Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #518 - Biden Forms DHS Ministry Of Truth Amid Elon Musk Twitter Win w/Sharyl Attkisson & Poso

Episode Date: April 28, 2022

Tim, Ian, and Lydia host journalist and TV host Sharyl Attkisson alongside podcaster and commentator Jack Posobiec to discuss Twitter allowing organic trends to return, Joe Biden's disinformation governance board, how the media gathers fake followers on Twitter, how leftists are exposing themselves as being firmly on the side of censorship (of those they don't agree with), Elon Musks' plan to make everyone a little bit unhappy, and Tucker Carlson's Timcast billboard shoutout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Something crazy is going on. So on Twitter, my what's happening section, it's this curated feed that appears on the right side of the screen. All of a sudden, skateboarding is trending, baseball is trending, Ubuntu is trending, and I'm like, I like those things. Baseball is kind of meh, but I like skateboarding and I like Linux. Why is skateboarding trending? The entire time I've been on Twitter, or at least for the past seven or eight years,

it's been completely political. There was even this one period where Twitter was trending a story that was about me that had no traction, no interest, and it was completely fabricated. Now, all of a sudden, the trending has cleared up. Something dirty is happening behind the scenes at Twitter. And I think there is now ample evidence suggesting that Twitter is cleaning house and trying to purge nefarious code. I think perhaps Vijay Agade was crying in the meeting because they lied to Congress about what they were doing behind the scenes.

Personally, I think Twitter was suppressing right-wing accounts and creating fake left-wing accounts for the sake of healthy conversations, right? Trying to create some kind of pseudo balance. Now, I'll present my case for this. It is just a hypothesis. I won't say it's definitive because I don't know for sure, but that's how things really seem. Amid this, all of these shenanigans with Elon Musk buying Twitter, Biden's DHS has announced

a new ministry of truth. It's actually some kind of department of battling disinformation, but sure. It's being run by some woman who is lamenting Elon Musk's takeover. Someone who is basically a Russiagate proponent. So we can see where this is going. They are not just going to back down. We've now got journalists claiming Elon Musk is already in breach of contract for buying Twitter because he disparaged Twitter.

Surprise, surprise. He's not. They're lying once again. Senator Hawley is calling for a censorship audit on the platform. We got to talk about this stuff. We got a bunch of other stories maybe we'll get to. We've got illegal immigrants now in the United States, I think over a million. We've got a new op-ed from Stephen Marsh on Civil War saying abortion may be like a large catalyst for this. We've talked about it before, but I

don't know if we'll get to all of that because so much is going on with this Twitter stuff. It is not just about censorship anymore. It looks like there may be some serious Enron-level illegal or malfeasant goings-on at this company. And Elon Musk, as Jack Posobiec said, bought the evidence. So joining us to discuss all this today is Cheryl Atkinson. Would you like to introduce yourself? Hello, I'm Cheryl Atkinson. And my voice is a little funky today, but I think we can hang in there.

You want to pull the mic up a little bit? Yes. And you can keep your, you know. Keep it down. Yeah, just rest your voice and take it easy, and we'll keep the hot tea coming. I am a longtime establishment journalist working for CNN and CBS and PBS before going out on my own. And I tend to cover a lot of media issues, sort of looking at my own industry in a critical way that I think is very healthy, but a lot of other journalists tend not to do. Right on. Well, thank you for coming. It should

be interesting considering what we're dealing with now. Already there are journalists trying to lie and cover up. We've got this guy from NBC saying Twitter says the flux in followers is all organic. Sure. We've got Jack Posobiec hanging out. The number one trend in the United States of America now is the Ministry of Truth. Because earlier today, nobody was talking about this DHS disinformation governance board until I happen to be on Twitter. Someone sends me this thing that it's Nina Jankowicz who's in charge of this thing. Nina Jankowicz, you may know her from previously calling and saying that Trump supporters were planning to

show up at the polls on election day, militarized and with weapons to intimidate people from going to the polls. That's her October 2020 on CNN saying that previously she was a member of a Harry Potter fan band known as the Moaning Myrtles. That's a scandal. Who had lyrics that I don't think I can say on YouTube about, you know, obviously underage boys. Yes, I'm serious. And no one was talking about this other than the fact that she very obviously leaked the news to Politico

and then was, you know, crowing about this. And for some reason, Politico didn't even think to do a story on the Ministry of Truth that was being enacted by the Biden administration. So it was up to little old me to have to go tweet this out and all the receipts of Nina Jankowicz, who she is, what they're doing. Because Tim and everybody else here, I got to say this. And Cheryl, it's amazing. I do hope you feel better, but I'm really honored to be on with you tonight. That she is one of the people who immediately, when she saw the Hunter Biden laptop story, said that it was Russian disinformation.

She said it was a fairy tale that he could have left his laptop in this Delaware tech shop because, you know, never heard of a crackhead losing something before. This is the person who's now in charge of your Ministry of Truth. Wow. All right. Well, Jax, thanks for joining us. Thanks for blowing that one open, baby. Also, buy Pillow. Buy Pillow. Buy Pillow. Wow. All right. Well, Jack, thanks for joining us. Thanks for blowing that one open, baby. Also, buy Pillow.

Buy Pillow. Buy Pillow. I'm surprised that... Just buy the Pillow. My favorite book. Just buy the Pillow. I keep being surprised if there's political pushback

against Elon buying Twitter when just before it was Vanguard, BlackRock, and Morgan Stanley that owned a quarter of the company. I never heard anyone mention that. So, I don't know. What's better off? In the hands of one man

like Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post or is it better off in the hands of a multinational corporation? You decide. Anyone other than Vanguard, State Street, BlackRock, etc., etc.

Bezos. Yeah. All right. We also got Lydia pressing the buttons. I am here pushing buttons. I had a great conversation with Cheryl earlier this evening. I'm really optimistic hoping her voice holds out for us tonight. Hopefully we can make it the whole had a great conversation with Cheryl earlier this evening. I'm really optimistic, hoping her

voice holds out for us tonight. Hopefully we can make it the whole show. We'll see what we can do. And don't forget, head over to TimCast.com. In the top right, you will see that beautiful sign up button. Sign up to help support our journalists and the work we do. We recently put up a billboard in Times Square calling

out the Washington Post for lying. With your support, we will continue to call out the establishment for their lies. And everything we're seeing right now, yo, we are storming the hill with the Daily Wire building culture, with what we've been working on with our journalists, with the show we do here, challenging the mainstream press and the lies every night, and then putting up a billboard with the help of the Daily Wire. I think it's a white pill moment. It's good times, good times ahead. But this is a battle being won. The war is not over.

So go to TimCast.com, become a member, and you will get access to exclusive members-only segments of this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. We'll have one up for you tonight. But don't forget to smash that like button right now. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. And let's jump into the first story. I'd like to show you this tweet from Elon Musk. It is a meme.

It's a meme of me. And boy, did this one trigger a lot of people, man. But it's not so much about the meme. I do want to highlight. It shows me, say, here's an example of Twitter's left-wing bias. Twitter says we need to take into consideration the context. Me then saying the context is affected by your bias. And then Twitter saying we need an example of that. And the cycle continues. And I give you another example. Well, Tim, do people understand that this actually comes from your appearance with her on Joe Rogan? Because I actually think people may not understand the context. Well, I think a lot of people don't understand that this is just summarizing, I went on Joe Rogan.

Man, this comes up a lot now because this keeps becoming relevant. And we had this conversation. Dude, that was huge. That was huge. Yeah. Let me help you guys understand because this tweet's got 34,000 retweets. What does this tweet mean? During the show, I was sitting down with Joe Rogan,

Vijay Agade, the top lawyer, the one who reportedly cried at a meeting, and Jack Dorsey, the former CEO. I said, you have banned many people for saying hashtag learn to code. That is an example of your bias. Vijayagade said, yes, but you need to take into consideration the context. They were saying that to harass people. I responded with, no, they weren't. That your interpretation of that is based on fake news and leftist biased media. And she said, I would need to see an example of that, to which I responded.

Here's an example. You suspended the editor in chief of the Daily Caller for indirectly saying learn to code in a quote tweet. He didn't tweet it at anybody. I'm pretty sure that's what happened, right? He didn't tweet it. He didn't direct it at anybody. He was like. No, I don't think it was even a quote tweet.

It was just a standalone tweet. And they suspended him for it. That's right. And there were many other people who did not direct learn to code. So I say that to her. And then, well, you got to take into consideration that. So that was a mistake, but the context around it. Okay. Here's another person who tweeted a blanket thing. Like people are saying, learn to code and it's funny band.

So this, this cycle goes on and on in this tweet though. I want to show you some other things because what this really is about, this is about some shady goings on. We talked about this yesterday, but I think we've got, we have a mystery, my friends. Take a look at Twitter. Let's pull up the tweet again. On the right side, what is this? Skateboarding is trending. Now, Tim Pool is trending.

Okay, I can't do anything about that. Elon Musk tweeted me out. But skateboarding, Dodgers at Diamondbacks? Now, that's interesting. Now, it says the black phone is trending. That's promoted. The What's Happening tab, for me, maybe many of you have noticed this, has been consistently and overtly political. And it's typically leftist politics.

It's typically saying something about, you know, it'll say, Joe Biden did not shake hands with thin air, according to fact checkers. That's always what's going on in my what's happening. All a sudden it's like you like skateboarding tim well i actually do like skateboarding but you've never recommended that to me before something strange is going on and when you look at some of these tweets let me see if uh i'll pull this one up right here daily mail reports burning the evidence before the new boss starts. Don Jr. and right wingers see giant leaps in their Twitter followers after Musk bid was accepted. Let me see if I can pull up this tweet because I might have things out of order.

This is a tweet from me referencing the redheaded libertarian, a good friend of the show, Josie. Her Twitter handle is at TRHL official. That account was abruptly suspended January 20th, 2021, after she pointed out that in January 9th, 2019, she predicted Joe Biden would run for president and Kamala Harris would be the VP. A year later, with no warning for no reason, she got suspended. That's it. She didn't break any rules. Why did that happen? Well, just I believe it was today. She received an email abruptly.

They reinstated her account. Why? It is obvious at this point that the drop off of progressive, progressives, their follower counts are collapsing and conservatives are rising. It is not organic. Twitter is lying. There are journalists in the press claiming, oh, Twitter says it's organic.

They're assisting in the lie. I think what they're doing is they're playing a game of saying it's organic because it's not bots. So it's not bot activity. Yes, it is real people that are leaving. A lot of progressives are leaving. A lot of conservatives are coming back. But the activity is not organic. The activity is artificial because this is the banhammer which had swung down on people like Josie, people like so many others that are getting these.

Now it's being lifted and they're magically coming back. I don't think progressives are leaving. Sean King wouldn't even leave. You know, he deactivates his account. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Sean King did leave for like 12 hours. Right, but I mean he came back. And then he came back. And then he pretended like he didn't leave.

They were trying to call you out, Jack. Right, and then he was trying to call me out as if I had made it up. And it's like, bro, we all saw you take your account down. I'm going to say it. I'm looking for the simple solution here. Right. I'm going to say it. I'm looking for the simple solution here. Right. I'm trying to make the least amount of assumptions.

So when I see, you take a look at the social blade analytics. Yeah. Monday was the day that Elon Musk, it was announced, would purchase Twitter at 2.53 p.m. I know because I was recording live. I do all my recordings for my main show live. And at 2.53, the tweet comes out. So you mean to tell me

the day at 8 in the morning when the Wall Street Journal announced Elon Musk was in negotiations with Twitter. Final negotiations. It was 8 a.m. Not a single conservative said, I'm going to come to Twitter and gloat. Not a single one came and said, let's cheer the sun. Not a single leftist said, I'm going to leave.

This is getting dangerous. Okay, fine. Maybe, because it hadn't happened yet. By 2.53 p.m., not a single one came and said, let's cheer the sun. Not a single leftist said, I'm going to leave. This is getting dangerous. Okay, fine. Maybe because it hadn't happened yet. By 2.53 p.m., not a single conservative joined Twitter to tweet, we got it, baby. Not a single one. Not a single progressive said, I'm leaving. I can't believe this just happened. No, they all just, for some reason, waited 24 hours.

They all said, you know, Elon Musk got Twitter back. I would like to gloat as a conservative. I'm going to wait until tomorrow to gloat. I think that's because the news broke the next day overnight, and they weren't responding to him buying Twitter. They were responding to the news telling them to be afraid of it. Wrong. Well, social media would there would be a tiny, tiny bump when I track analytics and I've done it for like a dozen different accounts. You would think you would see a five percent increase at least, right? Because this was trending like crazy. Every major news outlet was boom, breaking, breaking, breaking. CNN had it on immediately.

You'd think there would be a tiny, tiny anomaly. So I gained maybe 1300 followers per day. You'd think Monday I'd see 1,500. If that was true, Ian, no, it was the exact same. It wasn't until the next day I saw 20,000. The next day, 40,000. Something happened overnight. And now when I look at the what's happening tab, yo, now skateboarding is trending

for the first time for me in eight years. Yeah, I've been skateboarding my whole life. Now they're recommending that to me. I want to add something to this. When the progressives are losing followers, I don't think progressives are leaving for the exact same reason. You would think there would be a small anomaly the day the news was announced of progressives saying, I'm going to leave.

Maybe Ian is right that many people didn't notice until the next day when the news was really of progressives saying, I'm going to leave. Maybe Ian is right that many people didn't notice until the next day when the news was really all over the place. But you'd think at least some people in the know would have left a small percentage, 1%, 2%. There is zero anomalous data. It is static like normal. And then the next day, boom, 5,000 followers gone, 10,000 followers gone. No, I think these were bot accounts. I think Twitter was, I would, I would, I would argue it's possible at least Twitter was involved in this. We've already seen the story from judicial watch where, uh, uh, the democratic party, I think it was in California was requesting censorship. How much do you want to bet? That was DC Drano. DC Drano?

That was DC Drano. Well, that's his lawsuit. Oh, okay. He was censored after... Well, no, I think Judicial Watch revealed this. We had Tom Finn on recently. I think they did it. And then I know Harmeet Dhillon

is working on that one as well, where his censoring actually came at the behest of the California government. And what Judicial Watch got was the... They're getting the actual receipts, the documentation that shows that. I'm willing to bet that Twitter was operating fake accounts for the sake of quote unquote health of the platform.

That is, the platform was overwhelmingly being dominated by right-leaning voices. That liberals were overwhelmingly rejecting wokeness. A healthy platform, a good balance between left and right, right? Well, the problem is former hippie skateboarding liberal types and left-wing types like Tim Pool all of a sudden are saying,

we got to vote for Trump. The scales had shifted. How much you want to bet? Twitter said, we've got to, we have the mission on our hands. So we're going to ban a good chunk of the right. We're going to artificially inflate the left

to fake the health of the conversation. Well, I think that almost gives them too much credit for doing something that's to the benefit of the whole. And I think there may be an element of that thought process in there. But I do think there was a big element, as in California, of political figures and corporate figures able to call the shots with Twitter so that some of the balance or what may look like balance is actually influence. And I think that's what makes the case for Twitter not just being a private company that can make its own policies, which is what people say when there's a question of do they have the right to censor?

People say, well, it's a private company. It's not really. I argued in the last book that I wrote that it is a quasi official public government organization because of its contracts, because it is beholden to the government, because it fears regulation if it doesn't abide by certain rules and requests. And it has admitted to taking directives from political figures and members of Congress who were not elected by us to control Twitter. But that's exactly what they've been allowed to do.

Let me address that. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The people at Twitter think they're on a glorious mission to save humanity. But if you have the majority of the American people saying wokeness is not good. And you end up with post liberals. These are people who voted for Democrats. I was I was supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016, and I did not vote for Trump. Now, here I am having voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2020. That is them saying, oh, something bad is happening because our worldview is being rejected.

In reality, they are insane. Psychopaths thought, how do we save the balance of the system? I know as psychopaths, we need to create the perception that psychopaths are actually normal. Just because they have good intentions doesn't mean they're not doing evil. So the path to hell is paved with good intentions. They think they're good people. They're not. I can echo that, man. As a social media administrator for like six, five or six years at Mines, what would happen is you'd get people would be boosting stuff

and they'd be posting stuff. And I'd go through and I'd be like, okay, all politics are not safe for work. I want to keep that conversation in its own area. And then I'd see something would come up that I would agree with. And I'd be like, wow, I agree with that. And I want that message to be propagated. But my job as an admin is not to make that decision. I have to put that in the bucket with all the other politics. For instance, Tim's work, he'd make a video and it would be cogent. And I'd be like, well, it's politics. So it goes with the politics. And it takes a strong mind to continuously do that.

I don't think any human's really capable of setting their emotions aside like that. Let's take it back in time. How did this all begin? Gizmodo reported May 9th, 2016. Far right Gizmodo. Far right Gizmodo. Former Facebook workers. We routinely suppressed conservative news. And when I said, wow, look at this report from what is NewsGuard certified. Real news. I get accused of echoing false claims from conservatives that they routinely face suppression and censorship. And then every time that comes up, I'm like, oh, I've never asserted that as a fact. I've only cited Gizmodo. Now, of course, it's a fact.

We have ample evidence it's happening. But the crazy thing is when the news broke, it was Gizmodo that was telling conservatives they were being suppressed. All of a sudden now the narrative shifts. I mean, look at their image. It's an elephant with a sheet over it. Gizmodo of all outlets. We know what's happening. I think Vijay Gade may have been crying at her Twitter meeting because they were doing something unethical, amoral, or potentially illegal, and they're about to get caught. I think that Monday night when Twitter learned that, so this makes more sense.

A lot of people are saying progressives are leaving, conservatives are joining. It is true to a certain degree that many conservatives are tweeting like, look, I just signed up. Sure. You know what makes more sense when the Twitter staff had that all hands on meeting later in the day and the CEO said, it's happening. Let me answer your questions. After that meeting, which is now 5 PM, it's probably 6, 7 PM Eastern. Someone there said, clean it up, clean it up, clean it up, man. You got to get rid of all that code. He's going to come in. he's going to see this.

We are going to jail, dude. And then pulled the code out. And that night, boom, Josie gets reinstated. All of these learn to code people start getting reinstated. I think they were running an algorithmic ban on right-leaning users for saying things like learn to code. I bet there was a list of phrases that were obvious and overtly right-leaning. I bet you Hunter Biden's in there.

Or Hunter Biden. The laptop story. And I think we all know the pharmaceutical industry. There's many, many pharmaceutical interests and topics that were controlled. Cheryl, does the pharmaceutical industry have influence on the media? What are you saying? Guys, who is this? And that deviates

from the left-right pattern, but I think that's another big one that's at play. Jack, that's completely not true. Let me just quickly say, this episode is brought to you by Pfizer. You see that meme where every morning news show is brought to you? We're not really brought to you by Pfizer. It's true, though. I have to clarify

that was a joke. We're not actually brought to you by Pfizer. We're just kidding. Also, Cheryl can beat us. I'm pretty sure she can beat us all up. What bothers me is that there's no way to – well, at this stage, there's no way to know if there's nefarious stuff going on in the Twitter code. I wish that we could watch that happen. It's another value of having the software be free.

Keep in mind, though – If they went ahead and changed stuff really fast, is it too late now? Did they make changes that even if someone were to go in and try to see, is it too late? Look, I said this yesterday on War Room, and I'll say it here again. Elon Musk didn't just buy a platform. Elon Musk bought evidence. He's got all this. And I guarantee you that he knows people that he can bring in that when they actually peel back the curtain,

look under the hood of this thing, they can go back as far as they have to go because he will bring in the highest caliber people. Because you see all the stories, by the way, in Business Insider, they say, oh, he's so demanding and he's always firing people. No, because he wants the best. I don't know why he absolutely wants the best. Can I say something? If he's really smart, and I think he's really smart, these transactions, as you know, they're gone over by attorneys and analysts. Some attorney from Elon Musk's group sent some attorneys over at Twitter a note that said, don't touch things.

Preserve your records, Twitter. Preserve your records. But watch out for Twitter going down mysteriously, which of course happens. Watch for any kind of server migration. So right now, if they manipulate code, I believe it's theoretically possible to see that they've done changes to look at edits. But correct me if I'm wrong, Ian, if they migrate the servers fresh, copy only the existing code, all the records are going to be lost. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that. I don't know.

So can I just go back real quick onto the Ministry of Truth, by the way? Because I've just got- I want to bring the story up right now. Okay, because there's an update and oh my goodness. Let me pull up this story first and we'll throw it to Jack.

We have this from timcast.com. Department of Homeland Security forms disinformation governance board. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the board would work to prevent disinformation campaigns that target minority groups. They lost Twitter. And this quickly, they are already trying to play dirty games. We have it over at the Daily Mail board, and it is being headed by a Russia expert

who called the Hunter laptop story a Trump campaign product and said she shudders to think about Elon Musk taking over Twitter. Well, here's our ministry of truth. Jack, what's going on? Well, Tim, see, here's the thing is that Nina Jankowicz of the Moaning Myrtles has responded. So she's responded to some of this criticism. She notes, for those who believe this tweet is key to all my views, it is simply a direct quote from both candidates. For you see, this was during the final presidential debate. And if you debate, and if you look at my timeline, you will see I was live tweeting. See, she was just live tweeting. She was just live tweeting the debate. Except here's the problem.

In the immediate follow-up tweet to this, she wrote, the emails didn't need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve the context, again, the keyword context, not a fairy tale about a laptop repair shop. She called it an influence campaign

in the very next tweet. So we caught her in day one on the job lying about what she said about the Hunter Biden laptop, trying to cover it up. But I'm sorry, Nina, we got the receipts. Can I say that I find it a little odd that we've all bought into arguing over sort of the minutia of how this is done instead of stepping back and looking at 2015 and the notion that anybody should control for any reason. So we're arguing, should they control a certain hashtag? Does it really attack people? Why are they controlling a hashtag in the first place? Before 2015, there was

relatively little, if any, discussion over bringing in third parties, a corporation, no less, to control the content that we can access and make our own decisions on on the internet. The social media companies had already invented tools where we could control our own experience. If you don't want to see something, if you want someone to cull your experience, you can follow the right people, you can block other people. The notion that someone else should be doing that for us was introduced to us in about 2016. And we've kind of bought into it. We've argued over the terms. We've kind of bought into that there are reasons why this should be done. And there are people who could maybe do it better instead of stepping back in my view and saying, only that which is illegal

should be moderated by anybody in my view. Well, that's where we've been, right? So we had Torba from Gab on the show who said, here's my rules and he pulls out the constitution. And I'm like, agreed. Well, that's kind of what Elon's saying now, that his notion, and this, by the way, this is why these two stories are connected.

Because Elon said that his view – and he said this in that TED talk he gave last week. It was actually an interview, I guess. That his notion should be that it should be up to the laws of the state in which Twitter is operating because those laws are reflective of the will of the people. I guess if you're in a democracy, right? That being said, right? That being said, the very same way, the ink isn't even dry on the paperwork for Twitter and already the Biden administration is launching a ministry of truth.

They know they've lost this one and they had such power in the private sector because their sycophants were just like, but it's a private company. Now that they've lost it because someone had the money to buy it, now it's going government. This will be interesting. You'll need money

to combat this in the courts. It'll be difficult. Does anybody read or are they required to read anymore? I'm a little older than you guys, but 1984 and Animal Farm in school. My kid wasn't. I mean, we read it at home. I don. And Animal Farm in school. My kid wasn't. I mean, we read it at home. I don't think I was required to, no.

This was required reading when I was growing up. Wow. And when you say ministry of truth, and I get it, and a lot of people get it, I think a lot of people, when I've mentioned these things about 1984 and how language is used to mean the exact opposite of what it really is by the government, all the things that are happening that are such perfect parallels to what were written about decades ago, so many people seem unaware of. And I feel like if people had been opened up to this, they could see it happening and

witness it with some knowledge that they're not able to in many instances now. Right. And the main character, for those who haven't read it, the main character of 1984 works for the Ministry of Truth. That's his job, is to go back in time and censor things that are no longer in line with the party narrative. The Ministry of Peace is all about war. The Ministry of Love is all about hatred or whatever. They call it double speak. Double speak, yeah. So we normally save superchats for the end, but sometimes we get a good one. We do have a good one here from Christopher who said, they're purging their code, but they're bringing back followers

to make their earnings report look good so Elon can't buy. Now, I don't know if that's true that he wouldn't be able to buy if the earnings report looks good, but this will affect the earnings report if Twitter comes out and says, we had a massive increase of users. Look at all this. I think Elon Musk cornered Twitter. He came to them knowing their earnings report was going to be bad and the stock would fall. And so they had no

choice but to accept the premium because he made the offer only a couple of weeks before they had to do their earnings report. If they did not accept the $54.20 earnings report comes out, stock drops to 30. The board can be sued for that massive loss by the shareholders who would be outraged. So he wins this one. They can't break the deal now. If they do, they lose a billion dollars. But it is interesting because whatever Twitter is doing right now, removing these bans will make their growth look better. So someone that's not paying attention, right? People that are like, well, I was unbanned. Except the report will say in quarter one, we saw an influx of 3.4 million users.

They won't say it was the last day that they unbanned everybody. Yeah, they're not going to talk about how they came out. They got to be careful with fraud. If they're going to try and defraud their investors by telling them that a bunch of accounts that they had anyway that they were considering unbanning before, they just chose to do it to make some extra money, they're going to go to prison. That's why they're running around to everyone in the media saying, oh, no, no, no, this is organic.

That's why they're making sure to give statements every single day to everyone who has the data. They lied. Choosing to get unbanned is not organic. Someone did that. And they, in my opinion, opinion lied to congress when they were like there's there's nothing in place for censoring these people or politics it's like bro your rules outright say misgendering will get you banned but it's an inversion of how conservatives see what

misgendering is their rules are overtly targeting conservatives and they are lying to congress about it and they're not getting in trouble. I'm looking at the top 10 owners of Twitter. It's Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, SSGA Funds Management, Aristotle Capital Management, Fidelity Management, ClearBridge Investments. It's 10 investment firms. Do you know what SSGA is? No.

Google it. SSGA Funds Management. Yeah. You're going to love this. Wow. Yeah, look it up what does the ssga state street isn't it state street global global so state streets number four yep so they don't care about lying to con they're gonna send jack dorsey up there make him tell him to lie to

congress and then he's gonna be the one that's on the hook but here's something goes wrong but listen what happens is they give themselves plausible deniability they go to jack and say hey jack here's the report on everything we're doing. And he goes, okay. Then he goes to Congress and they're like, are you doing this? We are not doing that. Based on a report he read that was a lie to him. And then he says, well, they lied to me.

I didn't know. I told the truth. And the person who lied to me wasn't under oath. That's the game. That's a tough one. How do you navigate that kind of situation are they claiming high paid lawyers yeah that's how you are they claiming net gains of users because they're also people claiming they're fleeing twitter but are they saying that overall

they're gaining way more than they're supposedly losing that's the that's the strategy that's what tim's saying is that the strategy is they can pick up and far surpass by removing the bans. So it's not even a political thing in this theory. It's just – it's about the earnings report. Katy Perry lost 200,000 followers. You're not going to convince me that a bunch of Katy Perry fans were like, I am outraged that Elon Musk bought the platform. But she also lost Russell Brand, more importantly. Did she?

She also lost Russell Brand. That's sad. Oh, really? I mean, if anyone's going to annoyingly just leave out of emotion, it would be someone that follows Katie. No offense, Kate, but your fans are like bubblegum people. Didn't Barack Obama lose hundreds of thousands? Look, everybody knows that those main accounts, and Dave Rubin had the tweet up today that the New York Times has 53 million followers

and yet gets like 50 retweets per tweet. And Elon Musk even responded to that saying, what's going on? Actually, Rubin used to talk about this all the time. He called it the Rubin ratio, right? So the Rubin ratio is how many followers you have versus what is your engagement. Meanwhile, like, you know, I can write something in a certain way, you know, or drop receipts on someone like we just did with government official Nita Jankowicz, catching her in a provable lie, in a demonstrable lie, and that's going to get tons of retweets. But a New York Times article with 53 – 1% of that should be enough to get you tons of retweets.

Didn't he say he could tweet a celebrity photo and a banana and it would get more tweets? See, I wasn't going to bring that up, Cheryl. And it did. He did, and would get more tweets. See, I wasn't going to bring that up, Cheryl. And it did. He did. And it got more tweets. Yeah, he did. It was like an 80s sitcom and a banana. And he got more.

He got like 5,000 retweets on it. Let me actually pull this tweet up from Dave Rubin because there's a lot more context in this. We have the tweets from Dave Rubin himself. He says, hey, Elon Musk, as long as you're digging, check into how New York Times, Forbes, et cetera, bought their Twitter followers to fake influence. New York Times has 53 million followers. bought their Twitter followers to fake influence. New York Times has 53 million followers and

rarely gets 50 retweets. I could post a banana emoji and a pic of an 80s sitcom star and get more. See next tweet. Okay, here is Dave's next tweet. It is an 80s sitcom star with a banana and has 7,718 retweets. God bless her.

Now, Elon Musk responded, I noticed that. I noticed that too, pretty weird. Everyday Astronaut says, conversely, for some reason, the last two days, my account suddenly got 30,000 followers a day and we've done nothing different. It's far beyond our average one to two K per day. You're not going to convince me that that is all organic. I responded to Elon Musk. So Elon said almost every media outlet on Earth wrote about me acquiring Twitter, causing a massive influx of new users. I just want to point out, there was no influx on the Monday

this was announced. Take a look at this. So Social Blade is GMT, by the way. So that's London time. Sure, sure, sure. So just to take that into consideration. Absolutely. And it's possible, I was saying, that they calculate everything by like 5 p.m. That still doesn't explain how on the 20... So whoever's account this is, everyday astronaut.

Right. So 3 p.m. Eastern would be what? 8 p.m.? On 4-24, 3,000. On 4-23, 3,000. On 4-25, 3,000. 3,900, 3,700. And then the next day, 30,000.

I don't buy it. No, no, you can't. I mean, that's what is that? Well, the other way to check is... A 10x increase? The other way to check is... A 10x increase? The other way to check is to check the create on date. So go through and look, because I've seen a lot of accounts that

are created April 22 now with zero followers. I have seen that. Okay. And some people were tracking on governors. Actually, a mainstream outlet, I forget which one, was looking at Governor DeSantis' account, and they saw that some... But, but, it was only like 10% of the followers were created on in April 22. So take a look at this.

424, it's 37. 425, it's 39. Now there's a gain of about just shy of 200 and 160. That can be explained by, it can be simply explained by Monday, more people are at work and they're on Twitter. But there's nothing, there should be a larger anomaly because it was 8 a.m. on the 25th when they said Elon was in final talks to buy this. Shouldn't there be at least a small percentage of conservatives being like, I'm going to

follow an astronaut? I would think so. So I think there's something dirty happening. But back to Dave Rubin's point, let me tell you what's going on with some of these accounts. For one, journalists buy fake followers. I know all about that. And the New York Times likely has, when you sign up for Twitter, they tell you to follow these people. It says, follow these accounts. And then you'll just go boop, boop, boop. New York Times is probably one of the first recommended, and it's probably why. I get that constantly.

If you scroll back on – so the way to check – people use this for identification purposes many times because typically some of the first accounts you follow will be geographically co-located. Yeah. So you might follow your local newspaper. Now, if you're in New York, that might be New York, but maybe you're in Minneapolis, you follow the Star Journal, right? Maybe you're in Nashville, maybe wherever you are, right? And so some, typically, if you scroll back on someone's Twitter followers, those are in sequential order. So you're actually looking at a timeline of when they followed each person in that time. So if you go back to the earliest ones,

usually the first two or three are going to be like New York Times, CNN, or Washington Post because that's what's recommended to you. In many cases, when you're signing up for your account, they require that you follow three before you can sign up and they present those three to you. Tim, how do you buy followers? We just Google it. I don't know if you can still do it, but it was, it was fiber used to have it. Yeah. How expensive is it? Well, they're more, they're a little bit more, a little bit more professional now, but it used to be like

these Macedonian lot farms. I'll say everybody accuses everybody else of buying followers. And you can't really track this stuff anymore. The bot farms have gotten really good at obfuscating this. What people used to do was track engagement. So they would look at a certain account and then run it through some program. And it would be like 75% of their followers don't tweet. They're fake. And my response to people

was, dude, if you go to Donald Trump and you run him through this, you're going to see 90% of his followers don't tweet. Why? They're his fans who signed up for Twitter. They follow him, they don't post. So you can't call people fake for that, so it's really difficult to know for sure. That may be true of the New York Times.

The New York Times might not be getting retweets because... Everybody signed up because they had to. No, no, no. I don't comment on the New York Times. I follow all these news outlets. I don't engage. I see the story and I click the link. I don't... I'm not going to argue with a news article.

I like, Jack, what you said earlier about the real value of these numbers is what is your follower to interactivity ratio? Reuben ratio. In early YouTube, 2006, 2007, I started noticing you get 1,000 subscribers and you get 8,000 subscribers. But I was only getting like 4,000 views. I'm like, well, where's those other 4,000 people?

I wish I had a button where I could have a bunch of accounts unfollow me, like unfollow me if they're dead accounts, if they haven't logged in in 30 or 60 days. Because I need to schlep that nonsense number. I want an accurate account of who's really there. Yes, yes, yes. But Ian, I'll give some insights to people who watch this show. We produce this live show. We then produce, I think, between three and five

clips from the show the next day. And then I have three clips on two different channels. Of those videos, the average subscriber watches 10 per month. So that means if I'm putting up, let's say, eight clips per day for 31 days, we've got 248 clips or whatever. The average person only sees 10 of them. So when I'm wondering... The average follower. The average follower. Right. Only sees about 10 of the clips when I'm wondering. The average follower.

The average follower. Right. Only sees about 10 of the clips that I put up every month. So if I, you know, I have 1.3 million followers on my main, on my personal Tim Pool channel. I get 300 or so thousand, 200, 300 thousand views. I'm not surprised because of those, you know, people. You can just basically do the math. Some people are diehard fans, and they'll watch every video.

Some people will watch every other video. Some people will watch a video once a week. There's accounts that haven't logged in in 60 days that I'm not interested in having around anymore. I feel like they're bloating my numbers. But YouTube does delete those. Sometimes, but I want a button where I can manually do it. I'm trying to tell YouTube, put it on there, man. Let people see their real numbers.

I mean, that can be... You're the only one that wants to see your real numbers. I'm joking. Most people want to see the big numbers. They want the inflated, living on top of the hill of gold thing. If you're going to make that actually social currency, your follower number, then there needs to be some regulations about buying

fake stuff. It's like counterfeiting money and telling everyone you're rich. There is for, where this comes into an issue is when advertisers come up. Because if you're using bot traffic, and this was the, and I'm going to be careful about this,

the previous owners of Newsweek got in trouble for this. Because the previous owners, before they were bought out, were using bot traffic to juice their numbers, juke the stats, and then present that to advertisers claiming that they were getting X amount of traffic, which was completely false.

Well, so back in the day, there was this big scandal around ad rights distribution or ad rights sales. And an ad right was that you could have a website that gets a thousand views per month. You sell the rights to those views to a bigger network. The network aggregates 50 websites that each get, you know, a thousand views. And now they say we get 50,000 views. Technically that's true. What was happening was there would be a company and we'll, we'll call it, um, we'll call it golden brand, right?'ll call it golden brand right they're the golden brand they're the hottest brand they go to an advertiser look we get 50

million views per month on golden brand now do you want your product associated with our golden brand yeah then you gotta pay for 50 million views and then then what would happen is, yeah, 5 million would be on Golden Brand. 5 million would be on clickfarm.garbage. The others would be on ultimateamericanpatriot.info. And what these websites would do is they advertise top 25

celebrities. And then when you click it, it'll show you a celebrity. And in order to see the next picture, you've got to click to a new page. I hate that. Turning one person into 25 views that they can then fluff their numbers up, sell to advertisers. It was a huge scandal. Everybody was doing it.

You click those every time, don't you, Tim? Thank God not everybody. Top 25 celebrity skateboarders. And the picture they get you to click on isn't in the whole thing. But that's why. That's so aggravating. You can go through the whole thing to get you to the end. But you're one person reading one article, but now one article or one page becomes 25

pages or more. 25 views. But you just answered the question, maybe. I don't understand all this, and I get approached from time to time, like everybody on the web that has a webpage or website, whatever. And people call me and say, can I put your website? You don't mind if I put it on my aggregation site, right? Like, this is good for you, right? I'm like, no, but you know, are they selling to somebody who's buying ads for them that what your viewers

are? If you'll make a video and this happens all the time, the Daily Wire publishes an article, someone will just quote the article and then repost it on their blog. It's called newsjacking. Right. And they'll do that to try and get clicks and make money off of it. So what they're doing is they're, in some cases, they might be copying your work wholesale and then wrapping it on their site so that nobody ever actually clicks through to charlotte.com, but you're a click, you're reading it on, you know, whatever, what Tim is at click farm dot garbage. And because they never clicked through to your site, you don't get any of the ad traffic. Is it too far off the beaten

path for me to mention something about, we're talking about ads. I have a website. It's pretty expensive to maintain in my own. It's just a little thing I do myself. Nothing like the big traffic you guys get, I'm sure. But it gets more expensive as more people visit. So I let Google AdSense put ads on there, rotate them through, make a little money to pay one of my web guys. I got a notice a week ago that said, you can no longer use AdSense. And I have violations for factual articles that they want me to take down, but it's not over that. You can no longer use AdSense unless you approve our new terms. And then there's no way to approve the new terms. So I had my web guy look. I said, am I crazy? There's no way to get in to approve the terms to continue using AdSense to continue

collecting off the ads. And the web guy goes in and there is no way to approve the terms. So I'm in effect locked out of the AdSense cycle. There's no one to, and there is no way to approve the term. So I'm, in effect, locked out of the AdSense cycle. There's no one to contact. There's no way to appeal. There's no one who will answer the question. But I feel like there are these sneaky ways, even if you don't, they can't pull you down for blatantly violating something they say you violated. They find other ways to make it pretty impossible to operate.

That sounds like an oversight developmentally rather than a malicious attack on you. I can't tell, but that's what it sounds like. Except I didn't read anywhere that anybody else was, usually you can Google something like that or search it, and people are saying that happened to me, I have the same problem, and I just don't see other people having it. I definitely saw a lot of people talking about

Google AdSense sending out new terms. I didn't see anybody mentioning that. Maybe that's a great question if anyone's in the super chat who's watching or can send anything in. But that does sound like a technical issue. But it reminds me of Facebook that recently said I had a violation. And then if you click in, there is no violation. And it says, if you don't fix it, we're going to take down your page. and you click to appeal and it says there's too many appeals we can't consider yours. To me, anyway, it's a trap that I can't get out of, so I just quit using my professional Facebook page.

You know, regarding terms of service, this is very important. When a company updates their terms of service and wants you to click accept on them, what they should have to do legally is show you the old terms of service and the new terms of service side by side with highlights of all the changes. So you can click in the areas, go right to the place that's been changed and see exactly what's been changed. Completely unconscionable the way they do it now. Let's change it.

I want to pull up this tweet from ContraPoints. ContraPoints is a prominent leftist YouTuber and trans woman who quoted the Elon Musk tweet of me and Vijay Agade and said, the Rogan clip he's referencing is about whether Twitter having a rule against misgendering trans people is, quote, left-wing ideological bias. Partly true, but yes.

And I wonder if Contra tweeting this earlier today, with tremendous respect to ContraPoints for actually knowing the argument I made and getting it earlier in the day. Natalie Wynn, ContraPoints then says, source, these are the people restrained by the current moderation that Elon apparently intends to remove, says everything you need to know about the sort of place that this is about to become. I wanted to highlight this because this from ContraPoints, I believe, shows you exactly what the left's view of the platform is. So when I was on Rogan's show, I said, your rules are overtly biased. Jack Dorsey took issue

with this and said, no, they're not. And I said, you have a misgendering policy. Conservatives do not agree with progressives on what misgendering means to a conservative. If someone is born male, they are he, him to a progressive. If someone identifies with a pronoun, they're whatever pronoun they want. That is a difference in worldview. And at the very least, you can say Republicans are going to vote one way. Democrats going to vote the other. That is not a moral statement. I am not saying it is good to misgender anybody. I'm saying if Twitter decides that the conservative perspective on this is out the window and

only the and they will enforce with permanent removals the progressive worldview, then there is a biased system to the left. ContraPoints and the fans of ContraPoints believe it's a good thing that conservatives are not allowed to have their worldview on the town square and the largest political social media platform. Now, conservatives think the left should be allowed to have their views on the platform, but the right should as well. I just got to say right there, this is why post-liberals, people who used to vote Democrat, used to vote for Bernie, are now finding themselves voting for

Trump. I'm one of them because I'm like, I think it's fantastic that ContraPoints expresses all of these opinions and has left-wing views. Wonderful. I'd like to argue them. I also appreciate that Jack Posobiec has his opinions as well. But they banned Alex Jones. They banned Donald Trump. They banned Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos. They banned Carl Benjamin. And for what reason?

They said naughty words. Words they did not like. Well, okay. That's politics. If you want a political platform, expect things you don't like. Some people like what they say. Vijaya did not. There's a really another response to this.

Wait, Tim, you're leaving. You're leaving on not one, but two brothers that absolutely deserve to have their Twitter accounts back. Please, please remind everyone who that is. The Krasenstein brothers. Absolutely. The Krasenstein brothers. Well, but so they were accused of using bots. Now, that was a bot issue.

I don't care. But they should have their accounts back. They accused many conservatives using bots as well. I haven't seen any evidence. You show me proof the Krasnstein's were using bots. I'll say, okay, fine. For the time being, I don't know about that. One of the other responses was that there were several examples of breaking the rules. That doesn't negate my point. Vijay Gade told me that Carl Benjamin was suspended for saying some really awful things. And I'm like, yeah, I agree. I think those things are really awful too. I can't remember exactly what he said, but does that matter? Perhaps there are some people who would come out and say, I don't believe anybody who

opposes free speech should be allowed on the platform. It is an affront to American culture. It is a front to the founding fathers and everything this country stands for. How about this? How about every conservative who says burning the flag is wrong? If this platform was run by Donald Trump, he'd ban people for showing pictures of burning the flag. And that would be wrong, in my opinion. But it goes to show you that when they- But then what if you're reporting?

What if you're reporting on Antifa? Well, I don't think Trump would ban you for reporting on Antifa doing it. I'm saying if Carl Benjamin goes on the platform and insults someone and calls them a name, so they ban him for it. I believe if it was run by staunch conservatives, people like Donald Trump, and you post yourself burning a flag, you'd be banned for it. But this is also my point, though, is that if you're running this through some arbitrary system, you have some machine that's banning people. Well, you start with saying, OK, I don't like the American flag burn. I personally don't like the American flag burn, obviously. But then you start banning people for showing that. Well, then if I'm reporting on Antifa,

or if you're reporting on whoever you're reporting on, right, and you have to show extreme symbols. So I remember I did an Antifa documentary. And was it Vimeo? Vimeo took it down because they said it was violence. Well, it was a documentary about a violent group that uses violence to attain political ends. So, yes, there's going to be violence in it. But let me say, again, we're arguing something that is easily resolved and was in the original design. I think somebody says something you don't like. You block them once. You'll never see them again.

That's your method, your tool that you can use. But what you're saying when you want people to be blocked is you don't want other people to see it. You're not even talking about yourself. You're trying to control what other people can access. That's what I have a problem with. There are the tools that exist there. If I don't like what you say, I can hit block and I'll never see it again.

It only has to happen once. Avert your eyes and move on. It is insane to me that the left thinks you should not be allowed on the platform if you would choose to call them something they did not choose to be called. In what reality? I can go outside, walk down the street and call everyone a chicken effer. I can see a guy walking on the street and be like, screw you, chicken effer. I knew it was going to happen. Nothing. Now, in some places, they might attack you. They might hit you for it.

99% of the time, they're going to be like, okay, whatever, and they're going to walk off. Yet, for some reason, these people on Twitter are like, not even Zuby, famously suspended for saying, okay, dude. Not trying to misgender someone by calling him a dude, but just being like, okay, dude, like in response, I call everyone, dude,

I actually call everyone dude, regardless of gender. They, they are actually arguing that you would see an image of someone. And because you use the wrong pronoun, you should not be allowed on the platform. Insane. It's a private company owned by a guy. If he wants to censor people and kick them off, I get it. Well, the company is Twitter. Twitter.com is just a piece of property that's owned by the company, Twitter. So I want to talk about the product, Twitter.com. When it gets big and you're like, okay, now this guy is controlling something that we're using in the commons, what do you do? You use the government to say you can't censor? I don't like that.

The only thing I can think of is to make him open up the code so that other people have access to other Twitter. Well, I agree with you. I think having the government come in and say anything, it just compounds the situation that we're already in. I think that social media titans should have said when they were initially approached with trying to moderate and fake fact check and do all the things they do, their best answer for their own protection too would have been to say, we don't do it.

As Tim said, Gab said, we only censor or control that which is illegal. The other stuff you can do yourself. Except doxing. And spam. No, I don't. Did he say he banned spam? He wants to. He said he wants to.

And so they're interesting and fair points. And authenticate all humans, which is interesting. No, no, no. I mean, I know Elon does. I'm talking about Torba. Oh, sorry. Gab. Andrew Torba said the Constitution, but you can't dox people. And I said, I think everybody agrees with that because showing someone's address is not an expression of your political views or opinions. It's just, you know, it's an attack on someone. So should we hold on? I actually wonder if that if doxing should be allowed.

Well, I wonder, should we amend the Constitution, the right to privacy to incorporate doxing should be allowed well i'm wondering should we amend the constitution the right to privacy to incorporate doxing you can't do it well this does get into though that the area that we're talking about where essentially what elon has said well i just don't i want to just go with whatever the law is and that's very noble however we've all come to agree that there are certain things that we want moderated like doxing, that aren't necessarily covered by the law. Yeah. And this is maybe you don't want to moderate it, but like white supremacy, for instance. You'll go to Twitter. It'll be white supremacy.

You'll see a swastika, which is totally legal, big in your news feed. And you'll see all these people tagging you in it. And you'll be like, no, this is what would happen with an unmoderated like open network is and what will happen is these people with these really niche intense powerful even destructive ideas will go hard on it like all day because they're obsessed with it and they destroy the network any ability to have a normal communication like not want to be inundated with like you, political ideology and racism and all this crap. So I get that the moderate is like, we got to stop that. We want to prevent another Hitler from rising up on our platform.

So here's my, I threw out a take on this the other day, and it very much in line with what Charles is saying here, is that when the internet was still kind of in its infancy, Google used to have this idea called safe search. Remember safe search? You know, safe search on, safe search off. And you always had to turn it off to find the good stuff, right? But the idea was though, the concept behind that was that self-moderated content, right? So if my kids, for example, are picking up, like let's say we're in a long car ride. We try to limit their screen time. We

don't do like tablets in the house or like anything like that. But if we're on a long car ride or on a flight or something, right, I might have the tablet for them, but I'm making sure that it's on lockdown. I'm moderating that content. Now as a dad, right, I know what sort of things I'm going to allow my kid to do. Same idea is that you go on and then you can set, maybe you can set certain, you could click, I don't want to see hate speech, right? And that's a filter.

And boom, you click that. And then anything that Twitter, the good people at Twitter who have deemed to be hate speech, you don't see that. But it doesn't deny anybody the ability to use the platform. Well, that's what I was going to say. It'd be so easy to create a tool that says, if I'm someone, I want a third party to moderate what I can see. And I like what Twitter's doing. It should be an opt in. And there can be different things you can opt into. I talked with Bill Ottman of minds about this being of there being the overworld and the underworld and the underworld is whatever's legal. And so if advertisers have an

issue, they don't advertise in the underworld portion. But people can opt in and say, I want to see everything from the underworld or I don't. And so you have your standard moderation policies, which is – Minds is still very much a free speech platform that allows a lot. But the real serious nasty stuff that you might not want to see or the outright hateful stuff, all of that will be considered underbelly versus overworld. I don't think mine's actually doing that. Well, yeah, there's a not safe for work type of way to view the site,

kind of like what you were saying, Jack, a toggle. Problem is if someone uploads a swastika and they're like, no, I'm not going to self-tag this one. It's just I'm going to tag it as a dog. And then your kid opens up the website and they see a swastika and they're like, what? So then you've got to report the thing. Then it goes to a group of people or something much worse than a swastika, something graphic, like a body blown open or something. It goes to the admins to decide like, okay, this was mistagged. If it's from an account that consistently mistags their stuff,

you can ban it. But that person's going to start a new account. Now, do you have to make the user have a unique email address to start their own account? I think they do at Twitter. I think mine does. We've tried not having one of those. Of course, you get the same guy. I'll make 90 accounts and then upload the swastika on every account, hashtag dog. And you're like, wow. So getting the community to moderate, honestly, is probably the best way to do it, but they're going to see some nasty stuff. Under Elon Musk's rules, I'm willing to bet you'll be freely posting swastikas. You know what's really interesting, too, is that Twitter banned, I'm pretty sure they

banned the American Nazi Party. Do you guys remember that? I'm pretty sure they did. I wonder if Elon Musk would reinstate that political... Well, there will be people who will want to test it and make that point. But I also, as a reporter, the kind of journalism I do, I don't want to see just the accepted version of something. I'm looking for stuff that may seem objectionable to other people

because I'm looking for sources. I'm looking for who's saying things that are off the narrative. I'm finding whistle who's saying things that are off the narrative. I'm finding whistleblowers that way. I'm looking to see what's being passed around that may not be true. Maybe I'm looking for something that's not true on purpose. And it's become very difficult, whether you're working on the internet or social media, to find the things I used to be able to find a lot more easily 10 years ago. I just want to say Elon Musk is the hero we need and deserve because he just tweeted, next I'm buying Coca-Cola

to put the cocaine back in. Woo! Yo! These are the kind of tweets I strive for. What is happening? Michael Malice, you should take heed of Elon Musk. Do you get the impression,

this is my impression, I've never met Elon, I'm just going to, like, this is my impression. I've never met Elon. I don't think I know anyone who knows him or anything like this. But my impression is that Elon just kind of really likes Twitter. And he enjoys playing the game of Twitter. And he's talked about this, that, you know, Twitter is like going into the ring. And, or going into the arena. And it's like these people came and ruined the game. They ruined the fun of Twitter. They ruined the great thing that

Twitter was. And he's just taking it back because he likes it so much and he wants it to be the way it was. But doesn't he also know how it is to be an outlier or to be censored or left out of the, I'm not talking about social media, but not being invited to the White House when other experts are being convened on something you're an expert in. He kind of understands that world of certain people being carved out or excluded or censored. I think that makes him someone kind of on the outside looking in and understanding.

That's a really good point. I was trying to pull up a tweet of his from earlier that I was looking at about free speech. I have a feeling that he's still of the mindset that free speech means that he has to moderate the network to allow people to do what they want. But God gives us the free speech, not you, Elon. What we need to do is free the software code so people can control their own network. So Elon Musk, did I actually lose that one? Where is it at? Here we go.

Elon Musk responding to Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro said Twitter should be, Ben Shapiro quoting Elon Musk, Twitter should be politically neutral. Washington Post and every left-wing blue check, you guys are giving away your game. Elon Musk said attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left,

which is no surprise. However, I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy too. My goal is to maximize area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the 80% of people in the middle. I would like to give a shout out to our good friend Shuon Head, who in response to a tweet from Elon Musk, he said, for Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral,

which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally. She had said, Elon Musk waging war on both my friend groups. She did respond to his other tweet saying, but those are the least funny people on this website. You need to be catering to the fringe. I disagree with Elon on that. Or put it this way. I think what he's saying is unachievable because you don't see people on the far right saying that they want people on the far left banned, but that's the inverse when it comes to the far left. They do want the other side banned. That's the whole issue. So to the greatest extent of this, you are not going to be able to get an

equal level of, quote unquote, anger on both sides. It's are not going to be able to get an equal level of, you know, quote unquote, anger on both sides. It's just not going to happen, you know, unless you're adding some like arbitrary rules on top of this thing, because essentially the right just wants to be left alone, number one, or number two, wants to be able to have an even playing field. The left doesn't want an even play. Elon doesn't understand that Twitter's policies that he doesn't like were specifically to make the left and the right both unhappy. The left was demanding censorship.

They're saying, Twitter is overtly supporting white supremacists by letting them say words. Can you believe that people misgendered me? They should be banned. And Twitter said, okay, we'll ban some of them. The right was like, well, they banned them and I'm angry, but I'll stay on the platform because I can tolerate views I don't like. So Twitter said, how do we make both sides happy?

Ban a bunch of conservatives because conservatives can tolerate it and the left can't. If Elon Musk actually restores free speech, as he's saying, they're primarily coming from the left, that will always be the case. There will be no circumstance where someone will do something overtly egregious on the right and the right's going to be like, that's unfair.

They should be allowed to do those things. When, okay, I'm not going to get into it, but when Alex Jones, right, was out there and across every platform, he was one of the biggest shows. He just was. And if you ran tracking on this, he was getting more views a day than I think anybody outside the mainstream media. I saw lots of people on the right. I saw conservatives up and down attacking him for things, mocking him, ridiculing him, saying they disagreed with various takes that

he had on various issues that YouTube probably doesn't want me to get into. That's not my point. I don't remember anybody on the right ever saying that Alex Jones should be taken off the air. I don't remember ever hearing that said once. What if conservatives came out and said you should not be allowed to have your own pronouns and Twitter should enact a policy that if you change your pronouns, you'll be banned? Then they'd become pretty extreme and no longer conservative.

Can your pronouns be grandfathered? Hold on there a minute. Right now, Twitter will ban you if you misgender someone. Right. So I'm saying what if conservatives said, okay, we'll do the inverse. If you use pronouns that are not in line with your biology, we'll ban you. That is equally as extreme.

I know. It feels like we're debating who should hold the infinity gauntlet. Who gets to hold the infinity gauntlet? Everyone knows the answer is no one. You're supposed to break it apart. My point is Elon Musk is not proposing that, and conservatives are happy. He's saying you can have whatever pronouns you want,

but you can't make someone else say them. And the right's like, we can live with that even though we don't like it. And the left's like, no, we can't. Ban them. There's no way to make the left happy. That's why you block. You can block whoever you want. Right, but that makes the right happy but not the left.

Elon Musk will not be able to achieve that goal. Life is not about being happy. And I've had to explain this so many times to people. This is the difference between cancel culture and boycotts, right? Completely different things. So a boycott is when one concerted group says we are no longer going to support a certain industry, organization, company, or figure, right? Conservatives, I believe right now are generally, I don't know if anyone's actually said this, but they're essentially boycotting Disney, right? Over the groomer situation, that whole scandal.

And so that's going on as a boycott. But then I'll always see this and people will say, hold on, hold on. I thought you said you were against cancel culture. No, that's different. We're not saying that they should go out of business. We're not saying that no one can do business with them. That's what cancel culture is, is destroying someone's ability to even have a livelihood whatsoever. It's an inverted boycott. Whereas boycott, just to reiterate, is people saying, we all have decided we're not going to buy from you. The cancel culture is, don't let them sell to anyone. Exactly.

But here's why. The cancel culture is afraid that without that, the popular sentiment would not be on their side. And when we talk about conservative versus liberal on the Internet, for example, and social media, I think part of that is because there's a control issue where certain factions, which are actually quite small minority in my view of people, have been able to use social media in a controlled way to portray as if a greater section of the public feels that way. And I think they're afraid if people were to actually see what percentage of

the public feels a certain way on certain topics, they would find that many liberals side along with conservatives on some issues. And sometimes these are very fringe, fringe discussions and issues getting a lot of attention because the social media is controlled. When left to their own devices, this stuff would fall along the fringe and would not look like it does today with this controlled conversation elevating certain issues and views to a level that's far beyond, I think, what they really are. Yeah, the Baitzwa, I think you brought this up. Baitzwa. Baitzwa.

Baitzwa. What is it, Mandarin? It's Mandarin for white left. It means white left. They have a word that defines the white left, the white liberals. That's, to me, indicative that there's a focus on the white left, the white left the white liberals that's to me indicative that there's a focus on the white left the white liberal and then you start to see the manipulation in the social media and i wonder how involved that the the creators of the bites who are in propagating here's what happened here's

what happened in in 2014 and 2015 which i was, when everything was just open, right? Twitter had a much smaller user base than it does today. And Twitter gained a massive user base, huge influx in 2016 because of Trump and because of his ubiquitous and singular use of Twitter. The way he used that platform like no other person at his level ever had before, right? It was always staff tweets, Katy Perry or Barack Obama, Hillary. These were always staff tweets, Joe Biden, right? It was always staff tweets, Katy Perry or Barack Obama, Hillary. These were always staff tweets, Joe Biden, right? I don't even think he knows what Twitter is to an extent, or he's at some website the kids use, right?

And so prior to this, I mean, there were really no rules. The idea of someone even being banned on Twitter was almost unthinkable. It was unheard of that people would get suspended. It's certainly not for speech, anything like this, but there was a place on the internet where crazy people dwelt and the crazy met with more crazy and they combined to create exponential crazy. And this is a place known as the upside down of Tumblr. And Tumblr, essentially, in that time space, through things like Gamergate, the SJW wars, and then eventually Trump, came onto Twitter and essentially occupied Twitter and specifically occupied the headquarters of Twitter. And by maintaining that, to use a cliche, high ground, by maintaining the high ground, they were able to impose their will across Twitter.

And so something I've been saying a lot lately is what's going on here is the liberation of Twitter from the Tumblr occupation. The Tumblr occupation. The Tumblr occupation. Let's not forget that after Trump won in that unexpected race, which was unexpected to almost everybody except I did. I was a national journalist who predicted repeatedly on national TV that he would win just because I was listening

outside the beltway to regular people. But once he won, the left admitted, including Media Matters, the propaganda group, that they went and held meetings with Facebook and convinced Facebook to take this new tact, which was brand new, to do the fake fact checks, the moderations. They didn't call them fake fact checks, of course, but the notion that they would have to come on and prevent something like this from happening again. That whole notion was raised in a very organized fashion shortly after the 2016 election going into 2017.

I'm just browsing Twitter. There's also a Time News article where they talk about fortifying the election. I think it's for 2020. They were planning it for a year and a half, I think 2019. Well, it was Time Mag. Time Mag, right. Who was talking about it? So this a half, I think. It was Time Mag. Who was talking about it? This is the great Time article that Ian's referring to.

Which was essentially that's when the serial killer has conducted their killings. That's the Zodiac sending the cipher to, what was it, the San Francisco Chronicle, sending the letter off to let him know, let them know that it needed credit for it. It was so good. They needed credit. So they needed to know, they needed the world to know.

And humans have this innate desire for credit, for their esteem to be stoked. So for that ego power, for that, you know, because so many people live off of ego alone because they're not in touch with, you know, as I would say, they're not in touch with God because they're not in touch with, you know, as I would say, they're not in touch with God. They're not in touch with the spiritual side of things. And so they live for this world. They're very worldly and they don't understand that, you know, this world is ephemeral. This world will, you know, we'll leave it behind. But anyway, the point being is that article is a confession. It's just a confession. We got you. We got you. Well, in terms of controlling political outcomes and information,

that's just the game for them. It was brilliant. And like you said, they wanted credit for it. Well, they got it. Thanks, Time Magazine, for blowing that one off the bow. People are the secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election. That's what it's called, the shadow campaign. I just want to mention, a moment ago I said I was browsing Twitter,

and it's because I was sent a message that Tucker Carlson was having a unique conversation. Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to play for you this clip I just pulled up. Tucker Carlson, some good news before we go, a little justice finally. The Twitter account Libs of TikTok just surpassed a million followers on Twitter. It's about a minute long. I grant you this clip from Tucker Carlson. It just aired tonight. Some good news before we go.

A little justice, finally. The Twitter account Libs of TikTok just surpassed a million followers on Twitter. Now, it was just last week that the Washington Post and its reporter Taylor Lorenz tried to destroy the person who runs that account. But it turns out a lot of people actually want the account because they want to know what their teachers are doing in the classroom. It's not an attack on anybody. It's called transparency.

So Tim Pool of YouTube fame, with the help of The Daily Wire's Jeremy Boring, just put up a billboard in Times Square highlighting what the Washington Post tried to do to the founder of Libs of TikTok. And you're seeing it on your screen. Now, of course, as predicted, Taylor Lorenz says she's the victim here. Of course, this billboard is so undeniably idiotic, it's hilarious. But don't forget these campaigns have a much darker and more violent side. I'm grateful to be in a newsroom that recognizes these bad faith,

politically motivated attacks and has a strong security team. So she exposes the founder of Libs of TikTok to violence. But when you say her name, you're a terrorist. In other words, stop hurting me, she says as she punches you in the face. These people are balls. Well, this is what they were saying about Vijaya, right? They were saying that, so was it Sagar and Cernovich get contacted by the Washington Post saying, what was your intention by including the name of the Twitter official in your reporting.

First of all, they were all commenting on this political story that she apparently had broke down in tears during one of the meetings. So commenting on that story and then having Elon Musk respond to them somehow became them attacking her. I actually looked this up earlier today. On a lot of those websites, it's hard to tell when they do these estimates. She's worth anywhere between $30 and $70 million. Who is?

Vagia. Wow. 78. I have the numbers actually right here. Yeah, but each website has a different estimation of it, so it depends on which one you look at. So I'm giving the swath. This is a major public figure who has major control in the world who's worth tons of money but can't talk about her because that's an attack well wall from wall mine.com she is

has over 38 million dollars worth of twitter stock uh or is a stock's worth over 28 million she makes 8 million a year as chief legal officer and secretary at twitter it's 7.9 million 8 million a year she's a secretary don't you talk. It's $7.9 million. $8 million a year. Don't you talk about her, Ian. Don't you talk about her, Ian. She's about to get fired and have a nice package. Goodbye. Maybe he'll keep her on, but you're harassing her.

Wow, the misogyny. I only take issue with the things she's done and said. She's cool. Here's a prediction. I think if Twitter really is allowed to become an organic thing, the big story is going to be how everything changes when you see it reflect what people really think and feel. Instead of this balanced conversation, as maybe Tim suggested,

it's not so balanced. And I'm not saying all views shouldn't be heard. They should be heard but i think people will be surprised how small some of this group becomes and how big other groups become that you haven't heard much from because they've been suppressed a problem that comes up on social media since the beginning it seems like is that the most popular thing gets more traction than everything else because it goes up on trending, and then they're like, what's that? And then it just snowballs things.

Like crazy things can snowball, like the swastika. Hitler didn't, you know, nothing wrong. But that's true always without social media. Unless you have time, like chronological feeds, because then you're just seeing what just got posted by the people you're following. But people can share. People share popular stuff. Right, and then when they do, the more you share it, the more people see it. Across time, you're following. But people can share. People share popular stuff.

And then when they do, the more you share it, the more people see it. Across time, you're right. The most famous people get free stuff. That makes it so weird. Oh, I mean, look. If you're rich,

the bank gives you money. If you're poor, they take it from you. Same with social media attraction. It's very weird. It's almost like physics. I mean, look. I've heard the joke

where they say, when you're rich, the bank will give you money. But when you're rich, the bank will give you money. But when you're poor, they say you owe us money. And I'm like, well, here's why that happens. When you have very little money in the account, they have to pay to maintain it. And so it's draining their money to run an account for you that's not being utilized enough. So they charge you for it.

It seems counterintuitive. If you're very wealthy, you're giving them access to capital for whatever it is they want to do. And the popular posts on Twitter are getting more eyeballs on Twitter. So that's why they want the popular stuff at the top similar to having rich people. And it creates a big cycle. So it's always that way. There's some attempt at raising things up. The problem is Twitter wasn't doing it.

Twitter inverted it. Twitter was deciding what was going to be. YouTube is deciding for political reasons. If everything was based off merit, I'll tell you, YouTube would be a wacky place. All of the thumbnails would be big-tittied women, because that's...

I'm not trying to be crass. That's literally what it was. All of these big creators in the early days of YouTube realized that if I want views, the thumbnail's got to get people to click on it. Well, wasn't this the thing where that was the thumbnail, but the video actually had nothing to do with it? Yes, exactly.

Yeah. Or what they would do is they'd be like, I'm going to comment on this video game story, but first, yo, we got this story about the supermodel. Isn't she looking great? Yes, the supermodel did these things. Anyway, onto the video games. That way they could justify, well, I did talk about her because YouTube tried cracking down saying, okay, you can't use thumbnails that do not represent the

video. It's causing us problems. So YouTube slowly starts making rules to try and deal with the insanity that is this platform. And eventually they say, okay, the other problem we have is people are just posting two minute clips. We need people to post long form stuff. So they make this algorithm that promotes videos over 10 minutes, videos with high engagement rates. And what do they get? They were hoping for Game of Thrones. They got culture wars and they don't like it. Then they realized, hey, wait a minute. All of these conservative anti-woke and libertarian personalities are getting a lot of traction because people like their ideas.

Ban them. And they did. This show was shadow banned. You could not Google search it for a year and a half. And then one day I mentioned on this show, I was like, oh yeah, Google shadow banned us. Like if you, if you were to Google the title of one of our clips, the Facebook version would come up and the YouTube would not. On Google, that seems to make no sense. And then one day everyone's like, Tim, they removed it.

You can be searched again. There was a hit piece in the media. And then all of a sudden, a wave of YouTubers who were deemed wrong thinkers were purged from the recommendation algorithm because someone just said, I don't like it. We can't live that way. I'm like a peacetime strategist. I'm not a wartime strategist. But in my mind, I think we have to build a system where that can never happen again. But then I'm like, well, in times of war, you have to be able to censor the enemy. At least if you don't, the enemy's propaganda will convince your people to kill you.

I honestly think Chinese propaganda is destroying us. Russia tried. They overreact as to what Russia was actually doing. But I think China is actually way more successful. And the reality is, yeah, we had an office of censorship in World War II because there were concerns that journalists particularly would put out information that would harm the war effort. Speaking of that, I got – this is amazing – Life magazine from March 1944, which is, I think it's 44, but it's a magazine from two months, three months before D-Day. In the magazine, they show all of the American military power in the UK. It's fascinating. They said the United States is

helping the UK in the event germany may try to invade only what was actually happening was the u.s was preparing to storm the beaches of normandy stage d-day but they could not say that in the press so in this magazine at the time they're like we're here with our military to protect britain fake news so it was fake news so i mean this is actually something i studied when i was in the IC. I went through classes on this. They call it denial and deception operations. So Germany knew that there was an invasion coming and it was going to be the Americans. The question was, where would the invasion come from? And they conducted so many deception operations because they knew that the Germans had spies throughout Europe.

So what did they do? They knew that they sent Patton to Europe because they knew Patton, they sent him to the UK because they knew that the Germans would be watching him. But where did they send him? They don't send him across from Normandy. They send him to Dover. Now Dover is directly across from Calais. This is the shortest point on the English channel. This is actually where the channel tunnel is because it's the shortest point. Normandy is where the invasion actually was. It's not where you'd expect. They send Patton over to Dover. What do they do? They get soldiers and they make fake uniform patches for them depicting fake units.

They have these soldiers go into town and pretend that there's a massive buildup. They start renting hotel rooms. They start buying food. They start sending messages. They're going all throughout town and they act as if they're all members of various units that are there in the town.

And yet none of it's real. So the German high command is getting all these reports back saying, hey, there's a ton of stuff going on right across from Calais, from this place called Dover. We think it's coming. What do the Germans do? They realize that they can't put all their eggs in one basket.

They split the forces along the North Atlantic wall from Normandy and Calais. The deception, and there's way more to it than this. There's so much to get into. They actually, they used a dead body at one point and they put like fake documents. The British did this. They put fake documents in the body, drop him off of the Rock of Gibraltar.

He washes up on Spain. The Spanish find the guy. They hand him to the German embassy. They say, look, we've got these documents. See, we know all about this invasion. It's coming. And then that makes its way up. Hitler splits the forces.

The deception operation was so extensive that even after D-Day, they kept the forces split because they still thought another invasion was going to be coming. They thought Normandy was a feint. They thought that was the decoy and an even bigger one was still coming. Wow. It's incredible. This is one of the greatest military deception operations that you're talking about there that's ever been conducted. You think if Hitler wasn't a meth head that he would have taken the troops out of Calais? Well, no, I mean, I think it's game theory, right? I think it's game theory that if you don't have, keep in mind, this isn't an age of satellites

and, you know, thermal, you know, resonance imaging, IR, FLIR, drones, et cetera. So you really don't know. So you're going based off of, you know, you've got the Enigma machine to send encrypted messages, but that's already broken, right? Even though he didn't know that. And then you've got these human intelligence reports. So game theory suggests that if you've got what appears to be credible information of two invasion forces, you've got to prepare for both. All right. Well, how about the theory that, and I understand some of this information has to be controlled. Who do you trust to control? Do you trust your own government to be doing the right thing during times of war? No. And I'm going back to CNN.

I worked there back when it was a news organization in 1990. Wow. A long time ago. And Gulf War I was happening, actually 1989. I think it was around August when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And we spent three years, I think, doing great coverage, but listening to almost every day Saddam Hussein's press guy give his view. And I think it would be, you know, not accurate to say that the people watching CNN were convinced by Iraq's press guy to take Iraq's viewpoint. They weren't. But it was valuable to see how they were portraying

their side and their viewpoint. I think we have a right to see it. I think it informs us to see and hear that. And the notion that I've heard lately that we shouldn't even hear certain viewpoints or enemies or we wouldn't want to hear from Hitler. I'd want to hear from Hitler. I'm not saying that I would want to believe what Hitler says. I'd want to hear from Hitler. I'm not saying that I would want to believe what Hitler says. I would love to hear his justifications and his explanations. I don't think that should be banned. I mean, maybe there's some stuff that should be. Yeah, the cuties, the argument is cuties. Like it's so vile that in order to just to see it is the corruption. So like just to listen to Joseph Goebbels speak about the Jews was enough to

have a weak mind corrupted by it. So they're like, some people can handle it, like you are able to look at it logically. But it's not up to us to decide which people can handle it. Cuties actually had little girls doing these things.

And you could say that what Joseph Goebbels was doing was vile, the way he was dehumanizing people nazis literally no but cuties people cuties wasn't speech that's that's completely i don't know i think a movie could be considered a form of speech no that's actual what about an internet video of you talking hold on hold on yes in the film they took little girls these are real human beings and they had them perform lewd dances for an extended period of time and be trained to do it. That is not speech. Oh, well, self-expression, I'm not sure.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's graphic. If an adult human male takes a little girl into a back room and teaches her extensive lewd dancing, it's not speech. Are you suggesting that imagery is not a form of speech? Ian, what are you talking about? Because if someone posts a picture on Twitter... Let's slow down again. A man, several of them,

took little girls into a room to teach them lewd sexualized dancing. Wait, wait, don't forget. They were paid. And they were paid to do it. That is not speech. Yeah, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the portrayal of the movie.

We are. And that's the problem. Ian, you can... I know you are, but that'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the portrayal of the movie. We are. And that's the problem. Ian, you can't... I know you are, but that's not what I brought up cuties for. It's not about that. You cannot sexually abuse children to make a piece of speech. Well, showing the movie is not the abuse.

This comes up in the child porn arguments, and this was in Kataji Brown Jackson's stuff, is that every time you show the image, every time another person sees it, the child is then re-exploited. Okay, so that argument could be taken to Joseph Goebbels talking about the dehumanization of Jews. Every time you listen to him say that, he's doing something that's more than speech. No, no, no, no, no, no, Ian. This is the argument anyway.

You don't understand. If you go out and you say murder is wrong, that's speech. Okay. If you go out, film yourself killing someone and then show the video saying that was wrong what I did.

It's like, okay, that video is a depiction of someone being murdered, of you committing a crime. That is not speech. That is you. A journalistic integrity. If you as a journalist saw a video of someone being murdered, of you committing a crime. That is not speech. That is you. A journalistic integrity. If you as a journalist saw a video of me killing someone and showed people, you wouldn't be on the hook.

That's not what we're talking about. I'm talking about other people showing video that might be harmful to the mind. You need to, I don't know if you need to censor it, but if you don't censor it, you can get really dangerous. The difference between Goebbels and Cuties is that, first of all, he was a Nazi and the Nazis did those things. But if you're referring to someone who is advocating for genocide, the question is, are they actively participating in doing it or just expressing themselves? When you're talking about cuties, you're talking about people who actively participated in exploiting little girls. So we're talking about genocide, just talking about it versus doing it.

How about this then? Let's take it out of the abstract. Facebook said that in certain areas of Europe, because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict right now, they are going to take off their normal ban on calls for violence, as long as you're calling for violence up to and including murder of anyone of Russian ethnicity. Yeah. Yeah, these are weapons. These social media networks are weapons.

So they are basically saying that, no, I don't know whether or not that includes genocide, but that certainly sounds like genocide, right? If you're basing this on someone's ethnicity. So Facebook has come out and said, we will agree with this and we will allow this under these circumstances. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that alluding to genocide is legal under our free speech laws. But as long as it's not an eminent threat, like on Wednesday at 2 p.m., go do that, then you're not inciting anything. But if you're just saying, I want them to be gone,

that I believe is legal. It is legal speech. So on Twitter, if that goes up and then it gets a million retweets and then all these people are like, yeah, I think that too. You're creating a dangerous precedent. Well, this was in the TED talk that Musk was doing. The guy interviewing him said, you know, some hate speech is legal. Like, I hate broccoli. Right. You know, I hate ice cream.

Whatever. Right. Like, you're allowed to say that you hate certain things. You take the emotion out of it so elon i don't think well he says he's a free speech absolutist but i don't think twitter will be absolutely free speech that's absurd there's not going to be allowed and you going on twitter and advocating for genocide i do not believe elon will allow he's going to be like no because you're calling for violence and it's just it's on the line But what happens then when it comes into the Israel-Palestine question? Because Palestinians constantly say

that they want to see the country of Israel wiped off the map from the river to the sea. And prominent blue check journalists have said this. I was told that that was a mistranslation

that they actually want to legally remove the borders and undo the country's formation not kill the people and destroy it all this is what Hamanejad I think has his name with the president of Iran for a while was saying I want Israel wiped off the map but he was saying that he wants it literally redrawn

and taken away because it was done unjustly not that he wanted to kill them but the media was like oh he wants them wiped out now let's make him a villain and say he wants to hurt people I don't I don't think there's any point in trying to dissect the Israel-Palestine conflict in the span of a few minutes. It's too much.

Of course there's going to be a guy who says, this is what we really mean. Rest assured, the Al-Qassam brigades are not agreeing with that assessment. And when they fire a rocket out of a children's hospital at civilians in Israel, it's because they want to wipe them out. Not just that.

Out of the basement of the AP's headquarters where they were operating. And the AP had an office in Gaza City co-located with one of these rocket bases and never once reported on it. These are tough questions. Some of these are hard calls. But let's go back to the absurdity of what's become with social media and the Internet. You brought up Goebbels. One of the only things I know I was banned for on Facebook was fairly recently. I posted a Goebbels quote that simply said something like, with no context, it is quite possible knowing the psychology of the audience

to convince people that a square is in fact a circle. That could mean anything. It could be a criticism. It could be aimed. I knew what I was aiming it as, but I simply did a historic quote, and I got pulled down my account. And I thought it was a mistake, and there was no way to appeal, and I kept checking back, and a week later I'm back up. And I said, there must have been some mistake. All I did was,

quote, historically, Hitler's propaganda saying that people can be convinced. And I got banned again. I was gone for another 10 days. So you can't even say something like that. Tim, how many lights are there in this room? What are the lights for? Four! Four lights! Yeah, so what I do is I like to tweet, under no pretext shall the right of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed. It must be frustrated by force if necessary.

And that's from, hold on, Carl Miss Jeff remarks. That gets you banned. Well, I feel like if you quote the Second Amendment, you might. But if you quote Marx, you probably won't. So Carl Marx has the quote, under no pretext shall the workers relinquish the right to bear arms. It should be frustrated. Any attempt to take this, you know, weapons from the people. Chairman Mao, political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Yeah. So my point is I mix them together, and I'm like, hey, look, it's not left or right. It's liberty, you know. But I guess the authoritarians say that too, and then take your guns once they gain power. Yeah. All right, let's read Super Chats. 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. Why? As a member, we will do things like get billboards in Times Square, calling out the establishment. And, you know, we're working on some other campaigns. We'll do more culture jamming as marketing. And you will keep our journalists employed. You will help fund the show we are doing here.

And you will get access to exclusive segments of this show. We're going to have a half an hour segment coming up at 11 p.m. tonight over at TimCast.com. Members only. Don't miss it. And let's read what you guys have to say in these Super Chats. All right. Gone Fall says, do chickens fart? Technically, yes.

Usually what happens is, I don't know if it's a legitimate fart, but chickens, when they poop, there's like, you know, so it's a shart. Because you'll hear it when they, you know, so chickens have one hole. One. Well, two, their mouth. But, you know, in the back end, one. Even the roosters. It's called the cloaca.

So they've got the liquid stuff, the solid stuff, and the eggs all going to the same place. So the eggs often come out covered. I think there was a kid who used to sit next to me in fifth grade who had that. Yeah. So sometimes the chickens will begin their squat, and you'll hear a – So call it whatever you want. And it could be an egg.

It could be – It could be anything. No, no. He would be doing that all through class. That's what I'm saying. If the chicken is about to lay an egg, sometimes the chickens randomly lay eggs where they stand. I guess it just happens. But usually they'll go into a box and they'll get ready and they'll look stressed out.

And then they'll start singing. Or they'll sing before they do it. It's called the egg song. Yeah. All right. Let's grab some more Super Chats. Sev says, shout out to SpaceX. The Dragon capsule is currently docking to the ISS over the Pacific.

Tune in on Shabba to Pressure. Yes, Elon Musk also tweeted about that. That's really cool. I love how there was a report that came out that said on the day that he purchased Twitter, it was the same day that he has like a weekly meeting over, I think it was with Tesla or some valve issues or maybe with SpaceX. I'm not sure which one. But they pointed out that he went to this meeting at 10 p.m., had this super high level engineering meeting about valves and they're improving the efficiency. No one in the room mentioned anything about Twitter.

And Elon is just going way down the rabbit hole of this like highly technical process. And folks, he's a multitasker he's just completely able to compartmentalize this stuff and so his twitter account will literally be you know trolling the media trolling the media trolling the media and then rocket launch yeah good for him all right mini strange quark says tim have you considered renting one of those digital billboard trucks to park in front of WAPO? And then he says, Heart, Andy, and Lydia, a true wish of happiness and love to you both and children. Thank you.

I mean, I don't really need to park a truck in front of WAPO or anything like that. That might be a little much, but I was just thinking about this. Doxing is free speech. We could dox. If a journalist wants to publish an address of somebody and then lie about it why shouldn't I'm mixed on that I was thinking the same thing I'm not for it but if these are publicly available addresses

people can type in I think it's unethical but these journalists you know Taylor Lorenz goes on MSNBC she's like doxing is wrong tweets doxing is wrong and then literally publishes libs address and then lies about it now they removed it after the fact i wonder if it was a mistake i don't know i'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt yeah if

you've um i mean if you've committed a crime the only time that i've ever that i would ever even say that it's not unethical is if someone's committed a crime and you need to identify the person. There was this case, you know, it's not even political, but out of Cedar Rapids, this Lily Peters case. I don't know if any of you have seen this horrific 10 year old girl. And there were people who, based on Facebook, were pretty sure that they knew who the perpetrator was. Later came out that it was the cousin who's also underage. Really disgusting stuff. But the point is that's not doxing because that's identifying the perpetrator.

Alleged, alleged, alleged perpetrator of a crime. If it's just a suspect of a crime, is it ethical? Yeah, that's tough. All right. Joshua French says, Lieutenant Jack, I am a IS-1 retired. Need to correct you from the last time you were on. You claimed that the CPO was not an officer. A CPO is a non-commissioned officer, and they help mold the JOs.

I think everybody knows what I was saying, the distinction between enlisted and officer. Oh, okay. I mean, you can be petty about it if you want, but that's a pun. It's petty officer versus officer. But there is a distinction within military ranks of the E ranks of enlisted all the way up to the MCPON in the Navy, and then the O ranks, which start at O-1 and then go all the way up to the CNO. All right. Zeke.

No, no. This is James Smith says, Ian, I am sorry for what I wrote in chat yesterday. That's okay, Zeke. I still love you, man. No, no. James. James. Oh, James? Yeah. sorry for what I wrote in chat yesterday. That's okay, Zeke. I still love you, man. No, no. James, James. Oh, James? Yeah.

No problem, bro. What did he say about you? I don't know. We forgive him. I got you back, bro. Let's grab some more Super Chats. John Kristen says, T-shirt idea that says, freedom of speech is a musk with cartoon musk releasing Twitter birds as doves.

It's an excellent idea, but I don't think we're allowed to use Elon Musk's likeness for merchandise. I don't think we can do that. We can say freedom of speech is a musk and then show a person from behind throwing Twitter birds in the air. Well, you better do it because if you don't do it, someone's going to now because that's a great slogan. That's pretty great. That's a really good one. Well, they can take it. Yeah.

All right. Amber Black says the irony of Nina being in charge of the Ministry of Truth and a Harry Potter fan is in the books. The ministry and Voldemort censoring news and speech wasn't exactly supposed to be a good thing. Yeah. I'm not like I'm not a huge Harry Potter person, but I've seen I have seen the movies and that's like a whole thing in Harry Potter.

Right. It's the what's the woman's name? Umbridge. Umbridge, yeah. So she, it's like, is this a person who reads those books and just totally missed the point? So my question actually is, now because J.K. Rowling, though, of course, is famously against the speech codes when it comes to the trans issue. And so will this person who's now the head of the Ministry of Truth, would she ban J.K. Rowling as a major Harry Potter fan because J.K. Rowling does not uphold the speech codes?

Ben Thomas says, Tim, a UK citizen wanting to move, what state should I move to? Georgia. Why Georgia? I don't know. Some east coast. What do you guys think? A state for a UK citizen? You know, I mean, it depends on, like, if you're looking for, you know, it depends on, I guess, what part of UK you're from, right? Because if you're from London, you

might like New York because they're, you know, they're somewhat comparable. But if you're from, like, if you're from one of the more rural areas, then you're going to want a more rural area of the United States. Oklahoma. Oklahoma gets hot over there. Good sunlight. I was in Nebraska recently. Really liked it. Especially western

Nebraska. Ogallala. It was awesome. There's so much land in the United States. I was in Kenosha last weekend too. Back to Kenosha. That town has been through so much, man. Lost Valley says, the left think they're Dumbledore, but in reality,

they're Dolores Umbridge. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, that's what it is. Kicked Johnny Depp out of the latest one over Amber Heard, by the way. Yeah, classic. C. Scott says,

new theory. The sudden change to the censorship is due to an insider at Twitter and changed updated the source code. This is why Twitter locked it down. I disagree. If somebody at Twitter went rogue and removed the restrictions and so they locked it down, they would have reversed the change. They wouldn't have been like, oh, no, he did it. Leave it, I guess.

Maybe, though. Well, then. What was that? What is this? Oh, my goodness. You're on my Siri. He's listening to you. We live in a spy state.

Wow. That's no joke, either. That has happened. Thanks, robot, with no emotions. The Chronicles of Chris says they don't have good intentions, just pretend to. Their intentions are evil. Don't ever think otherwise. Amen.

Sometimes their intentions are good and it's even worse. Yeah, it makes it worse. But I guess what is good and evil, really? Well, for me, it's... Light versus darkness. It's sort of like... It's a combination of things that make up what would be evil or good. I think evil is a combination of things. For these these people they are motivated by their own self-interest

motivated by their own ego and they're willing to use force and violence and cause harm to other people these things combine and i'm like yeah that's evil there's also money behind it that use those kind of people that are true believers yep to accomplish well yeah they're gonna there's tears to this and you you've outlined this in your work that you know there's a tier of people that are true believers to accomplish. There's tiers to this. And you've outlined this in your work that, you know, there's a tier of people who are just kind of hired because they are, as you say, the true believers, that they're never going to question this. You know, this is a lot of the frontline people that you see on TV, especially at CNN.

If you try to actually talk to them about any of these issues, they would never be able to have the discussion that we're having right now. Christopher says, yes, they are purging their code, but they are also bringing followers to make their earnings report look better to tell Elon he can't buy. Now, the problem there is if the shareholders vote no on the sale, they have to pay Elon Musk $1 billion. Yeah. So I wonder how much Twitter has available and how bad that would be for Twitter.

It seems like Elon boxed them in. There's no way out. The shareholders are like, if we back out of the deal, we're going to have to pay Elon a billion bucks. And then that's going to cause the stock to tank. And that comes out of operating. Right. But the stock will tank not just because Elon's deal is done, like being canceled, but also because they're losing a billion dollars and will struggle to operate. The company would implode.

They have no choice. They have to sell. It's amazing. All right. JS Failure says, any changes Twitter makes to their source code is tracked by their version control system, GitHub. They can mess with the history, but unless they are very careful, it will look suspicious to an expert.

I was just going to say, if someone made a change based on that theory of rogue change back to what's real and then someone came back in and changed it back, that's going to show. That's going to leave a fingerprint. It'll be logged. Mikael Isaacson says Yaller Hornet, Twitter, is now in the hands of the good guys

and out of the bad guys' hands, Swedish Deep State. The global empire of Wallenberg is crumbling. Is that what it is? I'm also fighting a sneeze. So give me a second. There we go. What about you, John?

Yeah, I was going to sneeze in the middle of reading. Well, there's clearly a fight going on. I don't know if I would be so far as to say that it's completely in the hands yet. And that's what we're talking about. We're also hearing these issues about a potential margin call coming in on Tesla. Now, keep in mind, Tesla and Elon Musk's net worth is directly tied to his vast ownership

of Tesla stock, I think something like 20%. So if there's a margin call on this, what does that do? Because those shares are his collateral with Morgan Stanley. Why does he need collateral if he's got all that money? I don't understand that. He doesn't have the money. So it's all in if he's got all that money? I don't understand that. He doesn't have the money. It's all in assets. It's all shares.

So Grand Kai says, Tim, this is quarter two. Them reporting in the first quarter would be Enron level. Good point. That was my mistake. Yeah, any new users coming in would be for quarter two, not quarter one. So quarter one's already abysmal. All right. Pardon Will says, I created a victorian era tabletop thought tim cast might be interested in taking a look before i publish send an email to

spin the ufo love y'all we'll take a look i saw it so a lot of people are pointing out i was wrong that uh earnings are calculated in march for the first quarter and reported in april has nothing to do with the upcoming report from Twitter. The numbers will tell what was in March, not what's happening now.

I stand corrected. I stand corrected. Sparky says, why Elon Musk buys Twitter now? U.S. government needs Elon Musk for SpaceX because U.S. won't use

Russia for space launches anymore. Otherwise, U.S. government would conspire to block his purchase of Twitter. Ah, interesting. That's why he launches anymore. Otherwise, U.S. government would conspire to block his purchase of Twitter. Ah, interesting. That's why he's winning. Elon, I think he really

planned this out more than people realize. I think he also kind of realizes where the chess piece... He's fantastic at always sort of knowing when it's the right time. His timing is impeccable. That he understood that... So he threw Starlink up for Ukraine. He understood that there was, obviously he understands the space industry, right?

That's the industry that he's in, but it's, in essence, it's actually a very small industry, right? There's only a few players. You take Russia out, now suddenly the U.S. needs Elon Musk. All right. Ayabat says, it was just revealed evening that edward snowden was one of the original creators of zcash a cryptocurrency that enables encrypted transactions i thought you should you all should know oh we should fact check that one that sounds interesting all right pinch me says tim coffee shop name ideas tim moffy pool no tim moffy pool of caffeine Timofee Pool No, Timofee Pool of Caffeine Coffee Roost

Cluck a Bean Very, very nice All good Michael Mouse had a good idea for the Coffee Beanie The only problem is the Coffee Bean is already a chain

We can't It's too similar So, you know Pool of Caffeine's interesting That's nice It sounds interesting I don't know if it's a good name for a restaurant

Beanie Town Caffeine Beanie Caffeine Beanie Cluck a whatever I like I like that too, yeah Cluck a walk a good name for a restaurant. Beanie Town. Caffeine Beanie. Caffeine Beanie. Cluck a whatever I like. I like that too, yeah. Cluck a walk a walk. Cluck a coffee.

Little Pressure Washing says, Tim, me, my wife, two daughters, 15 chickens, five goats, three dogs, one cat, all watch you here and are loyal members and proud to continuously support your amazing work, bro, from Little Tails Farm. We love you all over at Little Tails Farm. Thank you for your support. And for your funny video. I think they're the ones who posted the video where the chicken was in the window. That sounds right, yeah.

Yeah. They made a little chicken house and then the camera came up and a chicken's looking out the window. Chickens are hilarious, man. Yeah, this looks like from Forbes. Edward Snowden revealed his key participant in mysterious ceremony creating 2 billion anonymous cryptocurrency. What? That was five hours ago. Next pack says,

we need people who are unbanned to start doing stuff Twitter normally bans conservatives for, i.e. learn to code and see if it still bans them. If not, then yes, the system has changed and they are hiding it.

And will this have a ripple effect on other social media platforms? It may. It's going to be fascinating. Election Wizard tried to do that, and I forget exactly what the tweet was, but he was taken down for... It was regarding

Leah Thomas and Rachel Levine. Now, here's what's interesting. If you... This is something that we noted in one of my group chats. We were talking about this, that if you tweeted right and this is totally anecdotal i have no idea if this is true so don't mess with this you know mess with this at your own you know risk uh whatever the um you know at home kids thing is

if you just tweet about leah thomas you weren't getting banned but if you included rachel levine you were getting banned and why because she's a member of the administration. Ah, yep, yep. Very interesting. All right. Private A says, if you want to understand how communists are working in the US and beyond, look up Counterpunch with Trevor Loudon on Epoch TV and YouTube.

He has Obama's roots too. Trevor Loudon is great. We did a video together about Antifa a few years ago. All right. Ron Quay says, I find it hilarious that people have been asking for government help

when it comes to social media bias for years with no results. And now that Elon bought Twitter, they're jumping on the opportunity. That's right. Babylon Bee had a headline, eccentric billionaire does more for freedom of speech

than the Republican Party has in 20 years. Oh, yeah. Yes. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, lightly tap the like button for Ian. Spin the UFO. All right, Raymond. I'm spinning it. I'm going to spin it with my hands. says, Lightly tap the like button for Ian. Spin the UFO.

All right, Raymond. I'm spinning it. I'm going to spin it with my hands. Oh, that's dangerous. You're going to knock it off. Look at that wobble. We have some more. It's retaining.

We have some more of the desktop, you know. Oh, good. Those keyboard cleaner things coming. But I got the electric ones. That guy says, Tim, your billboard just featured on Tucker. We saw it. It's funny that he called you of youtube fame of you like it's like this sometimes what you do it's so real like you i'm saying you generally but what we're doing here what you're doing it's like they don't know how to respond to it so that it's almost like it's this this cognitive

dissonance of like accepting that the paradigm has shifted i constantly get i've been on tucker's show yeah i constantly get journalists of twitter right on Tucker's show. Yeah, I constantly get Jack Pasobiec. Just be like journalist Tim Pool. Of Twitter. Right. Of Twitter fame. Like, I'm actually just a human being as well. Like, of Pennsylvania.

What if Tucker was like, and a billboard was put up by Tim Pool, who formerly worked for American Eagle Airlines at O'Hare. Oh, did you? That's true, too.

Correct, yeah. But I don't know how it's relevant. But I guess we're big on YouTube, so, you know, it's not incorrect. Big in yeah. But I don't know how it's relevant. But I guess we're big on YouTube, so it's not incorrect. Big in Japan. But I suppose it's good he said it because people can search for me now. That's true. What up, Tucker?

But could have had me come on the show. That's nice. But the shout-out's good enough. Are we going to get Tucker on the show, man? Is he in D.C.? Does he do a show in D.C.? Yeah, we should have him on. No, no, no.

He hasn't done a show in D.C. for a while. Really? No, he's out. He's long gone. Is he in D.C.? Does he do a show in D.C.? Yeah, we should have him on. No, no, no, no. He hasn't done a show in D.C. for a while. Really? No, he's out. He's long gone. Is he in L.A. or something? He's got a couple places where he goes. No, it's not New York as well. He's in a secret location.

I'd love to have him on the show. We do know, I think a lot of people, and it is public, that he does Maine, actually. Oh, cool. Build his own studio up there. It is so nice up there. Oh, that's awesome. Yeah, up in Western Maine. And that's public.

I'm not revealing anything. Ducks. And then he's got another one, and I'll just say it's in the South. But we do the show. Our show overlaps. Exact same time. So he's at 8 to 9, right? Right.

We could do like a simulcast. Yeah, that's what we do with Daily Wire a couple weeks ago. You could pre-record. That'd be so good. That'd be really cool. Yeah, we could pre-record with him. Yeah, you could pre-record. We did that with Ben.

We put it up on Sunday, and it's actually one of our biggest shows of the past few months or whatever. It's got like, I don't know, 600 or so thousand. Yeah, 670, I think. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, we could definitely do pre-records for Sundays, make them longer or whatever. All right. Ryan Grisaf says, to quote the philosophical Beanie Aficionado, quote, now they'll face the consequences

they held themselves above. This is the will of the people. Aha, yes. Love it. It truly is. All right. Probable Cause says, hey, Tim, sorry I'm late. Here's money.

Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act in 2016. RCMP said charging a prime minister would cause damage that would outweigh the negative effects of charging an ordinary person so much for that higher standard. Too big to fail. Welcome to the real world in politics, man. This is how they play these dirty games. Yeah, right. There was a thing with Jacinda Ardern as well.

There was some court decision against her today. I need a chance to look into it, though. New Zealand. Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right. We got a bunch of stuff coming in. JWM says, the big spring poultry swap and farmer's market is happening this Saturday. Just up the road from you in Sharpsburg, Maryland.

Send someone up. You can get some great content for your chicken channel. Ooh, that's really interesting. Yeah, the chicken poultry swap. Everybody wants Roberto. Oh, really? I kind of want to watch that video right now. I just want to see everybody going up to the poultry swap. You would Roberto. I kind of want that video right now. I just want to see everybody going up to the poultry swap. You would trade because you want to switch.

I don't know exactly what they're doing, but I've had people say, hey, would you trade roosters? And I'm like, I got too many roosters already, dude. So I think we've got a plan for Roberto. He's actually going to be retiring not to the boys' dormitory, but to a smaller chicken city to go out to the country with only a few hens and live out his days.

Oh, that's awesome. Yeah. Retirement. Retirement. We have the boys' dorm, which is only going to be roosters because you can house roosters together as long as there's no girls. You put a girl in there and they're going to be fighting. But no girls, they all hang out. They're bros.

Yeah, that's like real life. I'm happy for Roberto that's a that's a tough pill to swallow because he screams outside my window every day every day

because he misses you yeah that's probably why Sarah our Brahma but I still want the best for him Sarah our Brahma has two sons and a daughter

who were just born and we want Brahmas are large so all within the first week the Brahma baby was bigger than all the other babies.

So we're like, he's going to get really, really big, and we're going to have him do the thing with all the chickens, and then we're going to have bigger and bigger chickens. And then what we're going to do is we're going to pick the biggest rooster and the biggest hen, and we're going to have a bunch of those. Super chickens. Okay, I just thought you were talking about cows. And then you mixed it with the chickens, and it didn't make sense. No, all chickens. Brahma's a chicken. They're chickens. Yeah. Gotcha. Brahmas are big chickens. the chickens and it didn't make sense. Oh, no. All chickens.

Brahma's a chicken. Two chickens. Yeah. Gotcha. Brahma's are big chickens. Brahman. They're kind of cows. And so then we're going to have, we're just going to, I'm going to try and make, you know,

six foot tall chickens you can ride. Oh, gosh. Trucker bus. Because a chicken generation is, I think, seven months. That's fast. It's like GMOs of chickens. Yeah. Yeah, basically.

Super chickens. We'll figure it out. So every seven months, we're going to have biggerOs of chickens. Yeah. Yeah, basically. Super chickens. We'll figure it out. So every seven months, we're going to have bigger and bigger chickens. So maybe in 30 years, we'll be riding on chicken back. Can you put weights on the chicken so it builds muscle over its life? It's like working out, you know? I wonder. Like hang a five-pound weight on its back or something?

Five pounds is probably way too much. That's probably too much. You could build up to that. That's probably, yeah. Maybe like 10 ounces, you know? Just like those fake chicken arms. So it's like funny, but it's also building up his muscle a little bit. Is that abuse to do that to a non-consenting animal?

That's a good idea. Probably. Probably, yes. From a non-consenting animal. They're animals, Ian. They kick. It is kind of crazy how quickly they're born and grow up. Seven months until they're adults having their own kids.

Little brains. Seven months. Little brains. Little things. But they dream adults having their own kids. Little brains. Seven months. Little brains. Little things. But they dream. Chickens have dreams. And you can watch them dream on ChickenCityLive.com. Ah, there it is.

Yeah, they're dreaming right now. Matt Nill says, Tim, I live in Florida. I listen to IRL on my drives throughout the state. As a truck-roving fresh fish, Governor DeSantis vetoed HB 741, which limits the amount of power a citizen can sell back to the FPL if they have solar panels.

Interesting. Check it. Will do. I like the idea that if you have solar panels and you make too much energy, they kick you back some. But there's limits in most places. Well, let me say, this is a topic of my TV show Sunday. In California, they're supposedly reimbursing for the

solar at a rate that's way out of whack with what's actually being provided which means the electric customers are subsidizing the solar customers wow which means poor people right are subsidizing the people living in the new houses that are required to have solar wow in california let's see brisiss Brofer says, Tim and Ian, would someone who works with Federated Identity Protocols, such as SAML, OAuth, et cetera, on an enterprise level have a home with the TimCast team?

I suggest putting up a job board of some sorts. I have not found one. That is a good point. Yeah. Message me on Twitter or on Mines. I'm actually looking for a UX developer that, and also, give me a minute. I'm going to go grab some paperwork that I was writing earlier, and – and also – give me a minute.

I'm going to go grab some paperwork that I was writing earlier, and I'll let you know in a minute. New Tech HD says Elon's latest tweets are not free speech absolutists anymore, especially when he says he wants only 80 percent of the audience in this controlled opposition – is this controlled opposition to make sure Truth Social doesn't succeed and hide the ball when GOP investigations might start? I don't think so. I think Elon is a troublemaker. Simple solutions. Elon got mad. He was friends with the guys at Babylon Bee. He went on their show.

He's a fan of the Babylon Bee. And he has the ability to do these things. And he did it. I think it's just crazy stuff happening. It is kind of crazy, the assumption that elon because he's super rich must be in some cabal or something but you'd be surprised man i've often said it like how is this show allowed to be successful well it's because the establishment isn't as powerful as people think they are so we can uh it's it's nodes i mean there's nodes to it a lot of people

mentioning dr carlson shouting us out very very uh awesome to hear ro uh let's see robo cheez-its with a huge super chat saying i noticed a historical error on the show a while back which is fdr knew about pearl harbor this is false because of the japanese invasion of the philippines which would cause a war anyway and it does not make sense to lose your main battleship fleet right before a war with a naval power i agree with that i've heard these claims that's like oh they knew and they let it happen and i'm like yeah i've heard these theories i think you know maybe they thought maybe they heard but i don't i simple solutions man well part of part of it is also so there were indications that an invasion was coming um one of the issues though and uh so the n2 for paycom at the time was this guy by the name of commander layette

who later became admiral layette and the issue wasn't that like obviously we knew the japanese fleet was no longer in tokyo right you know this is something that i learned when i was navy intel training so that we knew obviously we knew they had left like we're not that bad um but the issue was they weren't sure where the attack would be was it it going to be Hawaii? Was it going to be Hong Kong? Was it going to be the Philippines? They knew those were the big three. Well, what people didn't, what they didn't foresee, and this is what Layette had said, but they didn't listen to him, was that it was actually all three at once. Massive blitzkrieg.

And they said, oh, they're never going to attack U.S. territory. There's no way. That's beyond their capabilities, et cetera. And keep in mind, prior to then, because aircraft carriers were kind of the big thing that, or excuse me, were kind of the new thing, that all of naval combat was battleship-based. Of course, we lost a lot of our battleships in that, but our carriers were out. They used their carriers to great effect, but in doing so, that made U.S. Naval Command have to put more emphasis on the carriers and really create that carrier

doctrine, which is what ended up winning the war from the Pacific Wars. Let's grab one more. We got Legama Thagayan saying, Ian, I speak Persian. Ahmadinejad said, obliterated from the page of time, not wiped off the map. The suggestion he was mischaracterized as widespread, but

a bald-faced liar. Wow. It's still metaphor, obliterated from time, like, what does that mean? Erase it from the history books? He didn't say, let's burn people's body. He wasn't, like, specifically talking about killing. He said obliterated.

Yeah, he wanted it gone. Like, obliterated. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't already, please smash that like button. Do it for Ian. You heard him. He needs those likes. You know what I'm going to do with those likes? I'm going to hire some developers and make the best technology on Earth. Oh, snap.

All right. Smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and head over to TimCast.com. Become a member. We're going to have that members-only show coming up around 11 or so p.m. tonight. They're Monday through Thursday. Don't forget to follow the show at TimCast IRL, basically.

Everywhere you can follow me personally at TimCast. If you want to see me posting weird nonsense on Instagram or Twitter, follow me. Cheryl, do you want to shout anything out? Well, it was great to be here. I'm so sorry I sounded like this because I have a lot to say normally.

And thanks for having me. Do you want to mention your Twitter or anything? Sure. Cheryl Atkinson, S-H-A-R-Y-L-A-T-T-K-I-S-S-O-N. I have a Sunday TV show, feeds of 43 million households across the country on all kinds of affiliates, ABC, NBC, CBS. And I try to cross post everything on my website, CherylAckerson.com. All right. Thanks.

Very cool. Human Events Daily, go check it out. It's a podcast for people who don't like podcasts because we give you everything in 25 minutes or less. I would be remiss if I didn't mention, go and actually look at the statements that Dr. Oz made in the debate in Pennsylvania this week. My home Commonwealth, this guy is lying to you. He is a far left liberal. This is a vanity project for him. And ladies and gentlemen,

look, it's simple. Just buy the pillow, buy the pillow, just buy it. What pillow? Just buy the, my pillow.

You know, you want one. Just do it. How would they do that? They were going to do that. You know what I want to do? Buy the, my pillow. I the pillow. Just buy it. What pillow? Just buy the MyPillow. You know you want one. Just do it. How would they do that if they were going to do that? You know what I want to do? Buy the MyPillow. Yo, I'm not kidding. I'm going to buy like 300 and I'm going to fill a room with them. Let's do it. We actually should do that. We should film it. I'll put one behind my head. It'll be the MyPillow.

So that'll be like when a guest gets too unruly, they get sent to the MyPillow room. No, it's the room back here. And then it's all padded, like a padded room. We've got one of our offices now is kind of vacant. Like legit, let's line the walls with MyPillows and then put like a hundred MyPillows on the floor. And we'll put cameras in and push them in there

and just lock them in there. Sounds great. And then that'll be a live cam too. And then you can put Super Chats into it. Actually, do you think Mike would sponsor this? So we just built a three-foot launch ramp, and we've got a seven-foot quarter pipe. Do you think he would sponsor sending us a bunch of pillows for our foam pit? That might take some explaining.

Yo, we're planning on building a foam pit at our new facility. So the idea is we're going to have a stage. Well, that is the pillows that's interlocking foam. Right. So the top layer of the stage will fold up against the wall. Okay. And it will expose a phone pit so you can launch and do flips and land in the phone pit. I would be so down to make the phone pit just a bunch of MyPillows.

We've got to call it the pillow pit. The pillow pit. Yeah. The MyPillow pit. We'll put MyPillow on the side of it. The MyPillow pillow pit. The MyPillow pillow pit. All right. That's actually not bad.

But that only works if you go to MyPillow.com and utilize promo code POSO for up to 65% of sleep like Joe Biden sleeps through an international crisis. That's promo code POSO, P-O-S-O, just to be clear. All day, every day, and twice on Sundays. So we're going to have 31-foot high ceilings, and you're going to be able to like on the top of the studio because the studio's going to be second floor there's going to be a third floor. It would be super cool

to do a massive pile of my pillows and have someone jump like get a pro to like jump off the third floor and land in the pillows. You'd have to get the highest firmness

of the pillows. It could be done. We'll do it. We'll do it. All right. I'm excited. Hey guys, Ian Crosland from iancrosland.net

if you want to get in touch and I am looking for a couple of developers. We have this open source project that we've been working on, a charity that we're building right now. And we need a couple of pieces. I need, like I said earlier, a UX developer that wants to commit some time over the next couple of months. Donation. Donate your time.

It would be great. Get in touch with me on Twitter or on Mines. And also, I'm looking for a project manager that's familiar with Trello, Jira, NextCloud, open source project management software. So that's something you want to do and you want to get involved with us. Contact me, Mines, or Twitter. I'll see you guys next time.

So fun having Cheryl. I really wish she'd been able to speak more. We just have to have you back again. That's just the bottom line. You live close enough. Come on, let's do it again next week. I'm just kidding. We'll make it happen, though, for sure. You guys may follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at SarahPatchLits or at SarahPatchLits.me.

We will see you all over at TimCast.com for the member segment, but don't forget to check out YouTube.com slash Chicken City. Subscribe and literally just watch chickens. It's relaxing, though. It's like nature sounds and you can feed the chickens. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging It's relaxing, though. It's like nature sounds. And you can feed the chickens. And we'll see you all over at TimCast.com.

Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.