and say, they're coming for me.

What do I do? Okay, well, that person, we don't want to die. I mean, it'd be if someone came to my house screaming and panting and threatened to help call the police, I'd call the police. But that's not the majority. So it's like what you said. The left has started calling all of them asylees, refugees, AOC. Did it legal?

Asylees have broken the law. And then Homan was like, yeah, they did. They violated this law. And he reads it off. Yeah. So there are certain circumstances where I can absolutely understand. Like if a guy is being chased and he runs through the river or whatever to escape, it's like, all right, well, you know, I don't know what to say to that guy. Like get safe.

You know what I mean? But what we're seeing is people from Africa flying to Brazil, traveling up through South America to the U.S. border. We're seeing people from these South American countries moving up, coming to America. I'm like, dude, they're economic migrants. They get turned away. Well, I mean, I think the first question. Actually, not anymore. The first question in response to even kind of the moral component of that would be like, if I grew up in Baltimore, do I have the right to seek asylum in Japan? That's what I'm talking about.

No. Yeah. I mean, there's an element of, so like looking at this point by point as a political scientist, like if you're in Mexico, first of all, if you're in Mexico and you're engaged in a violent gunfight with the cartels, you're very unlikely to be a taxpayer. I mean, like the old American mafia american mafia like you're there are some brutal abuses of women and so on in coyote roles but it's very unlikely that the cartels and say a group of policemen are without any negotiations going to challenge each other to the kind of fighting that

requires one of the policemen to flee here if that happens sure i mean the the border cities of mexico are extremely violent they're shoots all the time yeah well they're i mean they're shootouts in american cities too too, actually. I mean, like Baltimore has a higher crime rate than most of the cities on the border. I guess what I'm saying is most of those shootouts involve the equivalent of gang violence. Right. But, I mean, so at risk of being, like, thought cold, there are a bunch of solutions here. Like, first you can move, but then Mexico.

Mexico actually has funds that are dedicated to helping people get away from gang and cartel warfare, as we do, by the way. I mean, we have massive witness relocation programs and so on. So, I mean, I think that would be my first step if I were a Mexican citizen and patriot that was having this problem. I mean, at another level, like we could let people into the country that could document this. I mean, I guess improved version of a polygraph test. Like there'd have to be something almost unpleasant to go through test. There'd have to be something almost unpleasant to go through, but there'd have to be a period during which you could stay in the country. You could have, for example, a one-year protective visa if you're not a traditional refugee. People forget this, by the way. Refugees and TPS recipients are supposed to go back when

the crisis is over. So I think a lot of this stuff on the left becomes the endless extension of compassion where you see people that were displaced by, for example, that awful earthquake in Haiti, which is a legitimately terrible thing, but 15 years later are still in the USA and are not oppressed. I mean, many of the, not necessarily Haiti, but many of like the black Caribbean states are island paradises. I mean, Bermuda, Bahamas, Barbados. They have incomes on par with the USA. So guys would be here running stores and things of that nature. I appreciate anyone's desire to hustle and get a better life,

but that's the same explanation people give for selling weed. If you come here from Mexico or Bahamas, in 99% of cases, you're not an asylee. That's a far-right opinion, though. Yeah, I mean, okay. I'm far-right on this issue. Like almost everyone in the country. Yeah, I mean, okay. I'm far right on this issue. Like, almost everyone in the country. I mean, like, media-wise. Like, I'm not literally saying, like,

simply having a position where you're like, hey, how does this make sense? I think it has a lot to do with, I guess, tribal psychosis. That people are so desperate to climb their, claw their way to the top of the social order on the left that they're constantly one-upping their opinions and accusing the other people of being impure so you get some person who like 10 years ago was on the left and like i agree with bernie sanders

well by that standard today you are a far right you know individual you're a you're a nationalist you're evil you're all the really awful words they'll use for you. How are we supposed to have a functioning political ecosystem if one side has no moral system or framework or principles and it's just, I'm going to say the most extreme thing possible that moves me further and further in one direction? One of the things that I think actually is that there are almost no people that actually believe this stuff. I think you see the massive influence of, again, the lower upper class, coastal, urban, very specific,

mostly white, liberal bloc on sites like Twitter and Insta. I mean, so obviously that famous piece came out, and I think Wired, that found out that, what was it, 15% of Americans are on Twitter at all? Yeah, I think it's 22% of Americans are on Twitter at all. Maybe. Yeah. And it's like a smaller percentage. Ten percent are responsible for something like 80 percent of the viral tweets. So you've got, let's say, 2.2, 2.3 percent of the population that's driving this discourse.

And a lot of it, it's very disproportionately. First of all, until pretty recently, it was also very disproportionately annoying. All right. Pepe's and Groyper's and so on. They cut out some of them, but they haven't cut out their opponents. So, I mean, extremely SJW heavy, a lot of TRAs, a lot of trans rights activists, so on. A lot of positions that almost don't exist in mainstream America. And I think it's important to keep that distinction up. These people influence the discourse that goes into kind of mid-level journalism. If you're on Twitter and you have more than 10,000 followers, you're very likely to also contribute articles from time to time to say Jezebel or something like that. No particular hate for them. So you have a lot of this scene in urban youth life, and it seems like it's very prevalent. But if you ask

people, should immigrants be able to read or something like that, you'd see a massive, massive yes versus no in America. Let's say you've got 100 cities with 100 people in each city. In each city is one socialist. Whenever there's an election, the socialist votes socialist, and it accounts for 1% of the vote, and everyone ignores it. Then along comes the Internet. And now you have a city-sized socialist community online because the one socialist from each of the 100 cities

now forms a massive community on Twitter where it seems like, wow, look at all of these people. It's like the size of New York. It's the size of a city. And then you're like, oh, it's just one person in their bedroom in these different places. The problem is it really does have an impact. Look at these big brands will get harassed by this community, and then they'll issue a public statement on TV to tens of millions of

people about how they now agree with this fringe belief, and they apologize for not seeing it sooner. And the problem is, is it is true very few people use twitter but twitter does have influence hilariously it's stupid and regular people don't speak up so you'll be ruled by that two percent well unless we start speaking up i mean and what you see like i mean your platform obviously is on like i looked at the ratings for most of the major um primetime cable news shows on msnbc and cnn the other day actually posted this to twitter and most of the major primetime cable news shows on MSNBC and CNN the other day. I actually posted this to Twitter. And most of them get less engagement than I do on Twitter.

I think Don Lemon was at 570,000 engagements either per day or per week. It must be per day. It must be. But I mean, and scrolling up all the way up to Tucker Carlson was like 3 million a day. But the simple reality is that most of the Timcast interviews I've looked at have a million, a million and a half views. I think that when people start talking and saying things that are obviously true, that kind of break the gaslight, you'll find that the other 98% of people want to listen to them. And that's why there's this fanatical attempt to do two things. One is to label people in the most ridiculous way possible

like joe rogan or jimmy dore as nazis and in reality these are cats that are all across the spectrum matt matt taibi and i actually one of the first times i was on twitter was arguing about bs for a while because he's i don't even know if he remembers but he's significantly on the left absolutely glenn glenn greenwald the other great journalist but i mean it's barry weiss who is the editor of the new york Times like a week ago. I mean, the first argument is like, Barry Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, what the hell do they know about journalism? Just a bunch of alt-right Nazis. It's this attempt to kind of just shuffle foot off the stage and pretend nothing happened.

But the second and more troubling aspect of this is the attempt by conventional media to take the actual Internet kids off of social media and replace them with kind of triple-A versions of conventional media shows. That's very definitely something happening. When I look at YouTube, you see suggestions from CNN on the sidebars. So this is what I was going to bring up. I can pull up the ratings Thursday for all these different cable channels, and in the key demographic, 25 to 54, CNN loses easily to Timcast IRL. However, when you take into account all of their viewers, you've got 8PM Anderson Cooper with 774,000. You've got Cuomo with 861,000. Don Lemon with 716,000. And so they're doing really well

among a lot older people, which says a lot about what will happen with shows like this moving forward. Perhaps people will age out and then CNN will become less and less relevant and more people watch shows like this. But the one thing you need to understand is that I can sit here and say look how great this show is. Look how many viewers

we get because their TV ratings are in the gutter. And then YouTube puts CNN on the front page. They then YouTube puts CNN on the front page. They put MSNBC on the front page. And CNN gets something like 150 million views per month relative to our 20. So we may be beating them on TV, but YouTube is mandating viewership of their trash. And it's funny. When you see their videos, all thumbs down.

Everybody hates it. It doesn't work for the platform. Nobody likes it. It doesn't work for what YouTube is. You can't put TV on YouTube and think it'll work. Yeah, no. But I think that this is kind of like the old Russian division between Pravda and Samizdat. I mean, so there are 150 million views of CNN, perhaps on a daily basis, if you're counting YouTube's fronts piece, and I'm sure perhaps airport lounges and so on, but how many of those people

are actually watching CNN and absorbing political content from them and taking it seriously? I'll stop real quick, sorry. 98 million, so CNN's down substantially. That's like half from where they were a few months ago. Okay, alright. And that's a monthly basis figure? Yeah, 98

million views for the CNN YouTube in the past month not to mention cnn does have network channels as well so all the peripheral youtube channels you know they get their views as well they gain a hundred thousand subscribers per month i mean we get like 10 000 my twitter and uh youtube engagement last month it was if i recall correctly 34 million that was mostly due to art artis from larger accounts but mean, I don't mean to mock at all. I'm loving the undisclosed location. Great group of guys to talk to.

But I mean, we're both kind of guys with computers. So I mean, when you say like, okay, well, CNN is 10% in the lead over me and 80% in the lead over you, Riley, like both of us can just go home and make another video on our laptops. Like they're spending millions of dollars to produce this crap that barely beats out.

And there's so many other people in that space, from Ben Shapiro to Clara Lehman or Brett Weinstein on the other side of that. Reaction from Leds to one of those. But obviously Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla. All these people aren't the same. Larry Elder on the black right. But many of these content producers are outpacing the major shows on network news. And all you have to do is go upstairs and talk into your computer.

I mean, one of my most watched videos, again, mine in general alone aren't at that million hit range. It was like me talking to my phone. I mean, so anyone now can become, given any reasonable amount of training and honor, but can become a journalistic resource. So that's what the mass media is terrified of. Last comment here. They're not taking, quote unquote, conservatives offline because you and Jimmy Dornson aren't conservatives in the first place.

They're taking threats offline. So like the one time, I'm center right personally, but I tried to look at this honestly once. And like that month, the majority of the people de-platform like chapo trap house you owe blacks trillions like the funny reparations page cop block one of the oldest libertarian party accounts on youtube or what this was i believe on twitter it was on twitter reddit and in most cases youtube that's when they took chapo trap off red Reddit. But I mean, like, Chapo Trap House is, to say the least, not a conservative site. But it was becoming a threat to the media. The dirtbag left brand and the dirtbag left hoodies and the jokes.

And, you know, comments about the CIA probably didn't help out. So they ain't there anymore. But it's not just a conservative liberal thing. It's a threats thing. Yeah, I mean, Chapo still exists. They're the number two most subscribed to Patreon account. Great. I'm glad to hear that.

Yeah, so they're still prominent. I don't know what they're – it's interesting. There's like a weird – the podcast ecosystem, it's hard to actually track. It's very different from TV. With TV, we look at the ratings. We know what's going on. With podcasting, I mean, our biggest platform is YouTube. We get a decent amount.

We get 80, 70, 70 or 80% of our podcast views or listens or whatever on YouTube. And then we do decently well on iTunes and Spotify. I think we are a top 250 on iTunes. There was a period where, like, my main show was actually really high up because I was working every single day. We took that down. But you can't actually track who's successful.

Like, I don't even know where Chaput Trap House registers on this. I know they have a lot of diehard fans. But they might have 36,000 people who are paying to get their special content. But that might be everyone who watches their show. Or it could be substantially more. I don't know.

When you look at TV, nobody pays for that for the most part. I mean, some people might pay for a cable package, but CNN is effectively given to you like they make you watch it. You know what I mean? Like you mentioned airports. Yeah, it's state media.

It's literally the media program that runs in the airports that are funded by branches of the government. They canceled that. They canceled that. The CNN airport is gone? Gone. Gone.

But probably still hotel lobbies, I guess. Are we going to see, like, Fox Airport? It would actually be really funny to see Newsmax Airport. Yeah, they should go for it. It's not really any more or less reliable than MSNBC, but I'd like to see it for a couple months, try it out. That's my favorite thing about the media. Let me tell you about Biden!

Walk in, itiden this guy's screaming i love it when they're like oan is is a conspiracy site and it's like bro did you do you watch your own channel like have you seen the things you've said about russia no these people uh they're they're they're something special actually i want to i want to pull this up i want to pull up uh something no not this one where's the other one okay we're gonna pull up this one we're to start with this story here. I got to do this. I got a special disdain for big tech social media. So this is something that's been going viral for a while. There is a link to the CDC.gov.

All right. It is the CDC's website. If you post this link, Facebook will flag it as fake news. Facebook, because they've given the ability to third-party fact-checkers, who are crackpot wingnut conspiracy theorists, have labeled the CDC

as fake news. Here it is. Look at this. This is a post from Facebook that I posted. The website is cdc.gov slash ccells dlslcs20217212022 lab alert changes cdcrtpcrsarscovid2testing1.html. There you go. There's some other stuff in there if you want to actually get the link. The link is just them saying they're encouraging sites to update their PCR tests to better tests. A third-party fact checker flagged it as fake news. And so a bunch of people have

done this and it shows you the extent to which the media is broken. Who in their right mind was given the authority to flag the CDC as fake news? I, what am I supposed to say on YouTube? Oh, YouTube don't ban me. I don't know. Facebook flagged me. That's this. This is what happens when you have a crackpot broken media that people just keep saying, I trust the science, I believe the media. They just believe whatever they're told until it just goes full psycho. Now we're in this really crazy space where the news is changing so rapidly because there's so much contradictory information coming up and coexisting at the same time that people are writing contradictory stories at the same time. So the example I gave the other day, let's say Fauci comes out and says, you got to wear two masks.

And the next day he says, no, I didn't mean it. You don't got to wear two masks. That information changes in the viral environment have prompted a very necessary revision of policy by the leaders at the CDC. Well, so here's what happens with these two nearly concurrent contradictory statements. MSNBC might see the statement, you got to wear two masks. An hour later, Fauci says, no, no, I was mistaken. I mean, the real story is like a day later. But let's say an hour later, he says, no, Fox News then publishes, Fauci says not to

wear two masks. MSNBC and Fox could publish those stories at the exact same time. And then the leftist will see MSNBC, the conservative will see Fox News, and then they'll both be at a bar and be like, why are you wearing two masks? Why aren't you wearing two masks? My story says, my story says. Information overload.

It's too quick and people can't figure out what's the latest and newest information. Now it's come to the White House where we have the story from the New York Times. Check this out. The New York Times says, breaking news, the Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox

and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated and internal CDC report said. But then we get this guy, Ben Wakana, in all caps, vaccinated people do not transmit the virus at the same rate as unvaccinated people.

And if you fail to include that context, you're doing it wrong. And then people are like, who do I trust? The government or the New York Times? Well, now someone could write an article citing Ben saying the claim is not true. Then someone could write something claiming the New York Times this is true. And now we have political factions choosing which one they think makes more sense instead of knowing who to trust.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely correct. The one piece of advice I will give to an intelligent young audience would be go check for yourself. I mean, you can go to the CDC website and see what their data actually is and whether the Times reported on it honestly. Nobody does that. Yeah, everybody should. For a lot of the things I report, like the national crime rate, for example, where there's this huge argument, which I've never understood, but a big back and forth on the internet between black guys, working class white guys, Arab guys who might be suspected of terrorism, so on. Who commits the most crime? You can find out. The government publishes the crime stats every year.

If you tweet those crime stats, you'll be banned. Not really, actually. I've done it a bunch of times. It's not something I've ever seen flagged anywhere. Oh, yeah. There was Tommy Robinson, I think, in the UK the uk oh okay that that makes sense they don't have any rights well yeah but this is twitter banning him twitter banned tommy robinson i believe it was tommy robinson and and uh magic noirs who is like not a fan of tommy defended him saying he published factual data from you know crime statistics twitter does not care it's a disparaging comment i've seen that happen once or twice. I mean, for example, Andy Ngo pointed out at one point

that there was no epidemic of violence against transgender women. Of color. Yeah. The rate of violence against transgender people, I actually wrote an article about this for Quillet once, because one, if there actually is a hate crime epidemic, you want to stop it.

But two, I strongly suspected that most shooting or stabbing victims would be young working class men, about 50 percent people of color, because we know that because that's the crime data. But anyway, so I looked at this and actually found the rate of violence against transgender women is lower than the rate of violence against just men, along with a bunch of other groups, blacks, poor whites, so on down the line. But Andy said that I think think he cited the article, and he said, and if you're a trans woman of color, the person most likely to kill you is black. It's not going to be a white supremacist. It's going to be a jilted lover or something like that.

And he was banned for a couple of days. Right. But those are the only two cases I've ever seen. I mean, in general, if you cite the BJS crime report, like in academic Twitter, it's extremely widely known that men have a higher crime rate than women. African-Americans, at least before you adjust for age and social class, have a higher crime rate. When you tweet the racial component, tons of people get banned for this all the time. Well, it's the way you frame it.

If a bunch of – like in the past, if you saw that it's 60 percent of the crimes were committed by black men, it doesn't mean that you're more likely to have that happen in the future. Just because that was the rate of the past doesn't mean that that's the likelihood of the future. So that I could see could be looked at as like he phrased it wrong. Right, right, right. But I get it. I don't want

to have a semantic argument. In terms of what's going on with the censorship, a better example is Dave Rubin. Did you see what happened with Dave? Yeah, two days ago. And what happened with Dave? Yesterday, yeah. Two days ago. And what did Dave say? From Twitter? No idea, honestly.

So there's a story from... He got suspended from Twitter. He got suspended. Yeah, not to interrupt you, but I think this is more on topic. It's all on topic. Dave tweeted that, in his opinion, the vaccines aren't doing what they were promised

and now they're talking about booster shots. Okay. They are talking about booster shots. Dave then, when he came back, he cited the source. And then there's a story from the Washington Post where they say the viral load They are talking about booster shots. Dave then, when he came back, he cited the source. And then there's a story from the Washington Post where they say the viral load among people who are vaccinated, it's comparable to those who aren't. And that was surprising to people, essentially confirming what Dave said.

He got suspended on Twitter for saying. And one of the problems is this is why I showed this post from I want to pull this up again – from Facebook where they flagged the CDC as fake news. The reason the CDC got flagged as fake news is because the data changes so rapidly. And so this story comes out, and then people start citing it. And then some other people cite it in probably incorrect ways. And so they say, all right, this link is now off limits. But you know, it's crazy. The video of Fauci saying not to wear masks from last March, from March of 2020, still up.

Yeah, I think so. Actually, I think that there is a broader problem here that's being illustrated. So when I say, you know, tons of academics cite this and there's no there's no risk of removal. And you say, well, I know a bunch of people, some academics, some pundits that have been removed. A bigger issue is the total unreliability and BS nature of all of these social media policies. What accounts for the difference? Probably which single guy at the director level at highest was looking at that post from Riley or Poole or Rubin or whatever at that day? Because when people say things like Taiwan is – It's not a director. Well, it's a junior staffer then no no these are these are outsourced to um uh like tracking farms

in india oh okay yeah that's these are people who sometimes don't even speak english i'm not i'm not stronger version of the same argument yeah i've actually talked with people who uh have done this work with with google and and facebook and things like that and they say that there will be someone you know in say, say, India, who's going through the rules and trying to figure out what's bannable and what isn't. And that's why they have so many mistakes. Yeah, no, I've had actually this same conversation. I'm fully prepared to accept that it's true, by the way.

I'm just an enhancement of the same thing. When I started teaching cybersec back in, like, 2016, 17, we had people that were execs in the tech world talk to either me or the students to at least some extent. And their comment then was it's generally like post-college junior staffer types if something is really controversial like a discussion of child pornography so the manager in the room might come take a look at it but one of the things with like right now like you just said it so now someone at youtube probably got a notification maybe i mean uh well i think we're it's it's it's true they have a a kiosk where they uh so this is what i'm not going to name

which company does this or did this but there were more than one they showed me this the live streams are very dangerous for any one of these companies because with a video that gets uploaded algorithms can search them to make sure there's not specific kind of content within that video so they check for language you You could demonetize. It might get instantly banned. With live streams, they never know what's coming next. So what a couple of companies have done is they have terminals showing hundreds of live streams at any one moment. And they have people watching them. The flicker, yeah.

And they look for key phrases to be said or words to be said. And then when they see it, they pull them over to the side, line them up, and then they get the boss to come in. We've had our chat suspended before. One thing I do want to say about this, though, you have had some of these things happen because you're extremely well-known in the Internet space. Big data is a lot stupider than most people think it is. I mean, when people say things like,

if you're on a pirate site and you click on a file, they can figure out your IP address. I mean, my IP address is the Starbucks in Frankfurt, Kentucky, if hypothetically I would ever commit such an evil sin. Yeah, but your Mac address, too. No, but that's generally Mac stops at the router. Use Tor. You use, you know, I mean, Mac stops at almost every router.

The router is Starbucks. I mean, so it's actually very easy. We're both pretty familiar with computers. It's not hard to spoof this crap, I mean, at all. So, actually, I don't think we're disagreeing here's one i think big data is real like obviously there are probably first of all they're probably multi-flagged personalities like nero back in the day on twitter that these boys would love to take down so i'm pretty sure that like pool rogan maybe five or six others might be on a board with people that are at that

higher level just looking for mistakes like how did for example, I would be very careful to say transgender women during the show. That's actually what I would say during polite conversation anyway. But, I mean, it's just if I were to say something else, who knows? And we actually, as I have with all large-scale media, Tucker Carlson, we had this conversation before the show. But I don't think in the majority of cases big data is all that good. I mean, you have someone speaking their second language in Bajalapur looking at, what would it be per person, 35,000 accounts on a daily basis or something. So in general, you have a contradiction

where there's a mass amount of all of the content we could describe, I mean, including actual accounts for jihadist groups all over social media. But there are also people that constantly get sanctioned and punished and so on. And it's the same way the cops know who the bad kids in town are or whatever. But the key point is that, last sentence, nobody knows what the hell the rules mean. It's almost impossible to get in touch with these companies. I actually once got so irritated with Twitter. I was trying to fix some problem with my account that I asked on my Twitter,

does anyone know, like, the actual address from their initial IPO, the emails and so on they had to list? It's a good way to get this stuff, by the way. And I got it. So, I mean, I worked in that sales floor, trading floor space for a while, and we used these tricks all the time. But nobody knows who to talk to, nobody knows what the rules are, it's a problem.

We are entering a new kind of... What's the right word? It's neo-feudalistic in a sense. It's a problem. This is – we are entering a new kind of – what's the right word? It's neo-feudalistic in a sense. There's a noble class. There's the modern landed gentry, and that is to say a few things. We were just talking about you can't call YouTube. You can't call Twitter. You can't call Google.

Okay. Well, I can because this is the way the society is starting to function, that you have followers, you have notoriety. Then all of a sudden you find out that people are calling you and you have email addresses and they're here for you all of a sudden. You find out that if you get bad service on an airline and you've got 10,000 followers, well, you might get a response. Well, what's that? You got 100,000 followers? Oh, now you're flying first class and they're apologizing. You got a million followers and now you're on that global concierge list.

This is where we're going. So for me, actually for other people, I get messages from people and they say, hey, yo, Tim, I had a video get demonetized. Do you have any idea what I can do to get it fixed? And I'm like, honestly, I don't. You can try tweeting at team YouTube. They try to get things sorted and fairly effective for a lot of people. Interestingly, social media is an easy way to connect. So now we know their handle and we can send them a message and they can see it. And some of these channels are moderately large. When I get demonetized, I hit up Google. I send an email right away and they say, sorry about that. No problem. We got you. You got your sorter right away. Sometimes they go like,

we're not giving you this one for this or that reason when the alex jones episode got taken down so here's here's the first thing i hit up google and i said are there any people that we have like that are outright no-nos for youtube like you would ban us for simply having it said no and i was like so you know here are the people where we would like to have in the show and they're like absolutely no problem and then i said okay and then they take the episode down and i asked them why and they say we won't tell you so i'm like so i have no idea what i take it down so it's not not every this is what i'm talking about by the way like right not not but not but i'm actually talking to them on the phone i'm on the phone saying you can't even tell me what we did and they're like we don't know because the people who chose this were higher up than we are we are so it's like it's it's it's almost like this neo-feudalist

thing where they they are creating classes of people. The average person you can have your account maybe will ban you. A lot of the accounts that are getting banned and getting censored are small. And this is why you don't see it in the media. The left likes to say cancel culture isn't real because these celebrities still are rich or something. But what they don't realize is that 90% of those who got suspended and deleted for a political opinion were someone with 50 followers or 100 followers.

And now they're IP banned. They can't get back on the service. And they're like, okay, whatever, I guess. So the lower class individuals, in terms of the social hierarchy, the social credit score, whatever they're building, will have no access to Facebook, will have no one to message, will simply say, please, and they'll say, bug off, we don't care. And then the people who have prominence are given access. It's a combination of they'll look for you to make sure they're worried about your social influence. But also, when it comes to Facebook, I know people. I know people in the news industry, and they say, here's the email you need, Tim. Don't worry about it. Regular people don't have that. So now we're seeing this weird world where people are desperate to have followers because it makes them feel like they can finally

get access to systems and be treated fairly. Yeah. I will say also, when I mentioned coming from like the sales or trading floor space, there are a whole variety of platforms. I mean, back in the day, it was a Manta, Lead411, so on. Instant Checkmate works well now, where you can pull up the contacts for the executives at most companies, including some of the social companies. Like when we got genuinely irritated at Twitter, we started, I mean, I started doing that. So, I mean, you can look at IPO filings. You can look at who the listed executives online are.

I mean, it's possible to contact. At one point, I called Mark Cuban during a job at the company, Marcus Evans. Like all that stuff's easily available. Like you can, if you do get one number, you can call into the company and to sort of dial off. Seven's the mailroom. You know, I had this number on a corporate reference for Jack Dorsey. Look, I don't have a lot of time to waste here. Can you tell me what his number is? Don't need to sell a secretary's fine, whatever. And it works nine. Most of the people I've known that have a similar financial background haven't had a lot of issues with these

companies. But of course, I mean, to some extent, this is just saying what you're saying, like, yeah, you're a stockbroker for 10 years, you'd probably get in touch with them too. You know, again, there are two levels here. One, it's generally not that hard to break the rules or the law and not get caught. At the most basic level, like if you're IP banned, I mean, which is a real thing, like you can just download Tor and your IP will be Fiji. If you have 50 followers on Twitter, it wouldn't be hard to get back on Twitter and be a troll, frankly. But again, the question is, should you have to do that? I'd prefer to see, when we talk about politicians potentially regulating these brands or sparring back and forth with them,

one thing that I would like to see is just a common sense demand that these rules be illustrated. What does this mean? What is hate speech? What do you mean you can't tell me who my prohibited guests are? This happens all the time. Well, there's no prohibited guests, but they won't tell me who my prohibited guests are? This happens all the time. Well, there's no prohibited guests, but they won't tell me what was said that got the video flag taken out. We can only make assumptions about what we think was actually said.

And so when I said to them, listen, we'll make clips from the show and we'll remove whatever you said was against the rules. And they said, we won't tell you. And I'm like, well, what do you want me to do? You got to keep in mind they all have the ability to ban anyone at any time as per their terms. Every social media site has that on their terms. That's got to change. It's time for some – Will Chamberlain's got it. He's a smart fella. Yes.

He knows. When Dave got suspended, he said Dave should go into a courtroom, get an injunction, get his account turned back right on, turned right on. I think you're going to see people starting to do that. It's the same thing as there was an entire genre of legal cases in the 80s and 90s, as you guys probably know, where people started talking about non-traditional property, like the right to receive welfare benefits if welfare happened to be legal in their state. And it's the same thing here. Like, do you have some right not to have, what is Dave at, three, four million followers and your financial livelihood taken away on a whim i'd be interested in seeing what a judge says about that i mean there there has to be some

element of contracting there i mean has he entered into an advertising deal with youtube or twitter has he ever made them a dollar because then i mean you have what is it offer acceptance consideration i mean dave dave just launched a book and they they suspended him, I believe it was around the same time his book is coming out. I'll say straight up, if this was the day his book was coming out, they suspended his account, that he should take the first hour of sales as soon as he was able to promote on Twitter, calculate his losses based on the 12 hours, and then say those are the damages. Because he would have been able to say, hey, my preorder is available now. Here's my new book.

Tweet. They suspended him, and he didnorder is available now. Here's my new book. Tweet. They suspended him. And he didn't violate any rules. They claimed he did. And not only that, I think Dave should file a defamation suit. Because they claimed that he put out medical misinformation. But Dave was citing the Washington Post and I think it was Click Orlando. I'm not sure what the other site he meant.

CNN. It was CNN and Washington Post. And he's like, what did I post? I posted these articles. It was a statement based on this. They claimed it was misinformation, in which case that's a false statement of fact. So he should at least try to sue, and the damages are that his new book is coming out, and they're shutting down his means for promotion. This is a platform where people pay to get access to share information. So if Dave has built up that access, which creates the content which drives advertisement to the platform,

I think it's time people start firing off these lawsuits saying, you can't do this. But they're allowed to ban anyone at any time. He signed that terms of service when he made an account. But what you don't understand is I'm arguing that that has to change and it changes with suing.

So precedent will be set, for instance, Twitter defamed Dave Rubin. See, one of the problems they have is that they could have just said, no reason, we banned him for fun. And they may start. They didn't. Maybe they should.

They've done it to other people. They've suspended people and put no reason at all. It says like, you've been suspended for blank. With Dave, it was misinformation. I believe it was, you know, I don't want to get sued either, but I believe it was misinformation. I could be wrong.

And Dave could say that's just factually not true. James O'Keefe is suing specifically because they claim. Good. I'm not surprised by that. Right. He was. I mean, he's the master of it. They said he was operating multiple accounts.

So he said, that's fake. That's a that's a lie. It's a false statement of fact. And I'm going to sue you. And that was a big mistake because now we can go for discovery and get internal communications on what they've said about him and his organization. So Dave should sue. Yeah. The one question, by the way, in terms of your point, I think it's a good one when you say, well, they're saying that they can get rid of you for the legal language would be any reason or no reason at all.

So even if you sue and you prove that you were defamed, you might get some money damages, but they can still likely keep you off the site. I think the issue there is, is that what's called an unethical adhesion contract? Like, can you sign a deal with a company that is going to give you the chance to make tens of millions of dollars where they can take all of your money and all of your followers away at any time? I don't, I mean, law school was a while ago, but I would have some real questions about whether you can. I would have some real questions about now that these sites are growing into serious businesses, whether you can do some of this junior varsity crap,

like for no reason given, remove someone from your platform permanently and take their entire follower count away. That sounds very questionable. I mean, that's going back to like the early days of Facebook when people had 100 friends. Not only that, but there's an expectation based on the rules they set. So, of course, they say you can be terminated for any reason. We reserve that right. But there's still an expectation that these are the rules you have to follow.

And so long as you follow them, you are within bounds of being on the platform. They've broke no rules. Yeah, but you don't need to break rules to get booted off those. They can just ban you at any moment. So the issue is, is it an unfair contract? Definitely. If I said to you, Ian,

you can come here and do all this work, and then have a great opportunity. And so long as you don't say a naughty word, you're fine. And then one day after you've been working here for a long time, I just kick you out the door. And you're like, but I didn't break any rules. It doesn't matter. It's my house.

Like a right to work state? What I mean is there are certain contracts that are unenforceable right so uh non-competes in many states i don't know if you went to law school you said yes i did yeah like non-competes are unenforceable and out of states right that's my understanding yeah so the there are contractual terms that are generally not enforceable um an open non-compete clause extending beyond a certain short period of time often is i'd have to look at the case law but the issue here i think would be more what's called an adhesion contract, where if you sign a contract with a player like your camera company,

when you look at the back of the box of a piece of tech equipment, that the terms and conditions go on for 16 printed out pages in a couple of situations I've seen, and at the end you check your X and you submit. If that contract were to include something like, if this piece of equipment breaks, you owe us $1,000 or something completely ridiculous, that wouldn't be enforceable

because it would be understood that that's nonsense that the person with more power put into the text of the deal. Like, that would just be very unsympathetic. And I think, I don't know. I actually think your point's a really good point, but I think social media, my actual reaction is, come on, bro. It can't work that way.

Like even with me at like 40,000 plus maybe like 20,000 on different other platforms, like that's, I've been, I've sold, my books have made bestseller lists. Like if you were just to say, okay, we're going to take these 60,000 people away and we're going to set up some kind of permanent ban so that you – I mean, I could or you could easily, but the average citizen couldn't get back on the platform, that's just total BS. Like, it's you having the power position in the contract doing something that's probably illegal. So, like, I couldn't sign a contract with – like, Tim couldn't sign a contract that says, if you want to work here and be, say, a video engineer, I get to punch you in the face twice a day because it would be a manipulative use of power. I got a better example. I couldn't say, Ian, you can come work on the show and to work on the show.

You obviously have to be in the house and I can evict you from the property without notice at any time. That's actually against the law. Right. So when it comes, it literally is it is because there's a there's a separate law that regulates eviction in every state not to jump and i that that's actually a solid point and that actually kind of gets to the point here like are there other laws for example that protect protect against say undue deprivation of income is a claim you might be able to bring like if a company company just says, like any company could do this.

Like I just got a fairly new vehicle. Could Mercedes or BMW say something like, if you miss one payment on your car loan, or better yet, if you miss one maintenance trip for your vehicle, we take the vehicle back. Can you just say any kind of ridiculous thing in a contract when you're selling a product someone else really needs? Often no. Not only that, but typically repossessions are forfeiture.

So if you have a car and you don't pay your loan payment for two months, they may say, we're going to move to repossess the car because you're delinquent. Typically, it's not usually two months. You can actually just tell the repo guy, it's my car. You can't take it. I'm challenging this as a civil dispute and they can't take it. A lot of people don't know that. So the repo guy shows up and they go, okay. And they're because you got it. And that's, that's, that's the game they play. In fact, you can just call the police and say, I'm in a civil dispute. You can't take my property. And they'll say, that's right. You can't. So in this instance, I wonder if, you know, you mentioned about undue deprivation of income. I think the eviction thing is an interesting point.

There may be laws that people haven't looked at or realized that you're entering into an agreement that grants you some kind of access to a system. So it's almost like, at the very least, we created laws to protect tenants for a reason. And maybe we can view social media accounts as us as tenants on a platform. We are using it to run a business.

Considering a lot of the economy is now digital, especially with the way YouTube does super chats and the way people run their business on these digital platforms, we are effectively tenants of these platforms and we have a contractual agreement, but they can evict us without notice immediately. Hey man, when you have a business or a house to at least get 30 days and you can file a suit to argue why they can't do this to you. Now, Dave Rubin can be on this platform creating entertaining content and informative content that builds up an audience on the platform that makes them money, providing a service to them. And then without notice, without due process, they kick him off for a false reason and defame him in the process. Imagine if your landlord came to your house and you had a pizza shop

and they put up a big sign saying this pizza shop puts dookie in their pizza and then called the cops and the cops came and kicked you out well we got we got to remove defamation just for the argument's sake because they can remove you for no reason so and i think that's worse i'm saying specifically in the case of dave rubin equate it to if dave was running his business in a physical location he'd have legal protection one day they just evicted him without notice. One day Dave walks to his pizza shop and he shows up and the building's empty and all of his stuff is out in the street soaking wet in the rain. Or they would keep the stuff.

I mean, the stuff you make at that in their job is YouTube's content. I mean, as far as I know. Yep. This is YouTube's video right now, right? Better yet. Better yet. Dave walks one day to his pizza place to open up, but know he's got to get there at 9 a.m because they open up for the early lunch and all of his equipment has been crushed and mutilated and destroyed and it's a permanent destruction of everything he's built

and everything of value because twitter followers and accounts do have a market value it's been calculated by companies companies pay money for the equivalent of reach and they say to him the lease said we can do whatever we want. We have laws saying you can't do that for obvious reasons, because this would it's disruptive to the economy as we're moving into a digital economy. How can we have that people build their business on YouTube? Monkey Jones deserves a shout out whenever this happens. Monkey broke no rules. Monkey made Monkey Jones had a channel. He had 300 something thousand subscribers. It was his business. It was his life. He dedicated years to building that business and he broke no rules. He had 300 and something thousand subscribers. It was his business. It was his life.

He dedicated years to building that business and he broke no rules. He was given no warning and everything was destroyed overnight. At the very least, I understand the argument. They say in their contract they can do it. Well, certainly there should be a law saying they can't because it's undue deprivation and it's eviction without notice. I think we need a monkey broke no rules shirt. That's a great phrase. Monkey broke no rules. I don't know anything about this guy, though. This is the first time I've heard of him. Yeah, I'm's eviction without notice. I think we need a monkey broke no rules shirt. That's a great phrase. Monkey broke no rules. I don't know anything about this guy, though.

This is the first time I've heard of him. Yeah, I'm Googling him right now. He made a lot of really edgy content, and he pushed the envelope in a way, but it was... Not much. He didn't break the rules. Those people are tough.

As an admin, those people are tough to deal with. When they get around the rules, that's why we put in clauses it mines anyway we can remove anything at any time because people would be so snaky with with the rules to get the most disgusting stuff in front of people in front of kids it's crazy so i will say that it's it's arguable that the content he made was distasteful to a lot of people but how about they just say hey guy this one video made, we're going to take it down. But then he did it over and over and over.

No, they didn't do that. They banned him without even giving a single strike. One day, all of a sudden, his channel was just gone, and they banned his second channel, which was like anime reviews or something. It was brutal. It was brutal. I understand the strike system.

I understand the warning system. And if you see three plus strikes at once, you ban the account upright. Instantly. Because they got three strikes three isn't this guy back on a bunch of edge social media simi and jimmy and doing better okay probably yeah but but monkey jones aka simi and jimmy right the first hit is his wicked to be a fandom that people are loving this guy from base to erase to my story is Mumpke Jones. Mumpke Jones. He broke no rules. IMDB. So he had. If Kong loses, I'm going to, let's say, end it all. Okay.

I see the issues here. A little edgy. Finally leaking all of my DMs. Okay. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. So he was making edgy content about an individual I'm not going to name who is a despicable individual.

And it didn't break any of their specified rules. And they didn't even just like, how about this? Here's an email. Hey, look, we understand, you know, this is the content you produce. Here are the terms we set forward. We're asking you right now, don't do these things, otherwise we'll have to ban you. And he would have said yes. The same thing with Carl Benjamin. I said this when Patreon banned him. I was like, Patreon banned Carl without warning overnight because of something he said on a live stream like a year prior. And if they had just gone to him and said, hey, we saw that you were on a stream and you said these things, it causes problems for us because we're getting a lot of bad press. We'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do this.

Carl would have been like, all right, I don't want to lose my Patreon, so no problem. But they didn't. They just nuke his income instantly. What do you think about small websites? Like if you started a website that people could sign into and it had like 500 users that you would retain the right to ban anyone at any time? People who are not using the platform to run a business. You don't know why, but it's like a small social media site. So this is the difference between Twitter being a convention center that's contracting you to set up a kiosk and a pizza place having a chair where someone can sit down to enjoy your pizza.

So if I have a website with users, and I do, hey, go to TimCast.com, become a member. That's more akin to like me having a pizza shop, and I come in the morning, I open the door, and someone comes and sits down in the dining room section. So yeah, I can throw them out because we don't have a contractual agreement other than it's a public accommodation for them to come. Now, to be fair, there is still, for websites where you pay membership, there is a bit of an agreement. You'd have to actually have a civil dispute over the currency if someone was paying to be a member and then you kicked them out when they were still active members. So if you're like a country club, you can get into a dispute if someone's like, I pay to be here and they throw them out anyway, and they say, well,

you broke the rules, you can still get into those conflicts. But I'll say Twitter's more like McCormick Place. You know McCormick Place, right? Yeah, of course. Yeah. The massive Chicago Convention Center. It's public, right? That's why I'm pretty sure it's public.

Is that the merchandise smart? Yeah. Well, anyone can book that entire area. I mean, if you want to hold an event there, it's giant. Yeah. So what is it, like 100,000, 200,000 square feet or something? Yeah, it's the biggest of its kind in the Midwest. I think there's an equivalent in New York, maybe.

It's amazing how massive. Is it Merchandise Mart? No, no, no. Oh, a corner place. Yeah, it's on the lake. There's actually two. When you go in a tunnel, you can go. But they do a bunch of events there and car shows.

If they said, you can come in and set up your kiosk here to display your product during this big convention, and then you go in, and then this generates ticket sales for the greater event, or you pay or something, or even if they let you in for free, you're spending time, energy, and money to be there. For them to just come and just tear down and destroy what you've set up, it costs you money. Dave's account, it costs him money to operate. I understand it's not as much as like running an actual brick and mortar shop. But a lot of people, their Twitter accounts are based on labor they actually do. There have been people, journalists, who have been banned,

and they actually go on the ground and they film things. There have been activist accounts that have paid to go and go on the ground and live stream and film, and they've been banned for this. So these are people who invested hard currency to be on a platform who were banned for no reason. They were Occupy Wall Street activists, people who do not like me, who I defended. They were banned and they broke no rules. We can't operate a system like this.

The problem is the Democrats will absolutely never, never push forward a law like this because they're ideologically in a strong position with their ideologues controlling these things and republicans won't do it because republicans are worthless morons i'm very like laissez-faire about this kind of stuff i don't like the government imposing laws on the corporations about how they have to run their business but i'm also very um against monopolies and i think they've kind of monopolized the social media i wonder what you think about this idea that once a social network gets large enough, we free their software code via law. We break up the

monopoly of their code so other people can spin up another YouTube that can co-interoperate with other YouTubes so you can subscribe to YouTube users on the main account, but you can create your own terms of service on your site. So it will create a marketplace of ideas for

terms of service. Basically, it'll create the market will be not who has the best technology. It'll be who has the best terms. Ian, that's like saying if the city comes and destroys your business with a wrecking ball, you can just go and build another building somewhere else. It's very different than physical property. Can you afford to do it? It doesn't cost anything. I mean, it doesn't really cost.

You don't have to build things. Just to chip in, because you guys are both making excellent points, but in terms of what you said, I think the solution there is probably a little off in terms of we're going to free the source code so anyone can know how to, for example, build these kind of sites. I mean, I think most of the table is competent enough with tech to at least retain someone to do that. I mean, you had Parler, for example.

Yeah, but it's nowhere near as effective as Facebook. If you look at their site functionality, they have, like, Marketplace. They have, like, dating sites. They have an amazing messenger app. I would say that Parler's direct competitor was Twitter. I'd say Parler was about 90% as good, and they were a lot freer. I mean, Twitter only has one like or respond function still to this date on tweets. You can't edit tweets. The issue with Parler wasn't that their tech code was a little freer. I mean, Twitter only has one like or respond function still to this date on tweets. You can't edit tweets. The issue with Parler wasn't that their tech code was a little bit

worse. It was that they were destroyed by corporate monopolists. I mean, after they were falsely accused of being responsible for the capital rioting. And it was lies from the media. We now know that explicitly. That was coordinated primarily through Facebook, which is a more boomer piece of tech in the first place. I'm not surprised by that at all. But, I mean, Parler was immediately the scapegoat. Like, it can't be the big two. It can't be the big two. I think some messaging went out.

And so, I mean, you saw this incredible stuff like, what is it, Amazon Online, whatever their… AWS, yeah. Yeah, AWS. Amazon Web Services. Amazon Web Services servers, yeah. online whatever their aws yeah aws amazon web services amazon web services servers yeah but i mean their actual ability to run a website at the basic level of working with the server working with the provider at the top level was taken away i mean they were taken off the app stores and it turns out there are only two or three of those two in fact so i mean that's what destroyed parlor

and i think think that gets back to a bigger issue here, which is, I totally respect your point. I'm very libertarian on a lot of issues. When you say, I don't like the government interfering with big tech, sure. The issue comes up when you're dealing with businesses that are nearly as powerful as the government. I mean, and this is true even outside of tech. If you ask someone whether they wanted to be the CEO of Disney or the governor of Montana, no power-seeking person would say, I would want to be the governor of Montana. These Fortune 500 companies are extraordinarily powerful players. And when you get into tech, when you get into the literal control of speech, I mean, you see that Facebook, Twitter, these kind of Google have more control over speech,

what we see and now what we can say than really anyone else in the game. Certainly, they have more influence than most state level governments in the USA. So kind of getting to the point, I mean, like, if we say we don't want the government to regulate the tech boys, and there are only four or five people that are actually in charge of these tech companies, and they're racing each other to Mars and home-built rockets. These guys are not going to just decide to regulate their business. The state at some level, I like legislation to be as simple as possible, but for the state to come in and say, due to the fact that this probably violates other well-known laws against, for example, adhesion, you can't simply terminate accounts for any reason or no reason at all, just as you can't fire people because of their race, for example. There are caveats like this

all throughout the law. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think for right now, though, legally, you might be correct. It's up in the air between us. It's positioned, the ball's probably somewhere between what we're saying. Can you do that? I think his point was just you shouldn't be able to. If people are going to pressure Congress, that's the thing. Right. My argument is that we need to make laws to enforce this. We need to make laws to definitively state it. However, there's also a path towards filing lawsuits and making the correct arguments. So one of the problems is I hear from conservatives all the time that you can't sue for X, you can't sue for Y. And I'm like, you can. You just need to make a good argument and then get it

before a judge and then see if they agree with you. Because like the reality is I've seen judges have really awful rulings. I've seen judges have rulings where like all of legal Twitter was like, what was he thinking this ruling? But the judge said it. So here's what you do. There's got to be. I've seen some lawsuits pertaining to like defamation and bannings. And I'm like, what were these lawyers thinking?

These lawyers don't know anything about the platform and they don't know how to make an argument to a judge about this. This is the issue. I don't want to say something as simple as boomers don't get tech, but I assume all of you, I assume you guys give an interest range,

watch the set of hearings on the internet probably four or five years back where people were saying things like it's a series of tubes. Oh yeah, of course. Yeah, you got that information packed into them pipes there. You know, so like- The cloud. I'll tell you my favorite thing i've ever heard when i was working in live

streaming i was doing developing mobile app mobile apps and i was at a conference with a bunch of like well-off individuals and i was talking about how we're trying to build an app where we can do these these photos you know we do live streaming and the woman goes the cloud and i was like yeah yes and she goes the cloud and And I was like, yes. And she goes, the cloud. And I was like, sure, what about it? And she goes, why don't you use the cloud? And I was like, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

She's like, use the cloud. It's like, have you considered that? And I'm like, are you saying that we should have servers? Like, do you know what the cloud means? She didn't. something might be hosted remotely i mean it's novel stuff we're gonna have a data center i'm like what they had no idea what um and she thought she was had this profound idea about what the cloud i'm like the cloud isn't a new thing it's a it's like a buzz term it's like a branding word we're gonna build just means like

hosting your site like a data center we're gonna build gaseous servers that are like you spray chemicals into the air and that's going to host your data. And then you'll fire lasers through it to access the data. And it'll actually be cloud data. Because lasers can solidify gas. You can then pack that data into the tubes and you can get it to the Internet. To Mars and back. Really, it's good stuff. I mean, but yeah this this is all

funny but actually this ties into something that we really do look at in political science which is the extremely advanced age being polite for the medium of politicians so like when people are talking about a situation like the 78 year old joe biden if i have that correct run against like the 74 year old trump and people are saying things like trump is five years younger he's much more vigorous he's ready to go. He was spry. That's true. I mean, you know, I'm I'm pretty sure that if you are running for president of the United States, there are people following you around, spritzing you with virgin blood and grinding up five lot of this is that the typical, what is circuit court level, maybe district court level federal judge doesn't know a whole hell of a lot about the complexities of the Internet.

So people tend to resort to heuristics in times like that. Like, yep, I don't like messing with the man's private business. But the reality is that if we want to prevent something like there's no reason Twitter couldn't shut down the Republican Party. Oh, they could. They took an active sitting president of the United States. People forget how crazy this is. Because we're focusing so much on the media, which leans 93% left or left and left-leaning moderates, focus on like one-sixth. Immediately following what was an embarrassing graphic series of incidents, social media worked together to ban the sitting president from every major social media platform. He's not on Facebook.

He's not on Twitter. I think YouTube may have restored some content. But I mean, like, I was actually talking to a female friend of mine, and she was like, I was at, what's the expensive bike Peloton? I was at the Peloton gym, and you can't search Trump on Peloton. Like if you're messaging the other women in the gym, there are words you can't use like MAGA, CAG. I'm not gonna get into some of the other stuff about the election,

but you can't refer to Trump on Twitter and like the Ivanka and Melania accounts on Peloton. I have not verified this myself, but we're gone. Like these aren't things you can see on the social portion of Peloton. I assume that's true. But I mean, I know it's true for Pinterest, for example. The man vanished.

He was non-personed. And anyone can be non-personed in this fashion. There's nothing to prevent a conservative billionaire, assuming they're already in this field, from taking down the Democrats or certainly the Greens. And there's nothing to prevent the more prevalent leftist tech bros from saying the Republican Party is responsible for three incidents of vaguely defined hate speech. They're gone. The question is whether they should be able to do that. And I think the consensus here, we're having an interesting moral and almost semantic debate, but I think the consensus kind of has to be no. Well, my question, though, is how would you let the government dictate what corporations have to make their terms of service though is how would you let the government dictate what corporations have to make their terms of service like would you let the government write the terms

of service hell no because they don't know what they're doing actually i think that sorry to all but finish please i don't want to bust in there and then i guess you answered that but the follow-up would be like at what level do you command that a social network is allowed to ban people and has to stop banning people for what what And how do you define what hate speech means? How does it go down? Just crime. I wouldn't get into any of that, actually. I think, Tim, you and I might be on the same page.

Just quickly from my end, one, I think law works best when it's extremely short and clear. So I would simply say that adhesion contracts are illegal in the context of social media. Boom, solved 70% of it. And then I would say, like, for example, actually, kind of, I teach a con law class at KSU, and there already are exceptions to the rule of free speech. You guys might correct me if I miss one, but, I mean, there's obviously pornography involving inappropriately young people or non-human subjects, you know, keeping it virtuous for social media. But, yeah, you know, no sheep or boys. I mean, that's an exception generally, although we're, for whatever reason, relaxing on sheep here in the USA. But no open fraud, no lies for more than $500 or whatever it is state by state ever. No libel, no slander.

That's actually your point about— Well, that's civil tort, right? Yeah, that's civil tort. But, okay, yeah. Not criminally banned, no slander. That's actually your point about... That's civil tort, right? Yeah, that's civil tort, but okay, yeah. Not criminally banned, but still enforced. I think it would be reasonable to put that level of civil tort in a... We're talking about the same sort of thing. And then direct incitement to serious violence. Those would

be the exceptions to free speech. Three criminal, one civil. I would have no problem with saying social media can block that content but nothing else well what about spam i mean that how do you define exactly how do you define it you just that's what you block people you don't like yeah yeah but it can destroy that you can destroy networks if you keep spamming a ddos attack is different from just spam but you can still destroy networks and and you can make an argument about if something's disorderly conduct harassment or assault actually

a ddos attack would be illegal in the majority of u.s states right like that's getting into the actual sort of hacking hacking is a term i hate but it's getting into that space like cyber war yeah cyber attack if somebody keeps posting a same message it would be akin to if someone kept mailing you a letter every single day yeah you go to your postal carrier and say stop delivering these to me throw them in the the trash. But then a new account. And then you get a bunch of accounts that do it. And if they can't preemptively ban those. Then you have harassment. And so then.

Harassment is actually a law. No, if one person is spamming you. And then they spam Will. And they spam me. And they spam Lydia. We all block them. But they keep spamming new people. That's when the site will step in and ban those people.

That's illegal to describe it. No, that's legal to do. No, it isn't. It's right on the line, guys, actually, as some of the legal background points on both sides. But, I mean, I think, okay, add that to the terms. Like, I really do think as an aggressive and somewhat amoral leader in practical life, if it comes to, like, what's KSU's recruitment plan going to be for this year or not, that would be my decision.

Or, like, how am I going to run my business, which I do do pretty successfully. I mean, I think a lot of this stuff can be settled. Like, you get the tech guys and you get four or five congressmen that know what they're talking about in the back room and you say, okay, these six things, you can ban at will and we'll allow you spam. What about porn? That actually, I would personally allow legal porn. But I think that to some extent, it wouldn't be very difficult to do this like i understand

what you're asking like there's there's some technical on the fence questions but i mean what you would simply say as one no adhesion contracts where people can be banned for no reason this is your major point right now there's an adhesion contract where people can be banned for no reason and then you would say social media providers are we're just something we're just grab assing i mean like i don't know if they're gonna adopt these rules but social media providers are allowed to ban all content that is civilly or criminally against the law oh and here's how porn would work or that is civilly or criminally that it is civilly or criminally legal to restrict for an audience of people under 18 or under 21,

since those individuals use social media sites. What about violence? Violence is fine. It doesn't fall into those categories. But it's like R-rated, so it's 18 and older. Then you could say the same thing. It's just parents' responsibility. Can they ban someone for putting a video up of a bully fight?

Do they let 13-year-olds wander by themselves downtown in the city? This isn't about that. This is about internet video I'm talking about. And who dictates what they can and can't put on there? Yes, my point is

we wouldn't let 13-year-olds walk into an adult video store. They're not allowed. Yeah, I think that there are also a couple of different questions here. One of the deepest ones since we're all getting to that dad range

is like, should 13-year-olds be on Twitter? I mean, there's some very be on twitter i mean there's some very practical hell no there's some very practical things that you could do to take away i mean most young men including me i read recently start consuming porn in the usa at like 11 or 12 and it actually does no but it has a really i mean i had a normal high school sex like, you definitely hook up with real people in life. But the exposure to, like, extreme, edgy, spit-in-my-mouth content if you're 12 and your girlfriend's 13 is not going to give you a lot of tips about how to act in real life. So kids, to some extent, need to be moved away from a lot of that.

But the practical question i think this is something that would be negotiated among intelligent people presumably intelligent people if this were ever to happen but i think what you could say is absolutely no adhesion contracts as a baseline and i may be technically off on that legal term but no unfair contracts of this kind then we expect social media to ban content that is against the law as a violation of free speech but then you got to decide what state law are you are you working out of depends on where the corporation was a lot of this is federal criminal law though i mean like a ban on you know underage or non-human pornography would be fairly easy to enforce in the usa and this is what you want to be at right

you want a few things explicitly banned like terror content i don't like the government the federal government doing it because if you want to do a video on how to grow weed, it's legal in California but not legal federally. So you could bust up a corporation for that. Federal makes stupid sweeping laws. And the feds can come into California and arrest you. I co-founded Minds. Are you familiar with Minds.com?

I've definitely heard the name. Honestly, I don't spend a lot of money. We built it from the ground up. This is my life for the last decade is figuring out how to equitably create terms. And I can't figure it out. I don't think the government should do it for us. And I don't think people should be forced into a mold. This is why I go with the free software, free the code.

That doesn't do anything, though. You say that all the time, but you never explain. No, it doesn't. If you give me the plans to build a house, I can't build a house, bro. I don't know how to. If you get the people together that can help you build it, you can. How do I do that?

How do I pay them? I gave you the... I don't care about that. I gave you the blueprints. Actually, I'm very intelligent. But I'm kind of with Tim on this one. I mean, like when you say, like the parlor thing,

we can argue about whether the setup code, the basic structure of the website, someone was worse or better than Twitter. The fact is it wasn't allowed to exist. And I think that this will happen to this see this is the thing when we take these morally i suppose to the extent i think about moral questions i agree with you but the question is if you say corporations are allowed to handle their own business and do whatever they want produce whatever content they want as long as it's legal they could knock you off for any reason or no reason at all the issue arises when they knock off the sitting president of the United States or when a competitor arises that probably would have been good enough for Trump and those guys to jump back on immediately removed.

When Laura Loomer runs for office and they give her rival an account, which is free access to advertising and promotion, and deny her one as a candidate. I think I agree about Amazon. They have a monopoly that's very dangerous on servers right now. But when you look at about the parlor Twitter, like what's better tech, okay, that's a decent argument, but nothing compares to YouTube and Facebook. They are completely out of the ballpark, phenomenal technology packages. Dude, nothing is better than YouTube technologically. You go to the YouTube studio.

You're actually making a monopoly argument, though. You're saying that between tech and control. So a lot of these things have to have definitions. Like, do you agree the government should break up extreme monopolies? Well, you look at what happened to Standard Oil, Rockefeller's company. And what they did was break it into six oil companies. Rockefeller took stock in all six and became more wealthy and powerful after the breakup. But we now prohibit that from the departing senior executive or the previous senior executive.

Like there was a response to that. But like, so for example, one thing you could do is take Facebook and break. Facebook is itself an agglomeration of different companies. But if you broke off Facebook Messenger into a new company, they still know how to build it because they still have the code so they can rebuild it. No, but that's what I'm saying. Like at the most basic level, I actually want something more intense than this that would involve some element of government regulation we can debate that because we're free citizens but at the most basic level

facebook is about five or six companies i mean like whatever their ads platform is called instagram messenger facebook's ad system uh so so what all of these companies do, Facebook and Google specifically, is that Google obviously is a handful of companies. YouTube is not only a video hosting platform. It is a video distribution platform. It is a marketing platform. And it is an ad sales platform. All of these things. Or I should say they integrate the ad sales into all of these things operate in this way.

Google, I should say YouTube specifically is an ad sales. It's ad delivery, content delivery, content storage, all of these things operate in this way. Google, I should say YouTube specifically isn't ad sales. It's ad delivery, content delivery, content storage, all of these things in one. If you broke that up, YouTube wouldn't exist. It needs those components to work together. YouTube, however, is not the best. That's an absurd statement. There are many other sites that have come forward with newer technology that's better. And there's a really interesting phenomenon that happens in technology. Why is it that the United States has really crappy cell networks? Because we invented it first. So for, I think, what was the first network? IDEN, IDEN network. So we create this really crappy cell network, but at the time it was revolutionary.

Well, Korea didn't do cell networks, not even then, not even for 10 years. Then we invented a few different things. We ultimately end up with the CDMA standard and the GSM standard. CDMA was kind of bad, but it was really good compared to where we were before. GSM comes out. It's a global, you know, it became like a global standard.

And then Korea decides we're going to build a cell network because they were building it for the first time. They built a really good one. Yeah, because the United States was just improving the existing one. It was always lagging behind.

It's happening in Africa. They're putting solar panels on houses and bypassing central electric grids exactly there's a lot of developing tech in the stable african states and i think a lot of people are sleeping on especially giving chinese colonization so like that chinese nigerian complex in west africa is going to be a rival to the west in 30 years and so i'll stress this right now rumble is better than youtube i gotta I got to look at Rumble. We didn't use, I saw, I only started recently publishing to Rumble. YouTube has the audience. YouTube, YouTube. It's also got the algorithms. Search algorithms are incredible. The algorithm, it's not relevant. That's the marketing issue of it. So the issue here is, we're talking about technology and freeing the code. It's pointless. We use YouTube because

it is a massive McCormick Center conference room that I know there's a billion people hanging out in. Location, location, location. We use Rumble for a variety of other things because it's a better service, better technology, better bandwidth, customization. It's better across the board. Even Vimeo is better. YouTube is good because there's a massive room in this broken down, ridiculous building. And the security guards are dicks. And it's like, yeah, but they'll put up a sign with an arrow pointing to my building and the security guards are dicks and it's like yeah but they'll put up a sign with an arrow pointing to my building and there's a billion people here

partner program they've got the rumble does all that too youtube studio is incredible dude it's it's pretty good it's amazing rumble rumble i've never seen anything remotely even close what like like youtube studio the ability for a user to go in and have their analytics and their database. What are you talking about? There's tons of sites that have all that stuff. You can show me that Rumble is actually better than that or even holds a candle. I mean, that company has been pouring billions into that for years, for like a decade. And they've got like 50,000 people working on it.

I will concede YouTube has pretty good analytics. But everything has an analytics system. It's a big, big, big production to create stuff like that. We're getting more into the marketing space of things. If we're talking about just video hosting... No, it's the whole package. You can't compete with YouTube,

a user that wants to create a job on the internet with their videos. But it's nothing to do with that, dude. It has to do with the fact that YouTube controls the audience. It's the monopoly on the content. It's the monopoly on the code is what I'm saying. This seems to be like Twitter versus Parler again. It's the monopoly on the network. People don't use Twitter because Twitter is good.

Yeah, that Twitter is good. Mines is way better than Twitter. And there's a reason why less people use it than Twitter. It's because everyone's on Twitter. That's a difficult thing to overcome. It's not the only reason. Twitter's awesome. Twitter's fantastic. I've never had a bug on Twitter. Have you? I've never. I've had frequent bugs on Twitter.

Also, you can't edit tweets. I mean, in terms of some of the most basic elements of that interface, like I'm not mocking Twitter. Twitter's okay. But I don't think that the reason that Twitter is so utterly dominant in that space is the brilliant quality of its tech. I don't think if you took 15 Twitter is so utterly dominant in that space is the brilliant quality of its tech. I don't think if you took 15 guys from MIT, they'd have much trouble designing something roughly equivalent or better.

They're different elements. Like if your site completely sucks, if your code sucks, if your engineering guys suck, obviously people aren't going to use that product. But also like the Rumble YouTube debate, you could go either way. The reality is that they're what? How many millions of people are there on YouTube right now posting video content, using it? I don't know. Billions of hours a day or something. I don't know what it is. It's like a billion one. I don't know

if that's users or videos. Per month, a billion users per month. Billion users. Yeah, a billion one per month. That's why YouTube has that. It's got to be more than a billion because if CNN is getting 100 and Fox is getting 200 and then you've got big youtubers it's got to be in the tens of billions per month maybe views you know there's probably unique

users uploads yeah there's so many unique users versus views or something but a lot of this is we're discussing a lot of technical detail intelligently but at some level like i mean the point that youtube is viewed as better than rumble because there are a billion people using it you know quantity has a quality all its own. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The real one root question here that we're chopping around is, should a company that has a billion users that has allowed you, quote unquote, to get to four million users be able to terminate your account at will?

I think no, but I also think that's probably going to require some new legislation. So that actually, by the way, for like the center right or the tax sector or whatever you want to call it, that is a legitimate goal. Not congressmen sitting around mumbling in their ancient way trying to describe the Internet. But will you add some basic clause to the law strengthening the rules against adhesion contracts or going back perhaps to more traditional monopoly law. And again, we're kind of fantasizing here, but I don't see any reason that wouldn't happen. You know, except willpower from the Republicans is lacking and Democrats have the ideological advantage. I'm also concerned about the market itself. Like you said, they have a billion users or something.

Like, how do you how do you break that up? That's that's exactly you. You can't. You got to give the code away. It's the only that doesn't make any sense. Then you can. You've got to give the code away. It's the only way. That doesn't make any sense. Well, then I can build a YouTube that interrovers. So those billion can see my content.

Then why don't you use Rumble? I don't know. I don't need it. Why not? Because I have YouTube in mind. Because YouTube gets you more views. Definitely. And I can make money.

This is kind of the Ouroboros here. I mean, it's obviously. The tech is great. But there's a reason people use Twitter instead of Parler. That's probably the weakest of the examples. there's a reason people use Twitter instead of Parler. Then that's probably the weakest of the examples. There's a reason people use YouTube instead of Rumble. And when people started using Parler, they shut Parler down. Parler was facing critical mass.

It was exploding in users. Parler was the number six app across both app stores. Parler was actually outperforming either Twitter or Facebook. I forget which immediately, like the day before it was shut down. And we've seen this, by the way, this is an important point I do want to make here. We've seen the steel fist come out of the velvet glove a few times recently. Like large competitive countries do have a ruling class that knows it's a ruling class, however many conspiracies are real and all this sort of thing.

So I mean, like, for example, with the Robin Hood stuff, where people started playing the short sellers in the stock market, which I was a part of. I think many people were. But they shut it down. Yeah, they immediately shut it down. They came up with some BS reason, like, we're running out of money here, boys, and immediately halted trading on the stocks that were being affected in a way that was hurting powerful rich people. You can call that a coincidence, but you have to combine that with the same coincidence where Parler beats FB one day and the next day it's like, well, that's how the capital riot was coordinated. It wasn't Facebook, which is used by far more older demographic individuals. We need to get these boys out of here. And so Parler shuts down.

I think Parler's back now, but their moment was broken. Let's take Super Chats and see what the Super Chats have to say. If you haven't already, give that like button a little tad. Become a member at TimCast.com. We don't do bonus segments on Fridays, but we do have a vlog coming up tomorrow. And we made Lutherburgers. And I...

You know the Lutherburger? No. You weren't here for that. Oh, that's right. Andreas, it's a double bacon cheeseburger with two glazed donuts instead of buns. Whoa. He put mustard on it and we were like, ew. That's the thing that took it over the line. I'm tuning in to that. The mustard.

I'm not a fan. Yeah, but I had a small one with no sauce. It was just the cheeseburger, no bacon, and just the donut. We did one donut. It's good. Yeah, I imagine they are good. I mean, come on. So that's the vlog tomorrow. It'll be up at like 9 the cheeseburger. No bacon. And just the donut. We did one donut. It's good. Yeah. I imagine they are good. Come on.

So that's the vlog tomorrow. It'll be up at like 9 a.m. or whatever. YouTube.com slash Cast Castle. Let's take these super chats. Anime Audio Commentary says, did you guys hear about what Chris Chan did? I heard the leaked audio and it left me speechless. No. I have no idea what this meme is supposed to be.

But isn't Chris Chan that like skateboarder who's really good? I don't know. He's got a YouTube video. I don't know. I don't think about it. What are they talking about? Never heard of the guy sorry all right but there's like a meme or something about what he do and everyone's like oh i'm so shocked but there's like nothing really happening questionable content says ian chiropractors are a scam it is illegal to call yourself a doctor in europe if you are just a chiropractor without any additional medical

medical degree yeah when you get your your butt your cracked, it's up to you to continue to hold your new posture. They're not going to fix you, and then you go home and go back to your old lazy posture. You need to change your own posture. So you end up doing 99% of the work. The other thing with chiropractic, I mean, like I've gone to a chiropractor. They are great with the human back.

I mean, it's a very advanced level of sort of muscular. I don't know. It felt like a very intense massage is a good way to remove some of that technical jargon. But they definitely know their way around the spine. My understanding is the problem with chiropractic is that they claim that working on the spine can cure almost everything. If you read the original manuals for the field, it's sort of like, this is how to relax depression via spine pressure. So you get into that same weird, maybe medical zone that you do with acupuncture,

I think. Yes. Skeleton King 322 says, and this is interesting. That fit right in there. Yeah. I can't share this podcast on Facebook at all. Excuse me.

Maybe the title or work here is done. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe, maybe, uh, put it on parlor. Just one.

Well, no, maybe it's just you, Skeleton King. Maybe everybody should try sharing this podcast on Facebook right now to see if Skeleton King is incorrect. So who knows? I mean, you'll have to take the URL and then paste it onto Facebook and press enter. That's right. Who knows? Oh, yeah.

Who knows? I strongly encourage people to share this as widely as possible. If you want to tag me on it on Twitter, I'm at underscore da underscore B-E-A-S-T 6-3-0. So let's see if it works. Right on. Pierce Worsig says, hey, Tim, update from my grocery store. All employees are required to wear masks starting Monday. School just mandated student wear masks even after requiring vaccination. Yeah, the New York Times had an article saying that I think it's,

what was it, Broadway is going to require vaccines and masks. Did you say at the beginning of the show that these articles are saying that people with the vaccine are not less contagious? The New York Times said vaccinated people have the same likeliness to spread covid as people who are unvaccinated however however they the context they left out is making everyone angry is that they're less likely to catch covid meaning they're less likely to show symptoms they're 94 less likely to get covid that's i mean that that's a good summary but that's the issue

like 89 to 94 except that the problem with that data is in massachusetts there was an outbreak where 75 of those who got sick were vaccinated. And the vaccination rate in Massachusetts is 63.9, meaning it was disproportionately those who were vaccinated who got sick. I don't have explanations for this, nor am I asserting anything other than we need to figure out why that happened. So, look, the New York Times said you are less likely to get it. But if you do, you are equally likely to spread it. The one thing I would say here is, and I am also not asserting or making any medical claims, but the one thing that I would say here is most of the research on the vaccine, that's a fascinating story.

I don't know if that's an outlier situation. You would find outliers in any pool of 200 million. I do think that's important to note. But all of the stuff, cdc israeli at set research on the vaccine kind of puts the efficacy at between 89 and 94 percent that i have personally read um it may be a little less for delta say you know one in ten but to have a breakthrough infection that's transmissible you do need to have a breakthrough infection so a lot of this just seems like panicking once again. Like we've got seniors reasonably well protected.

The average COVID victim in the USA was 81, as I recall. They want lockdowns. That's correct. I don't know if there's a unified they there, but it's easy just if you're in a position of political leadership and you're a bit weak minded, it's easy to just say not one life. We're going with the most extreme thing we tried before. Here it goes again, in my opinion. So the question, last one sentence question here, but the question is, okay, you've been vaccinated, say you're 85% less likely to get COVID, which puts your risk of getting and transmitting fatal COVID about on par with the flu. The only people you could give this

to at the normal pre-existing risk would be unvaccinated people, mostly younger, who've chosen not to get the shot for personal health reasons. So I don't see any moral liability here. I don't think it's the vaccinated that are filling up the hospitals to the extent anyone is. I haven't seen any data showing that hospitals are overloaded for quite a while on this. It seems like the same arguments keep coming up, like just, you know, 15 months to flatten the curve kind of stuff. All right. Zenobia says, Tim, even though civics can't be charged using the UCMJ, they're already calling the others extremists once done.

Well, I will never forget when Obama had a U.S. citizen executed by drone. Zenobia, what do you mean a U.S. citizen? Wasn't it four? I can at least cite Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, and I'm pretty sure there were a couple others, but I could be wrong. All right. Jared the Lifeguard says, listening to the podcast while digging up my potato plants by hand, barefoot

in the garden, it feels great to get filthy and intimate with Mother Nature. So we had, so our garden is basically, we're done with it. We're just waiting now on the sunflower seeds, but everything else basically has been harvested and we're over it. But the chickens went in because we have one long, I guess we call it like planter, I guess you call it. And we had the jalapenos have been picked.

The plants are all done. The chilies are gone. We had basil bushes, though, which are amazing. Like each and every one of those leaves is basil. Amazing. The chickens, they found it. And they started uprooting the plants and like, you know, doing the dirt baths. So we had to, we took the basil out, we, we, we potted it and moved it and then we planted

some more tomatoes. And now we're going to do like a separate, smaller individual potted garden. And then we're going to, we're actually cementing over and we're going to move the garden over. But yeah, it's good fun. The chickens have decided they're going to destroy everything. As they do. And they yell while they're doing it all right arc arch smith says republics function as the battle between oligarchs less the roman republic more the renaissance republics of italy shout out to ian read up on the medici and others like him the medici there you go

maris mcmullen says i'm a woodturner and make cremation urns. I've found less than five companies that do the same in the US. It hurts me that so many are willing to buy such a sentimental item made with slave labor instead of American hands. Yeah. What does America even make anymore?

We've offshored everything. You know, even our cremation urns. We still make weapons, Haas. That's true. Yeah, it's true. We're good urns. We still make weapons, Haas. That's true. Yeah, it's true. We're good at that. Matthew Houck says, Australia lost a war with birds. Expectation they could even remotely fight their nearly disarmed masses is laughable.

When are you going to have Thomas Sowell on? I would love to. Yeah, whenever he wants. I would love to. Yeah. Larry Elder, too. That'd be fantastic. All right. Let's see.

2020 Madness says, I'm currently moving to West Virginia. I just decided to get in my car and head that way. No real plan. If y'all know anybody looking for a welder, please shout them out. I own my own machine. Cool. West Virginia is fantastic. I love the wine berries, man. We had wine berry season. They're gone now. They're all withered.

But man, for that month or two where there was just red berries everywhere and we just took them all and it was great. We made ice cream and cake with it. That's awesome. You walk in the backyard and there's just hundreds. Pawpaw is coming up, though. We're going to make some pawpaw cake.

I'm excited for that. Hillbilly banana. West Virginia, man. That's what I'm talking about. All right, let's see. Jonathan Duger says, of the 98 million monthly views that CNN got, how many of them are people dumping all over them? Like 80%. It's like 80%.

Do they measure it where like at 7 o'clock they measure 700,000 views and at 8 o'clock they measure 800,000 views? But it's 700 of the same people? Yeah. And then they'll be like, there was 15,000 views. But it was like, dude, just because you divided the show into two one-hour segments doesn't mean that those 800,000 people watched it twice. Well, it depends on for the advertisers. So it would count as two. That's a weird way to count metrics.

This is the same thing with tech brands using page views, right, which is why you scroll through these 15- and 20-page lists of celebrities. Like, if you're even mildly unscrupulous with views, like every one of those is a person clicking on a unique page of your site. I mean, so that's, does that mean you have 15 unique observers of that poll? No. Yeah. So, uh, if I can mention that live viewership on this show is not displayed on YouTube, but they only display what's called VOD viewership. And so our live viewership tends to be a couple hundred thousand views every night. It was a lot higher during election season. Views are way down for everybody, not just CNN. I mean, it's down for us too, but we're doing all right. And that's not displayed. If I wanted to play, you know, number games, my show, both my shows

across the board, it's easily like 2 million views per day. And then I can look at CNN and be like, what is Don Lemon getting, 170? I mean, in reality, he's really getting that low. Now, it's hard to actually do a cross between like, okay, so I put up how many videos per day? It's kind of a lot. We have like five, four segments on TimCast IRL from the previous show, plus the show. Then we've got three from TimCast, plus we've got the TimCast.com stuff. They're different people, but not all people watch every single part of it. But I will say, yeah, we are crushing CNN in terms of that kind of viewership. And another thing about CNN is when you look at their videos on YouTube, it's all thumbs down. People are forced to watch it and they hate it.

All right, let's see. Ask Dummy says, one last try. Internet attention addiction for all it good, now main threat. COVID lockdowns, riots, cancel culture, sedentary life are consequences of this consciousness redefining drug. Web, please have Nicholas Carr to talk neuroscience of internet addiction. That would be interesting, yes. That's awesome.

Thomas Williams says, I'm a rural American 50-50 city now. Bet 50 bucks you don't care about what us norms think. I'll come on your show. I'm a rural American 50-50 city now. Bet 50 bucks you don't care about what us norms think. I'll come on your show. I'm no one. I'm just some guy who is pissed off that I care about politics now. We're trying to figure out how to do a show like that. The challenge is legal liability for bringing out lots of people to a non-public space. This is what we run into.

We're trying to do events. We're trying to do public events. But there's questions about inviting large groups of people on ticket sales to a private residence like we gotta figure it out we gotta figure it out i think we're gonna figure it out and i think we're we're getting really close to actually having the events and i apologize to everybody who's been waiting but it's like we're just we hit we hit roadblocks you can't just do things the government regulates you know what i mean all right steve and marinaegrosa says, New York are stuck here in communist Australia. The problem is less the government

and more the sad Aussie citizens calling the police on their neighbors. I can't wait to come home and move to Houston, Texas. It's a good place, man. It's a good place. All right. Let's see what we got. MRM says,

Tim heard from family friends that my Catholic church diocese is requiring priests to get the jab and if they don't comply they are to retire wow leave it to uh leave it to then oh leave it to ethan haha anyone else get called an idiot by multiple doctors and nurses for wearing a mask in january march just to watch them all change and mask up hashtag trust that is a very difficult situation man all right let's see do do do um what do we got here oh gotta be careful there's a lot of super chats where people are getting kind of angry so i'm gonna be careful so i'm gonna keep i'm gonna keep reading

oh i definitely have to read this. The Laughing Man says, I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf mutes. Anybody get that reference? No. You don't know The Laughing Man? No. And you teach cybersecurity? I mean.

You've got to watch Ghost in the Shell Standalone Complex. I'll check it out. It's great. The Laughing Man was a hacker who, in Ghost in the Shell, people have cyberized brains, like nanites. And he actually could hack people's eyes, their brains, in real time. So they only saw this icon of this very rudimentary baseball hat. And there were words from Catcher in the Rye. I thought what I would do, I would pretend I was one of those death mutes rotating around it.

Yeah, super cool. We're more focused on the reality, but the movie sounds cool. I'll check it out. It's a TV show. There's a movie, and then they made an anime series, but it's really cool. Alright, let's see. Trek God says, regarding 230, how about this? If a private company gets special

public protections rights, then said company should be held to public, not private standards. Like government cannot curtail free speech as a public standard. I mean, that's interesting. They're getting special legal protections from the government, then they should also have in turn special legal guarantees to the public. It's a fine line of when the government takes over and starts to control that business. That's very dangerous, too. I agree with that. But I will say there's actually a very specific point here that I'm sure both of you guys have seen in online debates, which is the publisher platform debate, which is becoming more sophisticated. So, I mean, generally, the idea is you can't regulate a platform. You can't punish the phone company because people discuss drugs on T-Mobile's lines or something like that. But if you're a publisher, if you remove or edit more than X percent of the content posted

to your site, you can be regulated pretty intensely. And I mean, any of those provisions focusing on adhesion and so on would become more potent. So I mean, I think at the most basic one sentence level, it's pretty obvious to say Facebook is a publisher. Yeah. When they do like site-wide notifications or when they say this is fake news, when they put like qualifications on content, that's Facebook editorializing. Good point.

And even before the CDC thing, which is wild, one of the entities that was flagged as being very unreliable on COVID was the official Science Academy of Sweden. Because Sweden never shut down and did better than many, if not most, other major countries. They did. How dare they? But I mean, I think that they did the things that you would really want to focus on.

I mean, attempting to protect seniors, avoiding large events. I mean, they're very specific. It's like open now. There's like videos coming out. People are just walking around. Mine didn't. It's fine. And they never, I mean, they had a lower death per capita rate than we did. It was just

always the elephant in the room that was just universally ignored, but part of that was Facebook not letting their scientific agencies communicate information on the platform. All right. Xander Klein says, the fact you used a pizza restaurant instead of a sandwich shop for Dave Rubin,

for shame. More puns. That's a really good idea. Dave, let's open a restaurant called Rubin's Rubin's. Yes. I love Rubin's. Oh, yeah. Yeah, they're good. Good Rubin. Rubin's Rubin's.

Dave, what are you doing? All right. All right. Enough jokes. All right. Let's see. We got Phobes or Phobos says competition and decentralization is the answer to big tech censorship. Increased state involvement will not turn out the way people think it will. But the problem I see with a lot of libertarians

is they don't understand negative rights versus positive rights. We're not saying the government has to go in and enforce that a company does something. We're saying a company can't do a thing. So maybe that's not a good enough distinction in that, I suppose, because then you're arguing they do have to allow certain content to exist, which is still them doing something, I guess. Now, I don't know. Look, I think you look at what happens with privately owned public spaces. They say it's owned by a private business, but they gain some tax benefit. So there's like instances where they say, if you want to have this building, you have to dedicate X amount of space to the public.

So it'll be privately owned, but the public gets to use it because they let the public use it. They now have one that they have to guarantee First Amendment. So I don't see why there's any difference with social media. All right, what's this? Cole Will says News Voice got nuked this week.

I don't know what that is. There's no news on it. Ironically, who is lookup states the domain status is prohibited from transferring to another registrar. Keep up the good work. I'm not familiar with Newsvoice. All right.

We're going to get the big jump in super chats. Zenobia X says, second super chat for the day. Ian, check out the YouTube channel Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur. He goes over stuff like space colonization using current tech and graphene, etc. P.S. I got chickens because of you, Tim. LOL. Chickens are amazing. In the new vlog, it's like we put a camera on the ground and the chickens walk up to investigate it.

Oh, I love them. And it's really funny because it's like making weird noises. Yeah, it's great. Chickens are hilarious. Thanks for sending me that. Science of futurism. Thank you. All right, let's see.

Lord Hypno says, Tim, you mentioned both your brother and Rusty Cage in yesterday's podcast and Monkey Jones tonight. You should just go ahead and shout out the Trash Rats podcast. They do all three together. Shout out to the Trash Rats podcast. I've not actually listened to it, but obviously I know who these gentlemen are, as they are prolific individuals. They're of great production and edginess. All right, let's see. Wait, what is this? This Wheel Fish says, you can share the link, but it does not go to the top of the news feed.

It's more than 20 posts down, but it's the top of my profile page. Interesting. Well, we have to have this experiment. Everybody just share the link to the show to see if what this Wheel Fish is saying is true. That's a good experiment. Oh, man. Alright, let's see. Skelly Skellywag Swagger says,

Ian doesn't seem to understand how open source code works. Linux, for example, only ever worked because the original source was well documented. Big tech isn't going to document if forced to go open. Well, then that's a federal offense. You're saying that they were forced to hire people to archive and document? Yeah, if they released code but they obfuscated the release, that would...

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that they were documenting Linux. You're saying that Facebook would be forced to hire an archivist to like... Yeah, welcome to the 21st century. We need to understand that code inside and out. You were saying you don't want the government to get involved and now you're saying you're forcing companies... Well, I want them to break up monopolies. That's what I like to use the government for.

That's my biggest. Whoa. Okay. That's actually what we were all kind of arguing about earlier. Yeah, just how to do it. Iceman says, have you thought about inviting Aaron Lewis on the show? I mean, Aaron Lewis? Rock star?

Celebrity? Of course I'd love to have someone like Aaron Lewis on the show. We've never thought about it because I don't know. Maybe we should try and reach out to some of these people. There have been some famous musicians that we've been in communication with, but I'd love to have Aaron Lewis on the show. That'd be fantastic. Lost Cause says, Tim, a local place does a

grilled cheeseburger where the top and bottom bun is a grilled cheeseburger. We gotta do that. Dude, we're legit doing that tomorrow. Two grilled cheeses with cheeseburger in the middle. So good, but not healthy, but good. No, no, no. Not only are we going to do a grilled cheese cheeseburger,

but you know what the biggest mistake people make when they make grilled cheese? They take the bread, they put the cheese in the middle, they butter both sides, and they grill on both sides. No, no, no, no, no. You butter the bread, grill it, then you take it off and put the cheese on the grilled side, then close it, then butter, grill both You butter the bread, grill it, then you take it off and put the cheese on the grilled side, then close it, then butter. Grill both sides of the bread. Oh, hotness.

Oh, snap. Dude, I think we will do that tomorrow. That sounds amazing. We'll have to go to the store and buy some stuff. Have fun with that. Sounds healthy. That'll be very, very funny. All right, we'll just do a couple more here.

Xrunner55 says, one of your best guests. This engineer worked with plenty of political scientists in government and not of this caliber he knows his stuff this has been really great actually I hope you come back this is really fun you got the knowledge man this is sort of my short form

visit here actually today I'd be down to come back I know how to make a grilled cheese I'm a pretty cool guy. Yeah, all right. Ryan Schroeder says, I own a Papa John's in East Aurora, Illinois. What a special week to have both Mr. Riley and Mr. Schnatter on the show.

Thanks, TimCast crew, for all you do. Next time you are in town, Mr. Riley, pizza on me. Ooh, nice. Papa John's. E-E-E-A. That's cool. Next time I'm back, I'll definitely check out some of the local cuisine. Papa John's in East Aurora, man.

Yeah. Gotta be an interesting job running a pizza place in East Aurora, unless the place is dramatically gentrified. Yeah. Christopher Knoll says, Ian, tech and culture are downstream from environment and perception. Also, Will's unintentional Mike Wire mustache was the best drinking game. Thanks. Oh, really?

Well, because the wire right there, I guess people can see the camera. Oh, yeah. It looks like a mustache. I don't know what that means. Like, when do you drink? Probably when I have a mustache. It's like the ironic hipster mustache that has a tattoo on their thumbs. Love it.

All right. Joe Darman says, Tim, you need to watch Babylon 5. If you liked DS9, you would love it. Ian is like Gakar if Gakar did a ton of drugs. Nice. It has some eerie parallels okay i love that character all right all right let's just grab uh we'll just grab uh one more larry funk says they lied about dave for the sake of making themselves look like the good guys

which is of value to them they gained that value at his expense but But I think the problem is it's getting to the point where the narrative is destabilizing. How do they keep maintaining this lie that people broke the rules when you have someone like Dave Rubin, nearly a million followers. He's a prominent guy. They're flying too close to the sun, and I think the narrative

is crumbling. But my friends, thank you all so much for hanging out on this wonderful Friday night. Check out that vlog tomorrow at youtube.com slash castcastle. And you can follow this show at TimCastIRL on Facebook and Instagram and at TimCast underscore IRL if you're on TikTok for some reason. We're there too.

And you can follow me personally at TimCast. Go to TimCast.com, become a member. Don't forget, we have tons of articles that go up all the time. And your membership supports those articles, gets you ad-free, and our whole library of members-only podcasts. My friends, you can go to the site now. You can search, type in a name, and see the episodes we had with these individuals. So it's very easy to navigate now, and you can see the whole library of content if you're a member.

Do you want to shout anything out, Wilfred? Shout out to Kentucky State University. Shout out to those listening to me. If any of you want to hear any more of my drivel going forward, I'm just Wilfred Riley. W-I-L-F-R-E-D-R-E-I-L-L-Y.

Check me out. You'll find my Facebook, Twitter, websites with my content, etc. And shout out to you guys for having me on the show. Enjoyed it. Absolutely, dude. Thanks for coming. That was really great, man.

You guys can follow me at iancrossland.net and at Ian Crossland. If you wonder what this shirt is that I'm wearing, check it out. Oh, yeah. Whoa. This is a Xertus. That's Andreas. He's actually in the vlog. You know Andreas.

He eats the Luther Burger. Yeah, he's the wild one. And you can pick this shirt up. Unfortunately, I didn't ask him where beforehand. Do you know where he's selling these shirts? I'll let you know next week and you can pick one up of your own. It's a cool shirt though. At Exertus. Very exciting. You guys

are more than welcome to follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Kids as I attempt to gain more followers in Sour Patch Kids. It's a lofty goal, but I think I can make it because I'm introducing my little cat tomorrow. I'm adopting him officially tomorrow. His name is Dip. I'm buying the dip I'm introducing my little cat tomorrow. I'm adopting him officially tomorrow. His name is Dip. I'm buying the Dip.

He's a little crackhead. Super excited. He's going to be great. I'm stoked. So join me over on Twitter. We will see you all tomorrow at 9 a.m. at youtube.com slash castcastle. Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you next time. Bye, guys.