Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #516 - Elon Musk BOUGHT Twitter, Deal Is Done And The Left Is OUTRAGED w/Ron Bassilian

Episode Date: April 26, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia join author and former congressional candidate Ron Bassilian to discuss Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, the Twitter employees losing their minds over the acquisition, Robert Reich's contrary terms now that Elon Musk could gain control of the free speech platform, Google's new 'inclusive' language corrections for writers, and companies facing a wave of requests for nuclear bunkers following news of nuclear war with Russia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk has bought Twitter. It's not completely done yet because there's still got to be reviews. There's legal issues. The shareholders, I believe, have to vote. But in all likelihood, it's a done deal. And we'll see if Elon Musk is actually going to be the hero in this one. We don't know. Maybe he won't change the rules right away. We will see how it will play out. Most people are saying this is great news. Everyone's cheering like, oh, Alex Jones and Trump are going to come back. Well, we'll see. We'll see.

Elon Musk has said that he wants free speech. We'll see where his line is in free speech because it's going to be an interesting discussion. I don't even know that Elon Musk will be able to tolerate some of the things that are free speech when it comes to what's going on with Twitter. So we will talk about that. Mostly that there's a lot of other news. Trump is being held in contempt, being fined $10,000 a day in a civil court. We've got, what else we got?

Google is going to be doing weird woke suggestions. It's like an autocorrect thing. So all of this is mostly floating around what's happening with Elon Musk. And we've really got to talk about the ramifications here, the deal itself. Twitter employees are reacting. They are are imploding they are freaking out blue check marks are saying the same thing conservatives said three years ago and without a shred of irony or humility this would be a lot of fun joining us today to talk about all of this is ron basilian ron how's it going hi tim pleasure to be here hey so do you want to introduce yourself? Ooh, wow. I have a bit of a resume.

We met back in 2018 at Politicon when I was running for Congress in California's 37th. I've been involved in Republican politics in the LA GOP, California GOP. Overall major political presence on Twitter, Ron for for california that's what the number four uh involved in city politics over in culver city a big shout out to all my friends over there and if you want to learn about local politics hit me up i think people need to get more involved in their local communities whether it's in school board races, local races and as I said

I also wrote a graphic novel Inferno Los Angeles like 10 years ago so I'm seeing how new media is really able to take over like legacy media networks. Right on. We got Seamus hanging on. I'm Seamus from Freedom Tunes.

Y'all want to check out the cartoons I make? Go YouTube Freedom Tunes. I think you guys will enjoy it. Coming out with another cartoon this week. I just rolled the 100-sided die. I'm going to let you know. Oh, it landed on a 76. 1776.

Here it comes again. Hold on. Marjorie Taylor Greene got in trouble for that. Sorry, Marjorie. The freedom of the American spirit is a beautiful thing, so let's keep it going tonight. Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene got in trouble for that, buddy. I don't know if you know. Sorry, Marjorie. White nationalist. The freedom of the American spirit is a beautiful thing, so let's keep it going tonight. Definitely.

It's so funny to me that 1776 now means some form of rebellion, although I guess initially it did against the British, so I guess that's a good thing. We've come full circle. Yes, I'm excited for tonight. It's going to be a great conversation. I'm very excited that Elon Musk got Twitter. Don't forget to head over to TimCast.com, where our newsroom was diligently working today when I was recording my main segment.

I'm like, at any moment, they're going to announce Elon bought Twitter. And so my newsroom is sending all these sources, and I'm pulling them into my segment in real time. Shout out, guys. They are employed, thanks to all of you as members. If you like the work we are doing, become a member. But I also have news. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are upset that the mainstream media has been lying, if you are upset that Washington Post doxed libs of TikTok and then lied about it, well, I don't know what to tell you other than I got a billboard

in Times Square. And unless they reject it, it should be up tomorrow at 9 a.m. With your support as members, we're able to do things like that. It basically calls at The Washington Post saying democracy dies in darkness. That's why we're calling you out. Taylor Lorenz doxed Libs of TikTok. A simple message. And I wanted to do it. I tweeted about it. Everyone said do it.

The guys of The Daily Wire helped put it together. Jeremy Boring, co-CEO, said I got half on it. And I said, let's do it. Because these journalists have the nerve to go on CNN and MSNBC or wherever, say all of these things, and just try to gaslight us. Okay, well, you know what? We'll put up something in Times Square. It's not like we're sending the message literally everywhere, but that's a big statement. So that's what we're going to be doing.

I'll put it this way. With your support as members, we're going to be doing. I'll put it this way. With your support as members, we're going to push back. We are going to engage in culture, change culture, and call people out using these institutions and these machines. I want to be like Elon Musk. I want to do what he does when he buys Twitter to challenge the machine, but I'm not a billionaire. So here's what we can do. We got a billboard in Times Square. Hopefully, it doesn't get rejected. It might. We'll see what happens. But thanks for being members and making all of that possible. We're going to keep fighting. As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.

Maybe we'll talk a bit more about the billboard thing and people can have some questions. That being said, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. And ladies and gentlemen, here we are from TimCast.com. Elon Musk successfully buys Twitter. Twitter's board reached a deal in the billion-dollar bid to sell to Tesla's CEO and take the company private. Do you know what happens on Thursday, guys? You tell me.

Freedom Tunes uploads a new cartoon. Twitter's earnings report. Oh. Well, that too. And what do you think that earnings report would show? Something good or something bad? Bad. Something bad.

Because Twitter's been struggling for some time. You look at any news story of the past several months, and they say Twitter is lagging, not reaching its goals. Which means, I'm willing to bet, Elon Musk played some 4D chess. He knew the earnings report was coming up, and he knew he had to act now. He offered $54.20 per share. If on Thursday news comes out that the earnings were not good, the stock would likely fall. The board knows this. They know what their earnings are. If they rejected a $54.20 offer, knowing that their stock would be worth half that by Thursday, they would be liable for damages for not adhering to their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. And that

could be what, $20 billion. If the earnings report came out and the stock dropped to 40 or 30 bucks, the board's like, nah, I don't want to be responsible for that money. I don't want to be sued for that. Just give them the deal. Done. We'll see what the investors say. We'll see what this means. But I think Elon Musk, he cornered them masterfully. Their main source of their earnings, as far as I can tell, is ad revenue. It's a very risky proposition for a company to roll that die because if the advertisers get disenfranchised or disgruntled, they'll pull their money, which means that Twitter is basically an advertising firm. No, I call shenanigans.

Shenanigans! Twitter banned ads that deny their opinions on climate change. So if Twitter is holding up their duty to their shareholders, they wouldn't say no to advertisements on political grounds. Twitter outright said, we don't want your money if you disagree on climate science. Interesting. You think they would try to make the argument that taking money from those groups would limit their ability to make a

profit in the future because they could damage their reputation? I don't think that's going to work in court. I don't think it's just that. I think that they killed virality. They made the site boring because the board of directors represents other companies which feels like twitter is worth more to them dead than alive and so what you've got is a twitter that's dead under their reign elon's like this company is worth a lot to me

alive it's worth a lot to me if i can bring back the excitement of viral content that comes from Twitter when it was a free marketplace of ideas. And my only regret about all of this is that I don't get to take that ride with Elon Musk anymore because shareholders were all going to get bought out and he's taking it private. Yes, full disclosure. I have 22 shares through my brokerage app. When Elon Musk announced he bought it, I was like, all right, I'll open up my account. I had $1,000, and I clicked buy.

And I think I'll end up making like $100. Not bad. Yeah, not bad. Thanks, Elon. I will buy a delicious umami burger. So what you're saying is that this show is funded by Elon Musk. This is propaganda. You've just acknowledged it.

We've lost all credibility. It costs $100 per 10 years, per decade to run this. That's all it is. And that $100 funds everything. No, I think Twitter is not upholding its fiduciary duty. They banned political ads. Why? They banned anti-climate change ads.

Why? I get it. You might disagree with it. But why would a for-profit company say we don't want money from legitimate advertisers? Yeah. Cause there's their play in politics. They were using their ads as a political statement. Probably this, this one just happened to, and I was kind of like, do I need to sue over this? Cause I got to tell you, man, that one, like when they announced that they were banning political ads, I'm like, okay, there's a potential argument here.

They could say in order to maintain the health of the platform, and I don't mean their kind of health. I mean people using the platform. We don't want to be dominated by just big spatterings of political ads. The money would actually cause more damage. The ads would. The climate change thing makes no sense. Conservatives would love it. Yeah.

And the left would hate it. No, I hear you on that. I'm just curious if it's an argument that they would make if they would say something like if people see advertisements from these groups we're going to lose our credibility as a website and i get that but but a judge is going to be like except 80 plus million people in this country yeah agree with those ads or people are swayed by those it's not an argument like you could you could imagine them arguing oh man you know millennials don't like drinking soda. You know this, this is actually true. Millennials don't drink soda. So those Coca-Cola ads are really bad for our credibility. I mean, sure, but I'm not going to blame, you know, downtown Chicago for the ad that gets put up on the billboard off the

highway. That's ridiculous. I feel like this, uh, there's still like a, it's a 12 year old business model. They're still running off of advertising, which is like very 2010. They have an opportunity to spin up a utility token to streamline F activity on the website where you could spend one Twitter token to get 1,000 views on Twitter like Mines does. That's another revenue model. You could have direct-to-subscriber payments, which like your subscribers could pay you directly as a user of Twitter. Twitter could take like 1%, and then that could be you directly as a user of Twitter.

Twitter could take like 1%, and then that could be a new revenue model for the site. Dogecoin tips. Dogecoin. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, now that Musk is involved. I'll ask you guys, would you be willing to pay for Twitter? I do. I'm curious about this. You do.

Yeah, so you wouldn't. What about you? I'm not, but who knows? I think Elon Musk is going to be very imaginative about offering premium features that I would actually want I think a big issue for conservatives or just people who are not you know speaking the company line on Twitter is like why would I bother spending any money when it's obvious that this site does what they can to throttle what I say on here and I think it's a common perception of Twitter and And, you know,

I think if nothing else, Elon Musk is going to at least make it transparent and have some consistent policies and say, you know, you're getting throttled because of this algorithm, or you got banned because of this policy. And we're like, okay, that's fair, you know, and maybe even provide ways to remedy that to be so people can get reinstated. But, you know, and maybe even provide ways to remedy that to be so people can get reinstated. But, you know, it's like we've seen so many people who acted in good faith and had good arguments and were like really good viral accounts that got banned because some passive aggressive nitwit behind the scenes just decided, I don't like this guy. I'm banning them. Alex Jones. That's obvious. Project Veritas and James O'Keefe, very obvious.

Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad, also obvious. I miss him every day on Twitter. And then you've got the, of course, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer. Who else? The President of the United States. Donald Trump. I mean, the Trump one is a special

class of itself. I was just trying to name people. Like, who are the—obviously, Trump. Libs of—oh, not Libs. Babylon Bee, I think. Oh, yeah. Babylon Bee also got banned. That supposedly is the reason you decided to buy Twitter.

I don't agree, but that was like the straw that broke the camel's back. Be the change you want to see in the world. Carpe Donctum. Carpe Donctum was, for those that aren't familiar, a meme smith who just made memes and was banned for literally no reason. None. And, you know, then you have all the people that were posting, like, interesting vaccine facts, you know, and that just went against the company line. They did their research and everything. And it was like, you're banned because we believe the vaccine is safe for most people.

Even the disclaimer was like safe for most people. What does that mean? Unsafe for a lot of people. That's a really good way to lawyer the answer. You can't say it wasn't even about that. I mean, anything that could come from a doctor, if the doctor disagreed with some doctor, Twitter chooses like we can't live this way. We can't live in a world where big tech is like, here's the approved doctors and their opinions. I can understand the idea of consensus in that there are a lot of people and the majority of research looks in this direction, but it's just an insane way to live where we say we will actually ban dissenting opinion. That's the opposite of science. So my point ultimately here, when it comes to Trump, when it comes to Alex Jones, when it comes to Milo Yiannopoulos, when it comes to Laura Loomer, these people did nothing illegal. They were banned because they did things that Twitter did not like.

If Elon is to restore free speech, all of these people get reinstated. Well, this is a long conversation. I don't think that having one authoritarian give the company to another authoritarian to make the decision necessarily means free speech. Because if we're relying on Elon's good faith to unban people and then he still retains the right to ban anybody at any time, if he sells the company or something happens to him, someone else takes over, it's just exactly where it was. So it might look like free speech. But really, you need to get that, get rid of that

code. You need that code to be out there. He wants to open source the algorithm. Right. And that's the big issue to me. I don't think the unbanning is even going to be number one. It's going to be make the code transparent, hunt down all these bot farms. Cause I think that's the big thing. You know, you post anything. Yeah. I was talking about the torture of Joe Biggs in federal prison and you get people saying he deserves to be tortured because he's an insurrectionist. I'm like, who are you? Oh, bot A27Z5, you know, like get off of my timeline. What are you doing here?

You know, I developed a whole algorithm for it. Ronfor37.org slash NAAH. It's like, how can you tell if something is a bot? New, automated, anonymous, and hostile. That's the algorithm. And they all fit the mold. And Twitter is full of them. And that's what's making Twitter boring.

I'm not here to argue with bots. I want to argue with real people. I want to discuss with real people. That's what Elon wants to do. He wants to make it so that, and I think this was his proposal, $5 a month for Twitter Blue and you get verified. I want to discuss with real people. That's what Elon wants to do. He wants to make it so that and I think this was his proposal $5 a month for Twitter blue and you get verified. I agree with it. I have mixed feelings because that just

feels like a pay to play model that if the five bucks. Yeah, if the US government wants to find a thousand people that are going to toe the line and give them all five bucks a month to do it. It does. Those people aren't more valid than me who doesn't feel like paying the money. He says everybody human is going to have the chance to get verified but it's the humans that are getting paid by like a nefarious actor to be there that i wonder like how is that gonna

make them seem more valued because they spent five bucks the bots aren't a human you can have one human manning like a hundred different bot accounts and that's what's happening as my joke is like there's either a dnc or pentagon office somewhere where somebody's running all of these but then you're talking about having them verify their actual personality with like a social security number or an address which is extremely dangerous to centralize that data or an id yeah if you if you centralize that data on a on some database people from all around the world can seize it and sell it and to find out where you live and what what your credit card information is.

But that argument, you're arguing that every single website does that. I've been looking into what's called decentralized identity. There's ways for you to have an identity online that isn't necessarily part of the Sure, but let's keep the context to Twitter because what you're saying is just some idea of something that might happen. But Elon is doing nothing different from literally any other website. If you trade crypto, you've got to verify your identity to trade crypto. I worry about some of those websites, frankly.

That's because there's a financial incentive. Like with Mines, too, you can spend money with Mines Plus so that you're able to send the Mines tokens off the network onto your own personal wallet. So there's a financial value to spending money per month. But if it's just to show everyone that you're real, don't think you have to understand what your argument against elon musk is though it sounds like you're saying the internet itself has a problem not i'm saying pay to verify is not my is not a solution to verification i can't it doesn't vary but let's let's say he goes for the humans get verified model if you're if you're human you can choose verification that's originally twitter verification was to prove you weren't a robot because there were robot accounts.

And they were like, you can verify that. And if someone makes a parody account or whatever, you have your Ian Crossland. It's your image. You verified it. Yeah, it's to keep popular accounts from getting mimicked or fake accounts. No, no, no. The original purpose was just to prove you were a real person, to prove you were the person behind the account. It had nothing to do with stopping mimicry or imitation or anything like that.

Eventually, they said, we can't scale this up, so they gave up. They said, we're not going to verify people anymore. We're closing verification requests. It's only going to be for the celebrities we choose because we don't want to deal with it. This led to a huge backlash where people were like, verification's a badge of authenticity. Twitter, you get special features when you're verified that other people don't get.

Run for office, that'll get you verified. Or work for a major corporation, you can make that phone call. So one of the things he wants to do is, you can be verified. Good. And then I'll just be like, verified accounts only, please.

I'm not going to argue with an account with one follower that's like the 80th account some guy's running because he bought 10 phones to do it. Or a company or some like some – what was that? What was that Democrat company that did sock puppets? I'm not going to – we'll avoid naming them for legality reasons. But you've got political firms that will hire one guy to run 50 accounts and pretend to be 50 people to try and sway public opinion to harass you. Get rid of all of that.

That'll make the platform healthier. Absolutely. And you can tell who the bots are because they're all coming from the same IP address. This is what I said. Let's look at what the IP address of some of these bots are. I mean, we don't have to make it fully transparent, but Elon and the engineers at Twitter can take a look at that. It shouldn't be that hard to notice who the bots are that way.

There's two, I guess, ethos of running social media. There's real ID where they can track you down to the way you poop in the day. And then there's anonymous ID where they have no idea who you are. And they're both valuable. If you have a totalitarian regime and you're on Twitter, they're going to know exactly where you are and what you're saying. They'll find you and get you. But if you have anonymous accounts, you're able to have a revolution against a corrupted establishment. You don't have to be verified.

Yeah, I was going to say, isn't it possible to not be verified and remain anonymous? I'm not forcing you to verify. If I'm not verified, you're going to set yours so that you can only get responses from people that are. There's going to be people that aren't verified that don't want to play that game or spend that money. And then there's going to be like nobodies that are getting the government agencies paying their $5 a month that are going to seem like valid. That's the thing about politics. You find very quickly if you want to have an opinion, you got to step up and stand up for yourself. If I'm out in public and I see a bunch of people wearing masks all yelling things, I will hold their opinion to less value than someone standing up with identity revealed. I understand the value of anonymity for that reason, depending on the things people are talking about. I respect people's

right to it. But if I know who you are, I know what's behind you. I know what you stand for and why I have more reason to trust you. I'm a huge advocate of people making videos for that reason, because you cannot fake it. When you make a video, they see your face, they see your mouth, get out of the text in general. That's what I've been talking about. This is 2006. So I'm fully on board with getting behind your own words, but there are times and places where that's very dangerous. And I don't think those people should be shut out of the conversation. But also wait a couple of years on the video front, man, that stuff's getting easier and easier to fake i i agree ian but what you're saying is it's it's it's preference now if somebody wants to distribute an anonymous

pamphlet or something you can still do it the people who were sharing the founding father's ideas were doing it as themselves but the ideas behind it were under pen names or pseudonyms so no one knew who's actually writing it but people were sharing it they weren't posting it as like anime characters. I mean, look, I interact with plenty of anonymous accounts, you know, but they act in good faith. They make good arguments, you know, and so I listen to them. And that's been the interesting thing about Twitter is there is a sort of natural prestige system where people who make interesting insights, honest statements, you know, that are valuable, their engagement goes up, their followers go up, and you value their opinion more than some random who comes in and calls you a poopy.

Well, I'll ask a question. Should Titania McGrath be verified? Oh. If you don't know who that is, it's a fake person. Tatiana? Tatiana McGrath. So you would need a policy on that. Titania is the name of the fairy from the – what story was that from?

Midsummer Night's Dream. Midsummer Night's Dream. That's an interesting concept. I mean is – it would be a legit – but it would be a legitimate parody site and you want to like – It's not a site. Huh? It's not a website. So I'd say no. Well, no, but there could be imitators.

I don't know. It's just something to think about. I'm curious. Well, no, but there could be imitators. I don't know. It's just something to think about. I mean, do fictional characters ever get checkmarks on Twitter to verify that it's an official account? I guess Mickey Mouse or something. Interesting. Yeah, let me look into that. Disney trademark properties. Well, while you're looking that up, let's jump to this story.

We have this from the Post Millennial. Twitter employees go absolutely insane after Elon Musk buys the company. Quote, I feel like I'm going to throw up. I really don't want to work for a company that's owned by Elon Musk. Well, welcome to the real world. Bring in the bobs. Here's the craziest part. Take a look at this from Bloomberg.

Twitter locks down product changes after agreeing to Musk bid. The fear is that rogue employees will nuke the platform. So they had to lock everything down. That's how crazy things have gotten. Now, there's one funny tweet that I want to highlight. Sean Davis from, he's at The Federalist, right? CEO and co-founder of The Federalist. He tweets this from Talman Smith, who says, quote,

a part of what I do, I'm sorry, Talman Smith is quoting somebody else. I don't want, it's not a tribute to him. Quote, a part of what I do is monitoring toxicity and health in the trends. I don't know if this will impact my job directly. I want to still have a job and I don't know how this impacts that. They added, they're pretty broken. Wish I had a nuanced take on it, but I'm just scared and sad. Well, I will tell you how this buyout will affect your job.

It won't because you won't have one. Ha ha. No, I think Elon you how this buyout will affect your job. It won't because you won't have one. No, I think Elon Musk will keep a lot the same. I think the first thing that's going to happen is he'll have to go in and learn how the machine works. Then he'll probably throw up into a couple of paper bags, realizing what's going on behind the scenes, both because people post horrifying things and both because the censorship and manipulation is worse than anyone realized. And then he'll try to get a handle on it. Yeah, I mean, this is part of what's so golden about this entire thing. You have all these Twitter employees absolutely losing their minds, just behaving like unhinged maniacs.

As if we're supposed to see that and go, oh, man, I'm sorry that they don't have free reign anymore. Yeah, I don't really want scared and sad people running my Twitter accounts. Exactly. Just so you know, scared and sad people running my twitter accounts exactly just so you know scared and sad guy this was exactly the reaction everybody predicted right i mean they're like yeah we finally got rid of donald trump because he's such a poopy head i couldn't stand him like why is that your decision shouldn't be i don't think any one person should have the reins on that kind of power right now well and again they have played their hand.

They're showing that these are not cool, calm, and collected people who can make reasonable decisions in a time of crisis. Look at the way they're acting right now. Elon, someone they don't like now has control of their company. They're in histrionics. Now, I'm just doing some math. I'm looking. As of December 21, there's more than 7,500 Twitter employees. That's a lot of people.

And Elon is pretty, I would call him cutthroat what would you say you do here yeah exactly they work from home that was a big part of this twitter thread too that tim had pulled up earlier as they were saying most of twitter employees work from home now they're wondering if that's going to change i think that he's going to slash the employee this is what i said what would happen if elon musk just shut down the VPN, locked out all the employees except for the Knox at the data center? Would Twitter become a better website just from that? What would that look like exactly?

You wouldn't have these toxicity moderators, for one. Fire them all. Yeah. Toxicity? Fire them. You know, Elon Musk is in for a rude awakening. I got to be honest. I think he's a smart guy.

I think he's planned strategically. I think he cornered Twitter. The shareholders may still try and push back, but I really don't see what their votes are going to be. I mean, you're getting free money. But I think Ian understands this, especially having worked with mines. When Ian said – when Elon – It's getting to that point. When Elon says he wants free speech, I don't think he understands truly what that will mean to open the floodgates. And I think even Elon Musk must have a line. So I'll pose this. It is free speech

to show images of dead babies because you want people to know about the horrors of what's going on with abortion, say. Right, Seamus? Yeah. And so how will people know they don't want it unless they can see what's actually happening? Will advertisers want to be on a platform

where there are photos of dead babies? it's an interesting question to be fair i think what eon musklin i saw liz's ass in a thong for like you said how many times before i finally realized i did not want to see that yeah no it's an interesting question i think this is uh a really complicated problem that not a lot of people consider which is that even with these conservative alternatives that they're trying to launch, if any of them ever happen to catch on, or even with this, what Musk is trying to do, implementing a more neutral model with respect to speech, at some point, you're right, it could affect profitability. And then what happens then?

Yeah, I think that the ad revenue model is dying. It's useless. It's getting to the point where it's useless. But that's why Elon says he wants to drive up memberships. Well, I just want to say I like what Elon Musk is saying about a lot of this. But here's what I'm curious about. Without looking at this through any ideological framework, Tim, you were sort of mentioning earlier that restricting certain advertisers from being able to pay Twitter to have their ads placed there could be failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility. Do you think there's an argument to be made that the shareholders allowing unfettered free speech could also be failing to uphold their fiduciary responsibility because it could make the company less profitable?

I would argue, well, I actually addressed that. I said, when it comes to politics, the board might actually argue that taking on some advertisers would hurt us, which is why they justify it. But climate change, there's no justification for that. No, no, I agree with you. I guess my point is, do you think that's going to pose a threat to Elon being able to make this a free speech platform? Are they going to say we are failing to fulfill our fiduciary responsibility? Elon won't have shareholders. Yeah, he's taking a private.

Oh, that's right. He's taking a private i could leave all right yeah yeah beautiful you're right right yeah which means he could go on and he can read your dms he elon can slide into anyone you know you gotta understand what he's buying right now he's buying the ability to dm britney spears he's gonna he's buying the ability to read his ex's messages. Well, like somebody, who's Madonna? Who's his age? Eminem. Elon Musk now has the power to open up DMs to anyone he wants. He owns it.

It's his. Well, let me ask you a question. Would you rather own the Washington Post or Twitter? Not even a question. You know the answer to that one, man. So who's ahead in the billionaire game, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk? Oh, Bezos is, and we know this because he's trying to throw shade at Musk on

Twitter. Well, you mean Musk is. But Bezos bought Washington Post for like $200 million. Yeah, Elon put up $44 billion. It was funny. Elon, or I'm sorry, Bezos said something along the lines of does China now have a stake in the public square in response to Elon Musk purchasing Twitter?

I want to go back to the free speech point I was making before. Elon Musk has a line and AWS, which Twitter is on, right? It's on AWS? Yeah. Actually, I don't know if Twitter is. Twitter is – they might have their own infrastructure, I suppose. I think they have their own infrastructure. I would not trust AWS. Well, yeah, if Twitter is. Twitter is. They might have their own infrastructure, I suppose. I think they have their own infrastructure. I would not trust AWS.

Well, yeah, but Twitter would. I mean, their board would. 2020, Twitter chooses AWS to provide its cloud infrastructure. There you go. Exactly. So what happens when Elon Musk says, I want unfettered free speech, which results in, let's just be real. Well, that's what happened to Parler.

You're going to get a lot of people who are even on the left who are going to masquerade as the right saying racial slurs so that Elon Musk's – the chain link in the infrastructure of Twitter revolts against him. So you're going to have AWS saying we won't host this because there's people posting untoward content. You're going to have the app stores saying until you clean this up, Elon Musk can take Twitter. But everything around him, the entirety of Silicon Valley can surround him and shut him down. So how much could Elon Musk tolerate? How much can Twitter tolerate? And then how much can they withstand a barrage from Silicon Valley? He may be the world's richest man, but the combined wealth and power of the entirety of Silicon Valley and venture capital surrounding it. I don't think he can beat that. No. Well, that's what I'm saying. Like expanding free speech and unbanning people is probably going to be very late in the game.

Right now, he just wants to develop a consistent set of policies that are transparent and that for them to have a problem with that would be revealing more about themselves and about Elon. And I'll give you another idea. Does Elon taking over Twitter embolden a Mark Zuckerberg to allow Facebook to become a bit more free and transparent? Because he's getting the same pressures that Elon Musk is, and it's killing Facebook. What did their stock drop like one third in one night? They can use this as an excuse and say, in order for us to compete now, we've got a private company worth $50 billion. And it's one of the biggest social media platforms in the world. Their allowing of free speech is making people want to leave our platform.

Sorry, shareholders. It is our fiduciary duty. We must start unbanning. I don't know if they'll do it because I think they're they're ideologically driven, not profit driven. But that's a possibility. But I think that's a difference we have. I don't think it's an issue of shareholders. It's, you know, an issue of political pressure. I mean, we were talking about how like this, you know, California politicians were telling Facebook and Twitter, ban these guys, censor

those guys. Barack Obama is coming on saying that there's too much trash on the Internet. It needs to be banned. You have political figures in this country who are openly advocating against the First Amendment and using their political muscle to make these private companies do their bidding. It's the thing about free speech. When we talk about free speech, we've got to define it firstly. It's the American, the United States of America's version of it is enshrined in the Constitution, that kind of free speech, where you can't say certain things in that kind of free speech.

So that isn't translating to the Internet. It doesn't translate to the Internet. You can't. They're all authoritarian networks that are owned by someone that can ban anything at any time. Yeah, there's no free speech. Yeah. So saying bring free speech to Twitter doesn't, it's a non sequitur. It doesn't make sense.

Even Gab doesn't have absolute free speech. No, and nor should it. Spam is a new phenomenon. And doxing, because we all agree, okay, doxing crosses the line. Even Andrew Torba of Gab said that. Like you said, showing pictures of gruesome stuff, that's free speech, but you don't, you know, there's times and places where. No, that should be allowed.

Well, it's up to the authoritarian owner of the company whether or not it should be allowed. I understand that. Well, there's times and places where – No, that should be allowed. Well, it's up to the authoritarian owner of the company whether or not it should be allowed. I understand that. So I would say people typically say free speech is the expression of political thoughts, ideas, et cetera. And so we try to understand in that framework spam doesn't fit that. If someone is trying to shut down the conversation by screaming, some would argue that's not free speech. That's just screaming. In fact, that's shutting people down.

There's also property rights. So if someone comes into your business and they start telling you something you don't want to hear, you can kick them out of the building and the government can't say, no, you have to let them sit there, free speech. They have to bake their cake for them. That's not true, Ian. If I come into your establishment, you can kick me out for any reason. Not if you say, if you come into the restaurant and start talking about your protected status. You can ask me to leave your premises at any moment for any reason.

That's property rights. That's part of your property rights. That's not true. I mean give me an example where you can't kick me off your plan. So the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects special classes in public accommodation, meaning – I'm talking about private accommodation. This is all private. Twitter is a private company.

Right. Well, no. Hold on. Hold on. You misunderstand all private. Twitter is a private company. Hold on. You misunderstand. Public accommodation means like a McDonald's. It's privately owned, but it's open to the public. If I walk in and scream something like my dog bites strangers and they say, please, sir, be quiet, and you won't, they can kick you out. If you go in and start screaming something about a protected class, now they're in a troubled

situation. If they kick you out, they could argue he was screaming. Of course, the individual will say, I went in there and started saying I am this protected class, so they kicked me out. That's where it gets money. Okay, if you're saying McDonald's is a public accommodation, then I'm open to that argument. McDonald's is a public accommodation. Public accommodations are like services and buildings that are open to the public. So like Tim Kiss is a business. It's private property. It is not a public accommodation.

People can't come here. Wendy's is because they want you to come into their building. But that means they have to under, I believe it's the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they cannot deny. So they can put up signs all day and night saying we were we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody you get into muddy territory because of course you can kick someone out for screaming but if they're screaming things about a protected class their argument in court will now go up against yours and they're saying that if like a homeless person goes into wendy's and just goes to sleep in one of the booths that they can't kick the person no you can kick the

person out but like if you kick a person out just because they're a protected class and they can't kick the person out? No, you can kick the person out, but if you kick a person out just because they're a protected class and they can prove that in court, then they got a case against you. You kick them out for loitering. Yes, right. So Ian, if a black person walked into a Wendy's, the manager can't say, you're loitering, get out.

Technically they can, but we all see what happens. They lose in court. But my point is technically they can. The media goes off and says they're racist. Yeah, there might be a cultural backlash, but technically they can. No, no, no, Ian. It is not cultural.

There's no point in arguing about this anymore. My point is Twitter can ban anyone at any time for any reason. They don't need a reason. That's mostly because of Section 230. They actually have a special provision that allows them to bypass the public accommodation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was always the craziest thing to me, that you can't deny someone access to a public accommodation on the basis of certain specialized classes or identities or whatever. But Twitter

gets to because of Section 230, meaning quite literally someone can post that they believe in gay marriage and Twitter can say, no, you don't ban. And I'm like, but wait a minute. It's because I forgot. I forgot. It was explained to me by a lawyer. It may have been Will Chamberlain. I'm not sure. But someone explained that the expression of opinion is not the same thing as denying someone's service because of who they are. So if you say, I will not provide you service, you have to leave because of this thing about you. And I just said, that's ridiculous because they could just argue that's why they got

banned. And basically, the broad protections of Section 230 make it impossible to win on that front. Now, if you want to talk about, is this company a public accommodation? I don't know. I feel like it's very fascist for a government to tell a private company what they have to do with their company. You could argue that there's monopolies and that's the government's job is to break up monopolies. Well, that's the big issue, right?

And they say, like, well, what this person said is very offensive. But then, like I said, in the past two years, you've had people make very reasoned, very cogent arguments that are not at all offensive. But because they go against, like, the financial interests of BlackRock, you know, they get banned. I mean, that is a much, there is no philosophical case against that, right? It's purely a political case there. Well, I don't know if it, you know, I mean, with the lockdowns, I mean, you saw it more than anything. People didn't want children getting masks. People were getting tired of the lockdowns. The lockdowns weren't doing anything, but they were getting banned for saying it.

You know, I mean, just look at the trucker convoy in Canada. So my point earlier on, though, because I think people at least some people misunderstand free speech on Twitter means people will be saying will be responding to every post with a racial slur. It means that there will be people who will do that. You have the option to block them. That's reality. If you want to go out into the town square, you're going to hear people screaming nasty things that they're going to be holding up really awful signs. And that's reality. You can't hide from it. Twitter seems to think

that they wanted to craft this utopian world where they would decide what things were toxic and what things weren't. We'll see if Elon Musk will tolerate that. Because either he says free speech or he decides from his own personal morals some things are okay and some things aren't. I'm looking up this federal accommodations, public accommodations things. You can't discriminate on basis of race, color, religion,

or national origin or disabilities. But a private company could still toss you out if they just don't like the way you smell, right? Yes. Okay. So the issue arises when you have a person who is a protected class and they just- And you don't like the way they smell? Then they're going to be like, oh, it was my race.

And you'll be like, no, it's because you were stinking up the establishment. And then they'll say, we'll see you in court and you'll lose. And guess what? You will. Maybe. Not maybe. You literally will. Maybe. That's an issue in LA where some tweaker will come into establishment and start harassing people and even getting into fights. And at that point, you got to frigging wrestle them out of the establishment. I feel like all this argument about free speech on the Internet is a facade, a fallacy.

There is none. You cannot have free speech in a private company. Good luck trying to. You've got to fix the way that that is built. I've told you how to do it in the past. You free the software code. You get it off your back. Let other people spin up their own Twitters with their own terms of service so you can pick the one that works the best.

You're contradicting yourself. And they all interoperate. I don't think so. You are. You said there can't be free speech on the internet. Well, there can be. You just explained how to do it. You can give different networks the ability to choose to have free speech on them if they want,

but you can't make someone give you free speech. I think this— What do you mean? If you walk into a place where you're not wanted and you say what you think is your right to say, they can stop you. Not everywhere. They can cancel you off on the Internet. They can. So we talked about this with Occupy Wall Street. It's what's called a privately owned public space. Yeah. And the

courts ruled that even though it's privately owned, because it's a park open to the public, this is Zuccotti, they had to allow protest. So I argued Twitter should be the same way, a privately owned public space. Sure, you can privately own it. You can put up whatever billboards you want. But if it is a speech business open to the public, you should not be able to bar people for protests. Yeah. Ian, I get what you're saying. It's a complicated question, but there was actually a Supreme Court decision, Marsh v. Alabama, in the 1940s, and they basically determined that in a company town, they were not able to prohibit a woman from passing out religious literature because it was protected by the First Amendment, even though it was their private property.

I think it has something to do with taking up a certain amount of the public square that you are now required to uphold the law of the land. Oh, that's okay. In the United States, it is the First Amendment. So she came into my house and started passing out religious stuff. I can't say, you can't do that, but I can say, get out of. Yeah. So, well, my understanding, and again, I'm not a legal expert. I'm not an expert on this case by any means. I've heard a bit about it, but my understanding is basically that if you own a large enough or you occupy a large enough percentage of the public square as a

private business, there are certain first amendment responsibilities that you have. There's a back and forth on this actually in the state of California where malls are technically supposed to allow people to leaflet and do political activity. But then they sort of go back and say, no, we have the right to regulate in the interest of keeping the mood of our mall. So like, for example, you go to some malls, you're like, OK, you can go set up a table over there, but you have to like, you know to file an application and give a deposit and all that. We ignore those.

When I was doing fundraising, they would tell you, and this happened all the time, go to a shopping center. You're allowed to work for causes and fundraise and protest. They will tell you you can't. They will tell you they're calling the police. They can't do anything. And if the police show up, the police will defend you. And sure enough, every time the police came up, apologized to me and just said, ignore them. You're allowed to, like, you're outside. You're in a parking lot outside waving to people. As long as you're not being, you're not obstructing anybody. As long

as you're not screaming at anybody, you're just waving and handing out flyers and asking people to talk. Totally fine. Protected under the First Amendment. I think part of why I'm concerned with what you were saying about treating Twitter as part of the commons and just letting it fly is how will you moderate that? Who's in charge then of moderating it? Like if it's a private company, you're like, you can't moderate it the way you want. Now figure out how to moderate it. That doesn't make any sense. How do we moderate

the public? We have police. Okay. We have police. Problem solved, right? Well, we have laws and things, the Constitution that guides the actions of the police. If someone posts something illegal, which there are many things illegal under the law, then there you go.

The police get called, intervene, arrest the person. And then if Elon's Twitter decides we're going to immediately remove anything made – we're made aware of that's illegal, we'll be removed instantly. The police will be informed. But then trespassing is illegal. So if you're on Twitter, if you're in their space – It's just a different environment. I just want to read one sentence. Well, I just want to read one sentence from this decision that I pulled up here.

Justice Hugo L. Black noted that, and quote here, the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. So making a private company act as if it's the United States government is challenging. I agree that these things are in the commons. I do believe they are in the commons. This far-right Ian Crossland free market. I don't think that forcing Twitter to change its terms makes any sense. It's a super dangerous precedent.

If the government starts deciding how they have to behave, we're effed, dude. But we're not. Right now it's just a private guy has bought it and he's going to change it the way he sees fit. Yeah, okay. Maybe. Let's go to this story right here. We got this from TimCast.com. Donald Trump says he will not return to Twitter after Elon Musk purchased the platform.

He'll make improvements to it. But I am going to be staying on truth, said Trump. Oh, boy. I don't think Trump is actually on truth. He's not posting anything, is he? No. I don't know. I'm not on it. And I don't think anyone else is either. I mean, I have an account there I don't use. Whatever. I don't have one.

Quote, Trump told Fox News, I am not going on Twitter. I am going to stay on truth. I hope Elon buys Twitter because he'll make improvements to it, and he's a good man. But I am going to be staying on truth. We're taking in millions of people, and what we're finding is that the response on truth is much better than being on Twitter. That's just fundamentally not true, and anyone of influence knows it. All of these conservatives are pointing out that the left won't leave the platform.

Twitter is the place you've got to be because of platform monopoly. Are you saying that the liar lied? I'm sorry, James. You didn't lie. I don't think he's wrong. What I was going to say here is that I think it's very noble and I would argue in many ways a good thing when conservatives try to start their own

platforms in this sphere, but the problem is Twitter's utility is the fact that basically everybody's on it. And your perspective can be heard by people who didn't just come to hear a right wing perspective. So you actually have the possibility of changing people's minds about things. And so if Elon Musk is able to make Twitter right, or I should say, Eon, um, Muskland is able to make mush is able to make Twitter a more fair and open platform for different political

views that would be much better for us as a movement than to all you know segregate ourselves to this conservative website that other people aren't seeing i'd like to pull up this uh this tweet from how do you say this guy's name robert reich robert reich reich oh man i think it's reich is it is it right pretty sure i'd like'd like to pull up this tweet from him in which he basically copies a tweet from me from seven years ago or whatever. He says, Musk and his apologists say if consumers don't like what he does with Twitter, they can go elsewhere. But where else would consumers go to post short messages that can reach millions of people other than Twitter? The free market increasingly reflects the demands of big money. It's called platform monopoly.

It's bad for our democracy as well as our economy. Well, you know what, Robert? Too effing bad. You've lost any good faith response from me in this effort because you and your ilk have spent the entirety of the past six years burning everything to the ground, spitting in the face of people who had political disagreements with you. And now that you're poised to lose, you think you can come back and say, oh, this platform monopoly is a big problem. Well, that's what I was saying, what, seven years ago. And now that you've come crawling back, I say this, you don't get to wage war. And then once you start losing or fear losing, come and beg for a ceasefire. I'm not playing that. Elon Musk is going to be doing exactly what, well, we're hoping that Elon Musk will do what we've been hoping someone would do with Twitter.

And that is bring free speech. So you don't have to leave, Robert. You get to stay and say all of your dumb things to everybody. And we are not calling for you to be banned. We just want the rules to be transparent. We want people who are suspended for BS fake reasons like carpe donctum to be reinstated. And you can go cry about platform monopoly somewhere else because we've all been and we've all been taking issue with that for some time.

Your complaints are duly noted and duly ignored. Yeah. Does that article show his tweet from like three years ago where he said it's a private company and can do it at once? Yeah, he said literally how it started, where it's going. No, his tweet that everyone's highlighting and they're pointing it out is hypocritical. He said that the people complaining about the First Amendment on Twitter failed to realize the private company and they can do what they want. He's not wrong. The First Amendment is pertaining to government restriction. However, most people aren wrong. The First Amendment is pertaining to government restriction. However,

most people aren't saying the First Amendment. If he wants to highlight truly ignorant people who are incorrectly saying the First Amendment, by all means, he can go and do that. Most people who believe in free speech are talking about the principle of free speech, one in which the First Amendment protects but exists outside of the Constitution. The principle of free speech is that we respect that other people will say things we don't like in the public discourse twitter does not respect free speech facebook youtube none of these platforms do twitter used to web 1.0 was truly a glorious time i just remember that oh yeah web 1.0 yeah i't know. The lack of self-awareness is astounding. I mean, look, I never exactly pictured him as the kind of person who is really in touch with what people who disagreed with him were saying or thinking.

But you have to have literally not heard a single thing a conservative has said for the past five years to make this point and think you're saying anything. Be fair, Seamus. If these people are only watching CNN, of course that's the case. No, exactly. Exactly. But to have a political platform that large when you have no idea what the other side is saying is. That's what drives me. That's the free speech. The term free speech.

It's like free speech. It's like a buzzword. It's free code. Big networks need free code, not free speech. Free speech. Who's deciding? The owner of the network? You can't tell them what to do.

All I'm saying is Robert Reich should be more like me and know enough about his opponent's position to make fun of them in short-form cartoons. Yeah, but what is it about our intellectual class where they get so much stuff so desperately wrong? Exactly. And this is what's so depressing. It's not as if we have an intellectual class which is mediocre. We have an intellectual class which is stupid. They're dumb. They're really unintelligent.

You think they're affluent? Is it affluenza? Bad faith. Affluenza. I think it's pride. You think they're affluent? Is it affluenza? Bad faith. Affluenza. I think it's pride. I think pride blinds people. I think they have to push a certain company line, and it doesn't matter how they lie or get stuff wrong to achieve it.

There's just company line you've got to put out, and you've got to stick with it. And if you stray from that company line you no longer have a job well the question is does he believe this or is he just as you're saying trying to tow the company line does he think it would be an effective strategy because my point is whether he believes it or not to think that it's an effective strategy to out yourself as a hypocrite so blatantly to me is bizarre come on they do it every day yeah it It's something you learn about frauds. They're stupid and they're liars.

There's no division there. Right. Rational people have that division. There are people right now that are complaining because Al Franken basically was forced into resigning disgrace over that photo where he was grabbing that woman's chest. And they're complaining about this Madison Cawthorn photo where he's got women's lingerie on at a drinking on a cruise at a party and i can't remember who tweeted it but they were like al franken was forced to resign over something much less salacious than this and it's like no

he wasn't he assaulted a woman like madison cawthorne's in a chair drinking at a party and doing silly things call him say it's inappropriate fine whatever it's a party but he didn't grab and assault someone and he's actually representing most Americans who are willing to have a party. And they're very awake women right next to him. My point is that they're creating this false hypocrisy where they try and pull things up. They're like, ha-ha, this is hypocritical. And it's like, dude, Robert Reich tweeting this, which we all tweeted seven or eight years ago, is absolutely astounding. He just one day came to realize truly these people are vapid and devoid of any curiosity. They don't care what

other people think. They make things up. They regurgitate them. And that's why we bought a billboard in Times Square with special thanks to Daily Wire for helping make it happen. That says Taylor Lorenz docks the libs of TikTok because you don't get to go on TV and just lie without getting some pushback. So that's us pushing back, even if it's a small gesture. Yeah, I like your war analogy because it's kind of like being the aggressor and attacking someone else.

And as soon as they fight back, you're like, all we are saying is give peace a chance. Like, dude, you guys started this. This is your fault. It's not when you fight back. It's when they realize they might lose. Yeah. They're like, uh-oh, wait.

You mean that guy I picked a fight with actually is an MMA fighter? Actually, did you guys see the Joe Rogan episode with that MMA guy? He said that he got into politics because he saw Antifa beating up some dude. Wow. And he tried to pull him off, and they started fighting him. And he beat the crap out of him. And then they immediately backed off, realizing he had the power. Sounds like a right-wing terrorist to me, Tim.

The left right now is fascistic. They believe there is no truth but power. Antifa uses violence against people because they believe in using violence to gain power. When that MMA guy tried saving that dude and defended himself, and they realized he had more power physically than they did, they retreated. No surprise there. The convictions are only as weak and flabby as their little arms.

I'm surprised the local district attorney didn't land the MMA fighter in prison. Seriously. No, and so the left, they're basically a metronome, and they very quickly go back and forth between I'm very tough, be scared of me, and oh, I'm a poor, sweet, innocent little victim.

Someone come protect me. Sounds like bipolar, someone that's bipolar. Sounds like someone who's lying to gain power. Sounds like somebody, whatever gets them more power, they do it. This Reich guy, Robert Reich, I remember him being kind of vocal about Hillary's emails when that Podesta emails dropped, you know, 13,000 emails that they ended up trying to hide from the public, 30,000. And he was a big proponent of Bernie bernie sanders at the time and

was really involved with the like the progressive movement as it seemed like it might actually function kind of what trump picked up the reins of and then he went full tds trump derangement syndrome in this hate of donald trump which is like it was just so party politics like cult thought so i thought reich was really smart until that now I'm like I don't know He's not wrong that social media Monopoly is dangerous Reich once Big government and big business Whereas Trump felt like look Just give people a chance at a decent

Wage and you don't need either And that's where Basically if you don't have big Government and big business rice is out of a Job yeah That's true I think what you'll see often is I'd be interested to see what happens when the right, if the right ever gets institutional power, will they become as hypocritical or will they just defend their

side because now they have the power and the ability to wield it? I kind of lean towards no, because at least over the past eight or so years the republicans have just sat on their hands and said slow down there democrats and done nothing that's definitely true i would say if we saw genuine conservatives real pro-family leaders take power there would be corruption because that's just always going to exist in any human institution but i do believe it would be much more structured and effective and honest than anything we're seeing from a left-wing authority structure because, as I've said before, leftism is just a synonym for social decay, and they don't have any real principles. So people on the right have genuine values that they try to hold to and that they're accountable to. The left doesn't. All they have is the pursuit of power.

I think it's a little broad to say leftism just means social decay. I disagree. I think there is a generational divide. I think modern leftism. There's a reason Boomer is an insult. This goes all the way back to the Boomer 60s and Woodstock and and the civil rights movement and all that. And you still see it like in my hometown. People are still waiting for that, you know, civil rights movement to come back and they're 70, 80 years old, you know, and it's just the younger generations have had enough of it. And it's there's going to be, you know, it's like a clash of the titans. The new generation is being born is what we said earlier with new media taking over legacy media.

And you see these legacy media companies that just don't get new media. You know, they'll pay like hundreds of thousands of dollars for somebody equally clueless about how to go viral on new media when they can hire the teenager down the street who's got like 100,000 subscribers or followers on Instagram. I mean, you take a look at Chicken City. Yeah. More subscribers in CNN. More money than CNN. Well, they had 150,000 paying subscribers on a $300 million initial investment, up to a billion. So probably more profit. But I honestly do think that Chicken City has made, or at least in the first 30 days is on track to make more money than CNN+.

No, no, no, that's not true at all. But my point is bringing up Chicken City is just because I think it's hilarious how successful it's become. But you were make a children's show. And they are still very much approaching this in a traditional way with new technologies. And the stuff we're working on is trying to be very different, more like a skunk work or something. Chicken City is a wild and weird idea with chicken parties, but it's very much working in terms of creating a new kind of family content. Well, part of why I would argue that, I mean, I imagine Chicken City is more profitable than CNN Plus because you have, pun intended, recouped your costs. CNN Plus was, how much did you say they invested?

$300 million? You are correct. Yeah. So you're turning a profit on Chicken City. Right. I mean, look, a chicken rave is more interesting than a Jake Tapper boot club in absolute terms. I mean, the noises aren't all that different, but

the chickens are more entertaining to watch. You're talking about the view. Everyone keeps coming into Chicken City and saying, is this the view? You're right about legacy media not knowing what they're doing. Not only do they not know what they're doing, they don't know

who to talk to to figure out what to do. Well, I think is it's not like, oh, hey, wait, Tim Pool seems to understand viral content. Let me reach out and see if he can give me a referral on how to advertise my whatever you want. Yeah, there's cognitive moment of cognitive dissonance where it's like, no, that can't be working. Even though they see it working, it's like that can't be working. It can't be working. It takes like two years before they're like, no, that can't be working. Even though they see it working, it's like, that can't be working. It can't be working. It takes like two years before they're like, oh, we were wrong.

It takes never. It's something I learned about science. It's like the old generation never gets a clue. They just die away and the new generation takes over. So what's happening is we've seen that with like CBS, ABC. That's legacy, legacy, old golden age. Now we've got this modern legacy, which is

like Facebook, YouTube, sorry, guys, Twitter, these centralized services. That's going the way of the dodo as well. It's moving towards federalization, federation, and decentralization. So networks that aren't already focused on that are also going to start falling away. You've seen Facebook. No, but it's even with all the political pressure, for example, like Rikita Media, when they did the Kyle Rittenhouse case, they eclipsed any of the big three networks in their coverage. Because not only was it timely, they got the feed, but they had intelligent analysis of it. Whereas the legacy networks, they were caught with their pants down.

I believe for the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial right now, big news. Rakeda Law, I think, is the number one super chatted channel in the country this week with their coverage of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial. They were great during the Risen House trial. Did you guys watch any of the trial? I tuned in. I was like, I got to know. We've been talking about Johnny Depp, Amber Heard. I'm like, I just got to get a taste. So I went on and watched, and it's John being really funny, and he's just making people laugh.

That's why that thing is so popular right now because he's hilarious. yeah i'm missing out yeah i'm not gonna lie i try not to pay attention to celebrities but i did see a couple clips of him responding to questions while the lawyer was harassing him and it was genuinely pretty funny yeah it's like some of the best thing on tv right now yeah besides this show yeah of course. Let's see if we can get them on. The danger that these new legacy social networks have is that they're centralized. So the NSA can go into their database and give them a gag order

and then just take control of the network. So if you have centralized services like logins and passwords, that's all legacy stuff, man. Lids, I sent you my meme about finding the feds in the data center and i said when elon musk inspects twitter that's who he's gonna find uh we talked about who's gonna be on the ban list it's the people yeah yeah the people that are deranked and don't know it all that's gonna start that's

what i'm saying that's my main issue with twitter is like the people who are interesting you just don't see them and you have no idea why and they don't have any idea why i wonder how many people are going to go to prison maybe it's a maybe it's a stretch to assume but i imagine the testimony that we heard before congress was false and really elon musk is going to have documents showing shadow banning and all that stuff they claim they didn't do the issue however is going to be that jack dorsey is going to be like, well, at the time, I didn't know that it was going on and I was acting under the advisement of our legal counsel.

You know what they say, the buck stops with the legal counsel. It's not my fault. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey on this show. Open advice. Guys, we'd love to have you. It'd be amazing. I hit up Joe Rogan. i was like you me elon jack dorsey twitter uh twitter episode round two oh my god but but you know if whether

something like that could actually happen i kind of feel like i once again just kind of like shoving myself in there you have to wait for elon to take over twitter and make agreements with jack dorsey about what he can and can't say, sign the proper NDA, and then you're going to hear Jack Dorsey unfettered. It's so good. I've been planning a tech symposium with Chris at Rumble, Bill Altman at Mines. We got Gab, we got Andrew Torba, we got Jeremy Kaufman at Odyssey. There's Jack Dorsey with Twitter. Now, Elon can be involved, and he's a developer. He's a coder, man. This guy, it's so great to have him at the table.

I think he bought Twitter so he could go. He's like, I want to be in on it. He read my mind. Exactly. Yeah, he can look at the algorithms and figure out what's up. That's the exciting part. It would be funny if the only thing he does is just tweet at some celebrity, like Sia or something, and he's like, yo, I would really love to meet you and hang out.

And then afterwards he just sells the company back. That's all I wanted to do. I didn't know how to get a hold of this person. I'm rich. I am curious what his long-term plans are. He says he wants to make it a more free speech platform. I know his long-term plans. Somebody would say.

He's going to go public again once it's worth way more. No, he's not planning on making it profitable. Take a look at this tweet. We have this tweet from Trung Pham. Hacker News speculating on how Twitter will integrate with SpaceX for interplanetary communication. Someone wrote, this is from Generalizations, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Twitter is probably the best social media platform for interplanetary communication, where low bandwidth and delayed transmission are fundamental bottlenecks,

and both limitations are considered part of the appeal. In that case, I wonder if the monetization will ultimately be based on latency and message size. Pay more for your message to be sent from Mars, the next transmission, and pay more to send a larger message. Locally, I wonder if Twitter will be tied to Starlink in some fashion. Think about this. Elon Musk apparently launched some shell companies and there might be a single parent company for SpaceX, Tesla, and Twitter. He might actually want to make sure Twitter works because it's the only social media platform

that would work via interplanetary communications. Facebook could theoretically work, but you'd be limited. This makes a really, really good point. The appeal of Twitter is character limitations, in which case it's optimized for sending messages back and forth can you send a software update to the voyager craft to tweet yeah i was about to say i mean look if if this gets hooked up to somehow or aliens end up seeing twitter we're in gigantic trouble like this could really spell

disaster for the human race we sent out voyager with that golden disc or whatever with like basic math and pictures of humans and then it's like it's floating out there but what beats it is the transmission of at the speed of light of twitter and so then one day right right before the voyager craft reaches the alien vessel the wave of twitter hits the ship and then they see everything i've never seen a thin person drink diet coke they're like what is this well the good the good news is all that stuff gets scrambled after a certain number of light years away uh but the other one is imagine a right mars rover that live tweeted that's highly practical yeah i mean it's

really easy to receive transmissions and convert them to tweets. One of the things that a friend of mine did was he had – you could – I forgot that you could use dial-up internet to tweet. And they did this really interesting way where they converted the text into Morse code. Morse code that was then traveled over the phone line to a voice to text, which converted the Morse code back into text and then tweeted it out. Crazy stuff like that. When you had no means of like. Morse code was the original Twitter. Come on.

It's true. People try to limit their character count. And I got to say, though, Twitter really did disprove the aphorism that brevity is the soul of wit because it's all short and it's all the dumbest thing you've ever read let's talk about let's just jump to this story actually let's let's do this story right here check this out welcome to the future my friends from timcast.com google to begin suggesting inclusive language corrections for writers using docs i've already noticed stuff like this all right google docs i'm actually very happy about this because... Let me read real quick.

The aim of the new assistive writing function will be able to help users avoid politically incorrect language. Quote, potentially discriminatory or inappropriate language will be flagged along with suggestions on how to make your writing more inclusive and appropriate for your audience. Incredible. There's a reason I still use Notepad.

Man. Well, I got to say, I'm actually happy about this because it will let me know that there are more offensive ways to say what I'm currently saying. Like if I didn't even realize a phrase was something people consider to be upsetting, Google will now alert me to that, which I appreciate that. So I can use it more in the document. Write it down. I didn't realize that made sense. Oh, there's a no-no phrase. There we go.

I'll save this one for next time. This is the future though. This is, I mean, Elon Musk is what? One inch of pushback against a tidal wave of just insanity? save this one for next time this is the future though this is i mean elon musk is what one inch of pushback against a tidal wave of just insanity well this is where ian talking about federated systems being the future is it like i can't admit like you know we talk about getting physical copies of media because anything that's on cloud services gets censored to death or just wiped from their servers like you know think of the movies

and how much they've been censored from like 30 years ago you know i have a synology drive at home where i just keep any movie i want to keep that's you know been censored well here's here's what i find fascinating in the culture war uh we don't we don't do blackface like people do it ironically as a joke but there's like no one is legitimately just like doing blackface. People do it ironically as a joke, but no one is legitimately doing blackface. It's stupid. Right. It's just not funny. However, it used to be culturally relevant.

And so we decided as a society, hey, this thing, we don't do anymore. It's stupid. Yeah, people don't like it. We're going to avoid it. Now, as for the comedians who mock the idea, we don't do that anymore either because people get canceled. But that's the interesting point. We're at a point now where it seems like something happened.

I think it was social media where you used to have the left pulling all of society slightly leftward as the right just was being dragged behind. Everything drifted to the left. Something happened where that chain between the left and the right snapped and the left just immediately lunged a hundred feet forward and the right stopped moving and just went, wait, what?

Well, now we're seeing the left go absolutely insane. And they're determining that things that are still culturally relevant are no longer culturally acceptable. You end up seeing things like Ethan Klein. He got canceled twice now. You guys see this again? Yeah, because he mocked so ethan klein of h3 got uh he lost his sponsors because he said something about uh gay people that he wasn't actually disparaging them he just had an incorrect thing oh whoa well you can't actually you can't

say that so he loses his sponsors he apologized for this and then like a week or a week and a half later he then tweets a mock apology, mocking his first apology. So now he's getting flack all over again. That goes well. The point is he didn't even make a joke about somebody. He made a statement that he thought was relevant. And it turns out the left had already moved and left him behind. Nothing is keeping them from just going off and going crazy further and further off into the progressive distance.

Well, that's what Zuby says. He's like, I'm just a normal guy from 2012. Why am I right-wing? Exactly. So what's happened is, yes, things over time become less culturally acceptable. Some new things become culturally acceptable. Sometimes we go back a little bit. Sometimes we go forward.

But at this point, it's like the left is changing culture 10 times as fast as culture normally changed. And we're standing back being like, yo, you guys are nuts. You've gone too far. You can't change culture into thinking men are women and women are men. Sorry. I mean, at that point, you know. I'm just going to say it. The magic fish is out of wishes.

To my theory, things change most quickly when they're falling apart. Maybe. Maybe the culture is in free fall, so the speed at which we're moving feels like we're driving fast when actually it's just just falling apart yeah i mean they're falling apart but then on the flip side they're using all sorts of conservative lingo like triggered and what is it like patriot takes they're using the word patriot to claim that they're the patriots no patriot takes is mocking patriots i know know, but are they? Yes. Like Patriot Takes means like a tweet from a patriot.

They're mocking you. Well, but I think what you are correct about is that establishment Democrat types have sort of co-opted the language of patriotism over the past couple of years. Right. I mean, they talk about insurrection and that kind of patriotism and protecting our Constitution, and that's why we need to go after J6. Well, the purpose of calling it an insurrection was to try to disqualify people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Trump. Because the Fourth Amendment specifically says if they waged insurrection against the United States. So they needed the narrative first so that people would believe it. Then they could file the lawsuits and try and get it.

The problem is they move too fast. You need a generation to instill an idea that a thing happened. You can't do it in a year. And so the judge in this case, he looks quite for the Marjorie Taylor Greene thing where they're trying to disqualify her. The judge looks absolutely. You know, it's funny if you get your news from the left, man, these people really warp reality. They're like, oh man, the judge is facepalming. Oh, it's going so bad for Marjorie. The whole time I'm watching this trial, the judge keeps telling the lawyer against Marjorie. He keeps saying things like, what are you doing? Where are you going with this? And Marjorie's lawyer is objecting to everything. And the judge just keeps saying, what are you doing? What is this about? Because he's asking irrelevant things. He's like, in 2019, did you tweet this?

And Marjorie's like, yeah. And he's like, aha. And the lawyer's like, how is this relevant to whether or not on January 6th, in or around, she waged insurrection against the United States? And the judge is like, what's the point of that question? It's like, is this an HR meeting? I'm trying, I'm trying to establish, it's like is this an hr meeting i'm trying i'm trying to establish to twist it's just remarkably bad yeah i mean the articles of confederacy was a pretty solid case for the southern states doing an insurrection i think that's what the 14th amendment was after not because somebody tweeted that they didn't believe this election was legitimate or you know whatever marjorie taylor green said

something like today is our 1776 and i think she tweeted that in like 2019 or something and they're like why would you say that and she's like because it's like it's on the state seal like we say it all the time it's a date that means like victory and well you saw they pointed out nancy pelosi said the same thing like about like the summer riots that this is our 1776. Really? Yeah, of 2020. That's why I just think it's war. And we're looking at right now for the most part a fifth-generational war.

So, of course, they're going to come out now and they're going to beg. It's that quote we say, and I can never remember the guy's name, that it's like, when I am weak or when I am strong, you ask for free speech because it's according to your principles. When I am weak, I... Or it's like... Right.

When you're in power, you deny my free speech because it's according to your power. When you are weak, you demand free speech because it gives you power. When I am weak, I ask for free speech

because it's according to your principles. When I am strong, I deny you your free speech because it gives you power. When I am weak, I ask for free speech because it's according to your principles. When I am strong, I deny you your free speech because it's according to mine. Did you guys see the part of the hearing where the lawyer asked her if when she said we will not go quietly into that night, whether she was quoting Independence Day? It's like, what?

So what? She's like, no, that's not what I was quoting because it's not originally from Independence Day either. It's an old poem. He's like, well, that's not what I was going to – because it's not originally from Independence Day either. It's an old poem. He's like, well, that's from Independence Day, right, which is about the 4th of July. It's like it's about an alien invasion, dude. I mean it is fascinating though that he was attacking Marjorie Taylor Greene under the pretext of the 4th of July 1776 being bad for the United States. It's like that's our birthday.

It's like could you imagine someone being like, that's our birthday. It's like, could you imagine someone being like, today is our birthday. What does that mean? Are you creating something new to challenge us? It's ridiculous. It is. I get the feeling that it was the 2008, the financial crisis when Obama bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was basically when it sent everything into a death spiral in this country, fiscally, and now people are like, there's no truth but power because money is useless now. Well, also, I want to say, if you think America should deny its heritage as being a nation, which was built upon resisting illegitimate power or a violation of your rights, aren't you the revolutionary? Aren't you the insurrectionist? Because aren't you trying to fundamentally change what this country means and what it's built upon?

So the left was smart about it and seized the institutions first. Now they can claim to be the legitimate institution. And you, as someone who upholds the Constitution, are the revolutionary trying to overthrow their institution. That's right. You, the person who celebrates the people who literally founded the country. Want to emulate them in some way. You're the person trying to overthrow the sacred order of the nation. It's ridiculous. I think it's something the Tea Party really helped enlighten Americans is about how much Obama really politicized the state apparatus in this country and turned it into a Democrat institution.

Truly one of the darkest presidents we've ever had, Barack Obama. And he's a guy who politicized institutions. We had federal agencies going after right-wing groups. You had the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens. You had the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

The lies on top of lies, all with a big smiling face. George Bush Jr. was probably worse. And with the Cheney, I should call it the Cheney administration. That was pretty nasty. At least there was an opposition to George W. Bush. I mean, Obama is still out there demanding that any of his critics be silenced. And that's scary.

Yeah, the American population's response to the Obama presidency was the most disgusting letdown of my life that's why i say you know he's one of the darkest uh one of the darkest presidencies of uh you know one of the most disastrous is because under this veil of uh like hope and change we got not only the same thing but many many things that were actually worse. So, yeah, George W. Bush was much darker. You know, the invasions was probably some of the darkest days that we've seen. And the horrifying things that came out of all that, absolutely. Nation building, you know, for 20 years. Barack Obama was really, really bad following up. But people abandoned the fight afterwards.

And that hit me hard. I talk about it all the time. They put their faith in the leader, which was the biggest problem. They put their faith in yourself. I think both administrations were a disaster for the American people. I do dislike Obama and the Obama administration more. I'll say that. However, you made a point about Obama talking about how people who disagree with him should be censored.

One thing H.W. had the decency to do after leaving the oval office was to go away he went away and he said i'm gonna go paint my pictures and spend my life doing that and we don't hear from him all that often except for when the left for whatever bizarre reason wants to uh march him out and go remember when we had good republican leadership unlike these evil mega conservatives we have now even though they hated him and he started new wars and was overall a terrible president. But then there's the scene where Obama was in a party with Biden and he looked like he's still the president,

and Biden is not even vice president. He's like the mascot or something. He's just walking around lost while Obama's shaking everybody's hand. Come on, man. That clip is he was looking for someone so everyone shares i really can't stand this you don't need to try to make biden look nuts all right so there's a clip of joe biden walking away from like obama talking with people and he's looking around all confused because he was supposed to introduce someone to the group and he couldn't find him

and it was like 10 seconds of him being like where's where'd this guy go people grab that and they're like oh it's so sad look joe biden's lost and i'm like dude come on you just show him saying trina not a shot but a pressure you don't need to take a clip of him looking for someone being confused as to where the person went act like he's he's befuddled i hear you on that but on the other hand given his behavior in the past doesn't it make sense that upon seeing that clip a person would assume this is cognitive of course not him looking the problem is when people on the right pounce and they don't do their research. Agreed.

Similar about when he turned and he looked like he was shaking hands with a ghost. They were like, come on. He could have just been waving. No. You don't know that he was actually trying to shake someone's hand. No, he made a deal with the devil and he was – I didn't want to jump on that one either. That's the media trying to justify his weird behaviors.

It's tough to tell. You don't finish a speech and then turn to your right and hold your hand up. But he might have been like, wait. He does that thing where he puts his hands up like halfway. That makes no sense. Did you imagine if you did that at the end of a TimCast episode? Just turn and shook no one's hand? People would be like, what did Tim Pool just do?

Can we allow people who are experiencing that kind of decline have the power of a podcaster and yet the president of the United States has it? The media will rush to the fence of Joee biden when he does something ridiculous or stupid and many on the right will rush to say joe biden did something ridiculous ridiculous or stupid with regardless of the context typically though you don't need to try very hard that's why i'm like dude like trump don't make me you don't need to make me defend the guy you can point out things you really want to critique him on and win arguments that way joe biden nine out of ten times does something psychotic insane deluded or deranged one out of ten times it's out of context and it's like chill on that we don't need it we don't need it i'm honestly not even saying that i'm just saying that clip showed how like obama just seems

much more in charge of what's happening in the oval office Office than Joe Biden. Tim, what was the fake word he said? It was the one word that describes America? It was just muttered gibberish. Oh, man. We have to decode that one. It's like, one word describes America. You said it well. Snivel.

It was because he was trying to then change the subject, I guess, to I was hiking the Himalayas. I was hiking the foothills of the Himalayas. That's right. Let's talk about what's going on over in Europe because of our poor leadership. Companies are overwhelmed with entries for nuclear bunkers in Switzerland and reporting shortage of materials following Ukraine invasion. Since the 1960s, every Swiss municipality had to build nuclear bunkers for residents. Residents are now contacting specialist companies to build or renovate shelters. The bunkers are being viewed in a new light since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What Switzerland needs is 200-gallon propane tanks for the impending Russian oil embargo. Under Donald Trump, no new wars. Now, under Joe Biden, bunkers. Nuclear bunkers. Nuclear bunkers. Nuclear bunkers. Congratulations, I guess. You voted for it. We went from if it saves one life to how bad can World War III be.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, if it's for a good cause, let's do it. If it saves one life, we'll vote for Joe Biden, one of the most corrupt individuals to ever serve government. And then Anthony Blinken and the the defense secretary lloyd austin are like posing with zelensky who's the defense secretary what's her name lloyd austin lloyd austin's a guy yeah like how much more direct involvement in ukraine are we gonna get oh it seems like we're going in i I don't know for sure, but you know, I think it's going to... Look,

Vladimir Putin, Russia, they already believe they're at war with NATO. There's no... It is, in my opinion, ignorant, propagandized Americans who don't understand this point. Do you think that Vladimir Putin is sitting there saying, I sent my troops into Ukraine

and they're fighting NATO tanks and fighter jets? That's just Ukraine. Or do you think he's like, I'm at war with NATO? He's at war with NATO. All of the weapons, even the people. Do you think Vladimir Putin is sitting there watching American veterans fighting in Ukraine and he goes, well, those are just volunteers? Or is he saying, America, NATO countries are sending people. They're coming in. They're being armed by nato well i'll put it this way when we found out that non-government russian citizens

purchased 46 000 worth of facebook ads related to the 2016 presidential election 600 i'm sorry 4600 take out a zero. Wow. So even better. Help me make my point even better. When that occurred and we learned that, there were respectable figures in American politics saying that that was an act of war by Russia against the United States of America. Well, the only answer is World War III.

Obviously. Yeah. Let's just blow it all up. It's funny that the people who always tell us to go to war are telling us to go to war now. I mean, there must be a good reason. I mean, you'll notice something. None of this is going to the UN. All these accusations of war crimes and all of these other accusations, whatever, none of it's going to the UN.

I mean, they already know. They tried to get a condemnation of Russia, and the rest of world's like no we know what you're up to like sticking a bunch of troops and artillery on the border of a country of a sovereign country well that's you know shocked when they invade to destroy the border defenses yeah I mean that's what uh Putin said when he invaded is he's like look you're creating an untenable security situation on my border. And technically, by international law, I believe that justifies going in. You can't have terrorists on somebody's border and expect them to take it. No, I mean, Israel and Saudi Arabia do it.

And that makes for a very awkward situation. situation i think the main reason that the democratic establishment has been screaming russia for so long as they know that putin is like one of the one guy in in europe that won't fall in line that they've got everybody bending the knee to the new plans for their economic block except for russia yeah well and when you can try to when you can successfully convince a large portion of the american population that the presidency is under the control of the russian government anytime the president doesn't try to step up uh aggressive acts with russia they can claim that it's just evidence that he's bought and sold by them so and remember when we opposed the iraq war we were called terrorist sympathizers and wait for the midterms to come in anybody who opposes our

actions in ukraine is going to be called a putinizer. Exactly. So I'm ready. You know, it's not my first rodeo. And back then they said, you don't care about freedom. We need to fight for freedom. And now they go, we need to protect our democracy. It's just more meaningless buzzphrases. We're protected by securing our borders, bringing manufacturing back, focusing on our infrastructure. Our roads are crumbling. Our bridges are crumbling. Our bridges are crumbling. We need clean water in places, in small cities all over this place. We got bad pipes. Instead, it's just like, can we send a billion dollars to Ukraine again?

That's what our labor is good for, I guess, to go. So that's the other thing, too. It's like if our money is funding this, do the people behind it really matter? If they're piloting drones, even. At what point does it matter who the person is behind it? It matters people behind it really matter? If they're piloting drones even, at what point does it matter who the person is behind it? It matters who's funding it. Yeah, absolutely.

In which case, nuclear bunkers, World War III? That's the ballet, is what can the U.S. fund legally in Ukraine? And that's why it's like we can't get directly involved, but we can do land lease, and we can send military experts and advisors. And this is this is what's ridiculous.

If if I'm watching a dude throw rocks at me. All right. Am I going to be like, well, technically or I'll put it this way. If Ian is throwing rocks at me and Seamus is handing him the rocks, am I going to be like Seamus is not involved in this? Hold on a second. No, I didn't tell him to do that with the rocks. But you didn't tell him not to. No, I didn't tell him to do that with the rocks. But you didn't tell him not to. No, I was just passing rocks to Ian. Ian goes, Seamus, give me rocks! And you're like, you got it, buddy. And then I'm like, I'm only at war with Ian.

Seamus is doing nothing wrong. The Nazis declared war on the United States because they were giving weapons to the British, as they were the Germans were already at war with the British. And then when they're like, okay, enough's enough. Can you please stop? First they tried to, I think they started sinking stuff with U-boats. So that's kind of how they announced their war. But, yeah, if you lend lease to someone's enemy, they're going to look at you as an enemy for sure.

I just don't think Putin is looking at global domination or has any intention outside of eastern Ukraine. He just wants – he doesn't want Ukraine to become a NATO country because it means he's got artillery on his front doorstep. I mean you saw that explosion. Yeah, I think – He's already got two got artillery on his front doorstep i mean you saw that explosion yeah i think you got two nato countries on his door yeah i know he's got enough problems already but you know he doesn't need one more um you know it was that explosion that happened that was like closer to moscow than kiev yeah what was that about there was some explosion at the fuel depot or something yeah he's got Latvia and Estonia. They're NATO countries already on his border.

And, you know, one other thing. Notice they had the worst covid lockdowns in the world. Like you could not get a job if you were not vaccinated in Russia. No, the Baltic states, Lithuania and stuff. And like people had to basically develop a black market. And this is what I keep saying. It's geopolitics that's fueling the lockdowns.

It's based on how much the U.S. powers want people to bend the knee to them is how deep the lockdowns are going. I think it has a lot to do with oil. Is my camera broken?

That's weird because it works over here. I can see you. Well, this one works. Hey, look, we have a map of Europe while I talk. It's a map of Estonia. Right. OBS is on the fritz. Axis and allies, here we go.

I love that game. You know, we talked about it before. Oil has a lot to do with it. Ukraine is a transport for oil. It's not the camera because a camera is clearly working right now. It's just OBS scenes crapped out on us for some reason. We'll have to make emergency backup scenes. We just don't have emergency backups for the right one.

I wonder why that happens. These things are all a part of growing up. These things happen. Yeah, but anyway, the question is will Vladimir Putin use nukes and do we need nuclear bunkers? He's not going to use nukes because once he uses nukes, he knows he's lost the war. Why would he lose the war? He becomes a pariah state. Yeah, why?

Russia would be taken apart by the global community if he fired nukes. It's purely a scare tactic. I disagree. I think he could use a a 100 kiloton bomb on kiev and no one would do anything about it and they're already in the night they're already they've already been economically isolated people have already said he actually has no interest in kiev briansk was where the explosion happened briansk how do you spell that one b-r-y-a-n-S-K. Bryansk. Oh, yeah. Look at that. So what is that about?

No idea. There are also a string of food plants exploding. Do you guys see that? Yeah, I heard about that. Very bizarre. And plane crashes at food plants. You know, people talk about supply chain disruptions. What we're really in is a trade war. And this is the one like really

digging critique you can make of Trump as he thought he could just renegotiate trade deals and not disrupt the geopolitical order because trade deals are diplomatic deals. And he saw it himself, right? All of a sudden China's broke and they can't pay for something. So he had to give them some deal in order for them to have the money to pay off something else. And now like their, their economy's crumbling, you know, you had the default and everything. So what we're really seeing is the entire geopolitical order is starting to crumble and it needs to reset. Not the great reset, but it needs to reset. And it's something I called out earlier today. I think if we prevail, you're going to have a lot of billionaires bankrupt or in prison by 2030.

When you mean we prevail, what is that exactly? The new media people, the Elon Musk. You know, Elon Musk is like the future. And I don't mean that as a suck up. I mean, like he realizes what are the new technologies? What are the new trends where we can really go into the next generation into 2050? Like he believes global warming is real, but he has like concrete engineering ways to actually get past it. He believes in nuclear whatever. Whereas you have this old guard, which is like the W.E.F.

People who honestly believe like genocide is how you stop global warming like it's like uh you ever saw a movie moonraker with with the james bond movie moonraker it's like humanity's poisoning the planet i have to kill them all and repopulate the planet i mean it's yeah pretty much like king's men as well here do you want to you want to switch it to my camera real quick i can try and see if uh what the heck is this the uh the scene was removed that's what happened so it accidentally got deleted so uh we've been using it successfully all yeah so it's it's not there we can't re-edit while we're currently live regarding climate change you can pull the carbon dioxide out of the air and deposit it onto like carbon palladium not out of the air out of the water and this is fascinating if you make water

acidic it will bubble up the carbon dioxide and water as we know from soda water is a great dissolver of carbon dioxide so what you do and they're starting to do this uh explore with with naval ships so they can produce their own fuel is they pump in seawater they separate it into acid they make part acidic part alkaline seawater the acidic seawater bubbles up the carbon dioxide and then they can synthesize that carbon dioxide back into fuel it's called syn fuel and the kicker is it costs about $3 a gallon to manufacture it. You've got a carbon negative way of manufacturing gasoline. You could solve the whole world fuel problem and global warming at the same time. What will happen is we'll start competing with

the trees. We'll be pulling so much carbon out of the water and the air that- Right, exactly. We'll have to calibrate to keep it at 350. Is this a theoretical technology or this exists? This exists and there's papers in it. I was reading about it. It's only a matter of scaling it to be cheap enough. They said you can do this on a naval aircraft carrier for about $3 a gallon. If you did it on the shore, you could probably get it cheaper because you don't have to make everything portable or whatever. But the idea is just in the naval situation, then you don't have to constantly go fuel up at port. You could be out your aircraft carrier indefinitely like a

nuclear submarine or something. There's also a technology called microfragmentation that you can do with coral, where you take coral, you shatter it into a bunch of different pieces, and you set them all near each other. No, no, no. I fixed it. And then they all start to grow together. It's a regrow coral reef, sort of building ones on other planets. The technology with iron fertilization to regrow the plankton in the oceans, we're there to heal the earth.

We're pulling the plastic out. We can reconvert that. There's so much tech out there there and that's what bugs me is like all of this global warming stuff that our government is talking about it's all just pork that none of it is actually it's it's like a chernobyl on a global warming level you know what i mean like it's just going to be another ecological disaster if our government does what they want to do it's interesting it's like the government's job is just to stop corporations from going crazy, not to act like a corporation.

Well, now that I fixed the camera, it's working again. Let's go to Super Chats. So for those that are wondering, what happened is we have, we use OBS and for some reason

the main video feed just stopped working. How did it go through? So strange. Yeah, so I might need to remove one of them, and for some reason, the main video feed just stopped working. Halfway through. So strange. Yeah, so I might need to remove one of them, but I don't know which one is the one to remove now. Let's do that later.

Well, I don't want the audio to go crazy. I've been tweeting the SynFuel thing at Elon Musk. I hope he catches up on that. Yeah, let's talk more about it. Syn, S-Y-N, Fuel? Yeah. Yeah, there's another one called Blue Crude, which is pretty promising. I think they get that from the air.

I could be wrong about that. We're going to go to Super Chats. I think it should be working now, and that was very strange, but these bugs happen when you're using open-source software. Perhaps with your support as members over at TimCast.com, we'll be able to afford better broadcasting software.

Not with me on the payroll. Not with him. So actually, I will say we have the new studio being built. The foundation is done. They're going to be erecting a steel building. It's got 25-foot walls, 31 feet in the middle. We're going to be building this really incredible studio. It's going to have all these fun activities.

The plan right now is we are going to hybridize our workspace in the studio. It's going to have all these fun activities. The plan right now is we are going to hybridize our workspace in the studio will be fully skatable. So we're going to have a bar where you can have drinks fully made of skate materials, grinding, whatever. It's going to be the most hilarious looking work environment ever.

Cubicles, grind all of them. It's going to be fantastic. I'm having trouble visualizing this but yeah we're gonna have a uh stage and you're gonna be able to lift up the platform and it's a foam pit for doing flips and stuff so that's awesome yeah we're gonna we're gonna have this really cool space where there's gonna be music and events and we have a bar people are gonna be working and editing we're gonna be setting up music studios container buildings we had a bunch of really crazy ideas that's currently underway.

And with the new studio means we're going to be upgrading our equipment. So I'll put it that way. OBS should not have bugged out like that. That's so weird. But sometimes these things happen, and it is what it is. If you haven't already, smash that Like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, head over to TimCast.com, and become a member, and I'll tell you why.

We're going to have a members-only segment coming up around 11 or so p.m. We do that Monday through Thursday as a member. You get access to these segments, but you'll also get something else. We just hired another amazing journalist. We're going to be hiring two more columnists. We're going to be producing a whole bunch of content. The more people who sign up to become members, the more we could afford in terms of expanding the website.

We do need to get on our social posting game more so with the articles, the news articles we do, because we've kind of slacked on that. But the other thing we'll do is I believe I have a billboard going up tomorrow at 9 a.m. in Times Square with the help of The Daily Wire. It may be rejected, So we'll see because there's, there's rules about how you can do billboard buys. It can't be an advertisement if you're using other people's like likenesses or something like that, but it basically just calls it the Washington post for lying. And it's very simple. It says, Hey, Taylor Lorenz did this. That's it. We're pushing back on their attempted

gaslighting. And we're gonna do a lot more stuff like that. So when you super chat or when you become a member, rest assured, we are going to be fighting the fight. Now, some people have asked with the Robbie Starbuck thing, why don't we get substantially more involved? There are there are rules and laws around politics. I don't know how to how to engage with that. But the GOP booting Robbie Starbuck off the ballot, I think think is the most corrupt and dirty thing we've seen in a long time. There's been a lot of corruption in politics.

That is as dirty as it comes. As to how we can do anything about it, you've got to run into weird election laws and things like that. So that's where it's more legally challenging. Everything is legally challenging. Spin off a political 501C4. And there's still like rules and stuff as to how it's managed? Absolutely. Get a good accountant.

All right, everybody. Let's go to Super Chats. All right. Hbomb says, hey, Ron, your Santa Monica boxing wants a shout out from you and my Korean brother. That's Harold Gim. I spar with him sometimes. Great guy. Oh, cool.

All right. He's one of those Californians who moved to sometimes. Great guy. Oh, cool. All right. He moved. He's one of those Californians who moved to Texas. America Float says Twitter might get based again, which would bring about dark MAGA Twitter. I want to see it. So I saw some people saying, no, light MAGA. Trump is bringing the light to save people and he's going to illuminate or something like that. Dark MAGA has got its own problems.

You know, I mean, it's like the issue of marjorie taylor green i i support what she does i hate what they're doing to her her politics aren't going to work in california you know i mean she's great for georgia she's great for the people she represents not going to work in california and it's a big thing we're trying to work on is the california republicans are we have our own messaging we have our own issues all right bronson martin says if elon won't sit down with timcast irl would he consider an interview with roberto jr on chicken city also acceptable if elon just walked into the chicken coop and started explaining all of his ideas the chickens i would absolutely accept that it would probably make more money yeah yeah. It would certainly get more super chats.

I mean, there'd be a chicken party like every two seconds. Elon Musk wouldn't be able to get a word in. Well, a chicken party only triggers once every five minutes. Oh, so even if you continually donate the maximum amount. Yeah, so this actually happened. So that's what happened to my money. Two people gave $100, but the way the algorithm works is that if the threshold is hit, it will wait.

It's on a five-minute cycle. Then checks, has the threshold been hit? So if it hits twice, it's just one hit. It's kind of like ordering songs on the jukebox. You just got to get queued up. Right, right. All right. Joe Byrne says, this is for the billboard.

Give them hell, you guys. P.S., is there any chance of adding showgirls to Chicken City? You mean like the hens? Show chickens. Chicken City has a bunch of young chicks. Naked. That's right. Because chickens don't wear clothes.

But Joe Burns. You guys need to grow up. 50 bucks towards the billboard. So we'll see what happens. I will be really excited to see the billboard going up. I'm not in New York, but someone will be there, I suppose, to film it. And I'm sure people will be tweeting about it. So if you live in New York, look out for it. I don't know where it will be. Shout out to Jeremy Boring and the Daily Wire guys for helping organize all of this. But when I tweeted, I was like, should I buy a billboard in Times

Square saying Taylor Lorenz docks the libs of TikTok? If they owned it, I wouldn't care that much. I'd be like, yeah, of course they they did it it's the gaslighting that really bothers me and it deserves a proper rebuttal so Jeremy Boring responded I'm in for half and I was like alright let's do it you're going to make that poor sad dark place a little bit brighter I suppose

but we have to say something we have to do things to be like dude stop lying to people they're just lying to people I wonder if they're going to have Snopes fact check your billboard. Yeah, maybe. Did they really? So you have to stop terrorizing people. I mean, look, this was an act of terrorism.

I know we overuse that word, but the point was to terrorize the libs of TikTok from operating. Right. They're going to call this an act of terrorism, though. I'm sure somebody will. Oh, of course. They got mad when Tucker Carlson talked about her. from operating. Right. They're going to call this an act of terrorism, though. I'm sure somebody will. Oh, of course. They got mad when Tucker Carlson talked about her. Look, I got nothing to say

other than Taylor Lorenz doxed the libs of TikTok. And let's not forget who employs her, which is, you know, Washington Post and Jeff Bezos. I mean, you know, Taylor Lorenz is a relatively

young woman, and if you attack her directly, she'll claim, oh, they're attacking me. Well, I'm not saying anything. But, you know, she's got a chain of... No. Yeah, that's the...

She's an ageless vampire, apparently. Oh, she lied about her age? You don't know. No, no, no one ever... It's a meme to insult her because apparently they think calling a woman old is offensive. No, literally, I checked her age on Google two different times and Google gave me two different answers.

That's just really creepy. It says she was born between 1984 and 1987. There's one of my tweets that shows – How can I believe any of that? It's one of my tweets that shows she was born 1978 in one tweet and born in 1984 on another tweet. That's because people are screwing with her because they're trying to insult her. I am not playing that game. I am pissed off about ideological issues

and about liars in the media. I think it's stupid for people to be tweeting that she's old because she's not. Yeah, but she's lying about her age. She's not. She's not. This is what I can't stand right now about so many people.

They're tweeting stupid, insulting memes that do nothing but discredit the fact that this person doxed somebody. I'm not going to sit here and have an argument about someone's age to try and insult somebody. The issue is they're lying. It's about her credibility. She didn't say this.

I agree with you. And I'm trying to cut through the fact that now the conversation has turned into, did she lie about being old? No. It's immaterial. What happened was she doxed someone, published their private home address, lied about it on CNN and the Washington Post defended her. And stupid people are turning the argument is let's make fun of, they're turning

the statement and the argument into making fun of someone about their age, which does nothing to convince regular people that the media has been pissing on us and telling us it's raining. You want to go have some stupid party where a bunch of frat guys bump their chest and make up lies about people? Go do it. I'm sick of the lies, be it someone saying she's 49 when she's not or her lying to the public about what's going on in the media. Let's just call out the liars. I don't care where they're coming from.

No, but my whole point is she's got employers that want her to do this, that pay her to do this, that defend her when she does that. That means there is a chain of culpability going all the way up to Washington Post owner, which is Jeff Bezos. That's my problem. And she lied. And I would like to call her out. And what I would like to not do is give people fuel in this stupid argument about all they do is harass and make up lies. I don't care about her age.

Her age doesn't matter. She could be 10 years old. She could be 30 years old. If she's in the Washington Post and lying and they get a child to do it, I will say the child is lying. She is an adult journalist who has posted. She has publicly lied on CNN. So we're getting a billboard to say she did this thing.

That's it. All right, let's read some more Super Chats. Eric Miller says, Tim, you talked about doing this before, but why don't you hire some protesters to protest the removing of Robbie Starbuck from the ballot in downtown Nashville? As much as that really pisses me off as well, there are legal issues with that. I suppose as a person, I could just do it. But there are issues with hiring people. If you have a problem with what happened at Robbie Starbuck and you're in Tennessee, go join the local Republican group.

Start your own pack. Collect your own money and do it. There are plenty of ways to do it. All right. Adrian Contreras says, you're wrong about normal folks needing heroes, Tim. Elon, The Daily Wire, or you guys have the means to fight the fight at this point. Every great army needs generals, kinda deal.

I agree. And so we will get a billboard. I'm not entirely convinced it's the most powerful thing. What I think ultimately will happen is it will generate what's called earned press, meaning it's going to force many of these people. I think journalists will take the bait. They're going to be like, look what they're doing. They're going to talk about it. But more importantly, a regular person who sees that might be like, I wonder what that's all about.

And that's all that really matters. Maybe they don't know too much. Maybe it's esoteric. And then maybe one day they hear someone say something. They'll say, oh, yeah, I saw that thing in Times Square. It said that they doxed this person. There you go. That's all that matters. Is there a link on the ad to go to him? No.

And also, I think it's really important for people to understand this. When they tell lies, oftentimes they don't even try to come up with an explanation for why their lie is true. They're not interested in convincing you. They just want to repeat it over and over again so that other people start thinking it's true and saying it. And so similarly, when we counter them with the truth, sometimes that's our best strategy. Explain it if they ask you, but you just have to let people

know that you are bold enough to tell the truth so they feel comfortable repeating it as well. One thing that really frustrates me is when I'm talking to someone. Well, it's one thing when I'm talking to someone and they will make things up outright like okay we're done it's really annoying though when i'm talking to like a leftist or something and then they rebut with something stupid that has trended among libertarians or right-wing personalities or post-liberals that's not true and i just wonder like why do they fall for this stuff stop playing these games stick to the the facts. You know what I really can't stand on YouTube? This this genre of smack talking people for dumb things. So it's like

this political host talked about this issue and he's fat and ugly. I mean, people do it to Cenk Uygur all the time. And I'm like, wow, that's really convinced my my my boomer family members to vote for Trump. Right. How about I just talk about how Trump had no new wars, had historic peace agreements in Europe and in the Middle East, and we had a booming economy, and I can leave the weird insulting of people out of this. That's easy to do. It's that simple. Yep. It's lowbrow. And actually, I'd be willing to bet that political operatives who are aligned with the establishment, be it Republican or Democrat, know one of the most powerful ways to discredit a movement is to get them involved in drama. You get someone to start arguing about someone's age or looks or appearance, and they're no longer arguing about issues that actually matter to regular people.

I'm not arguing about her age. I'm telling people that she lied about her age on Twitter. When? She tells people. I'll'll do the april 12th can we get some oprah lighting in the studio next time i'm really showing my 43 years of age on screen i think it's like an ongoing joke with her but she's lying to people about her age whether it's a joke or not i mean i agree with tim that's not relevant and you know the fact that she's getting paid to lie about people and terrorize people out of the public square.

All right. Richie Taylor says, Tim, you're wrong. Elon can't be blocked all the way to the ISP level. Elon thought this through at the infrastructure level. Tesla and Starlink don't need AWS. That's a massive undertaking. I mean, Twitter is what's called the fire hose. And there is such a massive stream of data coming through at any given moment.

He's going to need some powerful infrastructure for that if he's going to be doing it on his own. So maybe he can. Maybe he can. That stuff's cheaper than you think. Yeah, but I just mean the Twitter fire hose is going to be hefty. That's massive. There's videos and there's photos in there.

WhackedOut1 says, I have the right to protect my customers regardless of the point. Bouncer 101. Well, that's true. So a lot of people don't seem to understand when I was talking about how a business can't kick certain people out. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't or anything like that. I'm saying quite literally what we see in the law is someone will file a lawsuit and claim they were kicked out for a certain reason or denied services for a certain reason and they often win not always we talk about lawfare on this show right i mean a lot of this is just lawfare tactics by activists right i mean the the two guys suing the the baker you know for not baking the cake they're they were funded by some powerful

people you know same thing with a homeless situation in L.A. is what I keep saying. The people who are ostensibly homeless in L.A., they are very well backed legally and financially by activist lawyers. And they go and make sure the city does everything by the book or the city gets sued for like violating their rights and it's to make a point right which is that uh if you don't pass our you know up zoning laws government housing laws whatever you're gonna keep seeing people camped out in all your favorite parks and boulevards all right doughboy johnson says should any publicly traded company be sued for fiduciary reasons when they go woke and stock falls?

Yes. Good luck winning. Anybody can sue anybody at any time for any reason. But if Twitter says we're going to deny money for climate, we're going to deny climate change ads, they should be sued. Granted, right now Twitter's sold, so it won't really matter.

But if Starbucks, they announced we're no longer you know when they announced the bathroom thing like we're gonna allow people to use the bathrooms shareholders should have sued and been like that's going to cost all of us money and you're doing it for no legitimate reason now they can argue our customers were outraged and then you can argue back a small spattering of activists on Twitter do not a customer make. So Twitter, I think, could potentially lose that one. But that goes back to this whole ESG thing where all these companies claim they need to follow ESG guidelines in order to stay in business. And the fact is, if they don't, they don't get funding from the banks.

So they should be sued? I don't see why we should say, oh, poor corporations. The banks are being mean to them. I'm saying good luck winning it. It would be an interesting lawsuit for sure. Why do you think you couldn't win? I'm not a lawyer. I'm just, that's my hunch. Yeah, like if a company, like Twitter rejecting ads over climate change,

I think is a clearly losing issue outright. Granted, it's immaterial now that Elon bought it. But to be like, we're not going to take money from potential customers because we don't like their ads, is telling the shareholders, there's money. We could get it, but we personally have an issue. Okay, you can sue Facebook. Facebook doesn't do those kinds of ads either. Absolutely.

Now, the question with climate change they banned, that would be interesting. The thing about pro-life stuff is they have an argument about offensive or shocking materials. And they can say, well, we would lose. People would get outraged if they saw offensive stuff in their feed. But there's still an argument of they could take this money and provide it in a certain way to only certain users that have opted in. They could, you know, anyway, to the point of climate change, climate change is not objectionable outside of politics.

There is actually an interesting case study with tobacco companies, cigarette packs, where they wanted to show gruesome images of like lung cancer and stuff like that. And the courts ruled that the tobacco companies were not required to put that kind of shocking imagery on their own products. Well, that was the state trying to pass a law saying they had to do it. They wanted to force their companies to show really gruesome things. And so that's different. If Facebook says, for political reasons, we have banned these set of ads, there's no threat to their bottom line. I don't know. I don't necessarily agree with the argument that you could sue a company for denying advertisement.

If you're a shareholder. But the reason is because it doesn't mean that a company's job is to take every piece of money they can get at every time. They have to be judicial about when and where they take their funds. Which is my point. When it comes to the pro-life issue, they'd be able to make some arguments on that one and maybe win. When it comes to climate change, they would be denying money for their personal politics.

That's it. Right. Because it's not even like an issue of global warming is settled or whatever, but even just like you can't even debate the right way to go about it. Like, you and I are sitting here discussing interesting new technologies and, you know, mocking Germany for putting solar panels in a sub-Arctic latitude, you know?

Is that not allowed on things? Right, because if there's two doctors and they each have an advertisement, but this one's a little bit better in your opinion, you choose that ad, but not this ad, I don't think they should sue the people for it just because you like the other ad better. Companies have responsibility to their shareholders to make money. It makes sense if they say these ads would offend people and cost us users and hurt us in the long run.

Good luck suing on that grounds. If they say climate change, we won't allow any ads that defy consents on climate change they have no argument they'll say our left-wing users would get mad and then it's like okay well the current ads you do run make your right-wing users mad you have no argument there's nothing objectionable in showing a picture of a tree and saying climate change this that or otherwise you've chosen a political stance on this and have kicked money back for personal reasons you're costing your shareholders money shareholders shouldholders should revolt. I think their argument is they're worried

Barack Obama would get mad and start passing legislation against them. All right. Matt Kelly says this money is for the billboard in Times Square. I love the idea. If there's any left over, use it to pay for the booze that Lauren Southern drank. Let me just say, the billboard is already taken care of.

Assuming it's approved, we'll have it. But if you become a member or any money you give, we will use for more things like that. So I don't know. We'll do more billboards. My jury's out on billboards for me. I feel like you spend $100,000 to go turn on a digital. They have this digital billboard. They can just turn on your cartoon and then turn it off, cost them nothing.

You give them $100,000 and then 7,000 people see it. No one clicks on anything. They don't seem like good returns these days. It depends on what you're doing and how you do it. You need a multi-pronged approach. There's a rule of seven points of contact in advertising. Somebody has to see your ad in seven different ways before they start recognizing your brand. So six more to go, Tim.

Well, the issue is are you good at marketing? Buying a billboard and saying, I bought a billboard, why isn't it working? Just means you're bad at marketing. So we have this really great idea for a Chicken City commercial that we're doing for Tucker Carlson. And the general idea is we want to make it be like a – what is it? What movie is that? I can't think of the name. So there's a rich guy who wants to plow Chicken City to build a parking lot. Oh, my gosh. And so he gets the city inspector to – he files complaints over the constant chicken parties, and the inspector comes in.

He's like, I don't know, chickens. There's too many parties. And then the chickens have to team up, and then eventually the city inspector gives up and says, there's no point in fighting it. This is the future. And then the old man is like – well, it wasn't – I think it was like Electric Boogaloo or whatever. There was one about – I feel like they've made more than one film like this. There was one about owls when I was a kid. It was called Hoot.

It was like a little owl habitat that they're going to bulldoze the evil capitalist people. The Goonies? No, no, no. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The old trope of the rich guy who wants to build a... One crazy summer. I think it's Electric Boogaloo or whatever.

I've never seen that. He wants to tear down the community center to put up a shopping center or something like that. How many times are you going to see this story? That was the dance-off, wasn't it? Electric Boogaloo or something. It's is like how many times you're gonna see this oh no that was the dance-off wasn't it electric boogaloo or something it's like evil capitalist wants to take thing everyone loves and knows is good to make money and then the the so we're gonna do a 30 second movie trailer and part of it it's gonna be like if people give five dollars they can feed the chickens and once we get a hundred we'll have a chicken party and then we'll raise enough money

to save chicken city dude i can't wait for them to make a derivative film from that concept about elon musk buying twitter like the evil capitalist like he made this this sweet rare bird habitat we should do we should make that one too people can't tweet anymore yeah there's so many stories that are just begging to be told and all it takes is like the right production company to tell them like you know you could take over like the james bond franchise just james bond to me for example is like an allegory to talk about current events like the current political situation and you have like your rhetorical devices like the the spy and the bond girl and the villain and all that but behind it they were always discussing like the politics of the day like cold war russia you know or the 80s taliban or global warming and the environmental movement right cool a bond movie about global warming

would be cool but doesn't have to be bond just like a spy movie about global warming well that's what i'm saying is like moonraker it's like this guy thinks we're destroying the planet and he's yeah is that with jaws was that moonraker? Yeah. Jaws. And the space shuttle. They fly in a space shuttle to the space station with the guy and they sneak onto the freaking space station with the space

shuttle. It's been done. I was a big fan of Goldeneye. Did you ever watch that one? It's been so long. Played Goldeneye on N64. I never saw any of the films from that era. Someone just tweeted,

mentioned, this is Joel Boy. Malice just tweeted that he's meeting Elon. Michael Malice did tweet. He says, I've accepted a meeting with Elon Musk about the future of Twitter, free speech, and social media in general. Hey, Michael Malice, unblock me, you jerk. Oh, snap.

So I tweeted at Michael. Michael, have Elon come on the show with you, and then I'll ask Jack Dorsey as well, and we'll just talk about stuff. Do a long episode. That would be so much fun. Oh my god, Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk in the same room, man. That spark's flying

right there. Alright. Final six warnings, has Tim just Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk in the same room, and that spark's flying right there. Yep. All right. Final six warning says, Tim just nailed it. The culture wars are the ruling class's wet dream, keeping us all distracted with infighting while they have their way with all of us. Left versus right is the minor leagues. It is the minor leagues. And so there's that famous quote that's basically like, do you guys remember it?

It's, you know, stupid people talk about people. Oh, yeah. It's Eleanor Roosevelt quote. Simple minds talk about people. Mediocre minds talk about things. Great minds talk about ideas. Right. That's it.

So we do a little bit of all of that because you have to because people have effects and their ideas. But I think the most important thing is we are mediocre minds here talking about events all day also but on top of that we talk about the ideas behind them i can't take credit for this observation but it should be pointed out that that quote is in fact talking about people i had a thought about this the culture war is that it's inverted from a hot war and that if you fight in the culture war you lose but if you create you i will tell you that if you want to fight for a cause you're going to be fighting with people you know people get into politics thinking i believe in this and that and then they get smeared because the their opponents have a political vested interest in

stopping that it's like i said with when it comes to like our police department or upzoning you got definite people are pushing for that. And if you fight them, if you disagree with them on any of their agenda, they'll come and smear you. People were like – because I said if you fight this in the culture war, you lose. That's how they get you to lose is to get you to fight them. But you create – well, isn't creating a form of fighting? No. Creating is creating.

You might consider it a form of competition to create something better than what they have, but fighting them is different than creating something new. Right. No, you fight them by going around them. We've got breaking news. Michael Malice tweeted that he accepted this meeting. I responded, ask him to come on TimCast IRL with you, to which Michael responded, he wants to blaze it with Ian Crossland. Badass.

All right. Get fired up, boys and ladies. Actually, no. In all seriousness, Michael, if you are listening or we'll tweet at you, Ian, having experience with Minds.com and moderation and all that stuff I think would be very beneficial in this context too. So even if the only thing that happens is Ian ends up talking to Elon a little bit about your experience with Minds, decentralization. Yeah, the jury system. You brought that up before the show. In forms of moderation, relying on Elon to have to do that is going to make him

frustrated and a lot of enemies. But if you create a jury system in the site where the site, the people using it can modify and moderate together as a cohesive decentralized unit, that's a good tactic. We'll talk more about it. So Mines did this. It's actually really simple. It's trying to create the same standards we have in civil life, a jury system.

If you're accused of doing wrong, then a jury of your peers will review the evidence and determine whether or not they agree with the charges against you. organization behind the scenes deciding who or what is worthy of being banned if someone breaks the rules then people can be selected for jury duty they can then opt in and like it will it will be like hey you may see you know violent imagery you may see things you may not like this is a warning you can say no some people might then choose okay show me what this person did they'll say here's what they said or posted does it break the rules and the jury can then issue their vote and then we'd have to figure out was like a two-thirds vote or a unanimous vote? Sure. Yeah, that's all to be determined.

That's the kind of thing the admins can talk about that's fun. And do you think – oh, you go. No, that's an interesting feature with Birdwatch that they could expand on. I'm actually a Birdwatch contributor where you can put a note on somebody's tweet to say whether it's misleading or not, and then you rate other notes on that tweet to say whether those notes on the tweet are helpful or not. So, you know, you get a lot of people who say, that's false, and this person's a poopy head,

and the Putin apologists are like, this is not helpful. You know, so that helps. I think, yeah. I think, yeah, too, man man we're going there all right everybody no i think twitter does make some kind of reasonable effort to moderate conversations for the better and have algorithms that rate whether people want to see your stuff or not the problem is it just gets human override way too much based on like way too many passive aggressive you know feelings about specific people i think any uh algorithm or code to determine what people want or don't want is wrong and should be

removed or at least make transparent it needs to be transparent i think it's a good thing and then you can remove it if you want if you want an opt-in system like twitter has the algorithmic feed the home or the chronological feed, I think that's fine. But anytime someone says, we're going to try and determine what people like, they end up censoring people and it makes things bad. There needs to be an opportunity for people with crazy ideas to express them. You can't just get rid of it because most – 51% of people say Trump is bad. Oh, now Trump's gone. No, we can't do that.

Anyway, my friends, if you haven't, people are saying Malice is trolling. I know he's trolling. I don't care. Michael, tell Elon to blaze it with Ian Crosland. Come on the show and I'll see if Jack's interested. I don't know if he can or would be, but we'll try and make something really, really cool happen. If you haven't already smashed that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show

if you really do like it. We are trying to spread the values of personal responsibility and freedom. I suppose it's all right wing these days, but I don't think it is. I think those are just core tenets of good behavior. So smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, head over to TimCast.com. We're going to have a members-only segment coming up, and we'll have that for you around 11 or so p.m. You can follow the show at timcast irl you can follow me at timcast ron do you want to shout anything out what can't i shout i don't

i mean you know something i wanted to talk to you about for a while is just how you know we got new media and new stories uh that are just begging to be told. I wrote this book, Inferno Los Angeles, InfernoLosAngeles.com. It's a story, Dante's Inferno, based in the modern world. I think these stories need to be told. I hope you say more of those. You start producing stories like that. We got a new book coming out soon. We got Tales from the Inverted World, the first one. We got the new Ghosts of the Civil War coming out soon. We're really excited for this.

So we'll see. Yeah, I'm really excited about a new generation of stories because this old media, they're just committing suicide. Nobody wants to watch their stuff. Right on. Ian, let's write a joint autobiography. A joint? One chapter your life, one chapter my life.

Boom. As long as there's a joint involved. It's a good one. Do I get the joint? I am Seamus. I make YouTube cartoons on a channel called Freedom Tunes. You guys can see that just by typing Freedom Tunes into YouTube. We're going to be releasing a video on Thursday.

I think you all will enjoy it. I'll write a joint book with you called The Light and the Dark. And it's just like toggle between our consciousnesses and it'll seem almost like psychotic. Are you familiar with it? They call this an art school. It's an exercise called the exquisite corpse where you see like – so basically in art, you see where the other person's lines were and try to draw based on that. But it's like you see the last sentence someone wrote in a long story and you try to pick it up from there and it never makes sense. That could be a funny thing.

All right. Perfect for us then. That's great for me. Bye, guys. Ian Crossland. Catch you later. Ron Grincy. I want to shout out your Twitter before we rolled.

It was – what is it again? Ron for California, the number four. That's right. All right, guys. Ian Crossland, catch you later. Ron Grincy. I want to shout out your Twitter before we rolled. It was, what is it again? Ron for California, the number four. That's right. All right, guys. I'll catch you all tomorrow. See you later. Take care, guys. Thank you guys for tuning in.

As always, I really liked, I wanted to point out Ron's awesome shirt. I think it has Thubu on it. Yes. So cool. I was loving it before the show. I was looking at it really closely. It looked a little bit like a funky leaf, but I just wanted to check. It's not.

It's way cooler. Anyway, you guys may follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patchlids as well as Minds.com and at SarahPatchlids.me. We will see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.