Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #523 - Biden SLAMS "Ultra Maga" As MOST Extreme Group Ever w/Jon Schweppe & Allum Bokhari

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

Tim, Ian, and Lydia host tech writer for Breitbart Allum Bokhari and policy director at the American Principles Project Jon Schweppe to discuss Biden's dire warnings about 'ultra MAGA' (which just sounds cool) as the most dangerous political group in the US, the 'legion of doom' conspiring to take down Elon Musk's control of Twitter, Will Chamberlain's investigation of the possible leaker of the SCOTUS memo, as well as a questionable big tech bill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thanks to Joe Biden, ultra MAGA is trending. Joe Biden recently said that MAGA is the most extreme political organization in American history. It's objectively false because like, I don't know the weather underground existed, but sure, whatever. The Trump supporters waving little American flags. That's what I'm worried about. I'm sure the left will come out and be like, but the insurrection. Okay, dude. Sure. Whatever. I'm not, I'm not even bothering with that. No ultra MAGA. He calls it the ultra MAGA agenda. Well, Joe Biden back in, I think it was 1982. You voted to, uh, not, I believe it was voting against Roe v. Wade. So I wonder what that means about you, because if anything's changed in this country, it's not really been the right, except the rights actually moved leftward. Conservatives are now like, okay with gay marriage to a certain degree, whereas they weren't 14 years ago. I mean,

10 years ago, they weren't. So if anything's happened in this country, everything's moved a little bit to the left. So Joe Biden is absolutely wrong, but we'll talk about this. We've got a bunch of other stuff too. Will Chamberlain, friend of the show, produced a thread on who he thinks may have leaked the SCOTUS ruling from the Supreme Court. And Eric Swalwell essentially is threatening, you know, oh, you're going to get sued or whatever. They're really getting triggered about this because I think Will may have actually discovered something. Well, I don't want to say too much because they're very litigious people, but Will makes the case that it's possible this person could be somebody who leaked some

information. We'll read through what he said and we'll be careful about it. We've got a bunch of other stories. Elon Musk. We were originally going to leave with this one. There's 26 leftist organizations calling for an advertiser boycott of Twitter if Elon Musk wants to change things. So we've got this article talking about the Legion of Doom.

Elon Musk slammed this or this this letter saying who is funding this people surprise surprise one of the people is george soros joining us to talk about all this we've got a couple different people why don't you guys introduce yourselves you can start alan hello i'm alan bakari i'm the senior tech correspondent for breitbart news uh my job is to expose Silicon Valley and everything they're doing to manipulate your elections, take your speech away, and harvest your data. I'm John Schweppe. I'm the policy director at American Principles Project. We're a conservative group in DC, and we also focus on big tech issues. So Alam and I have had a lot of fun working

together over the last few years. Ian Cross and Wild Freakin' Hippie. Also, I co-founded Mines, so I'm really down to get to brass tacks about the tech implications of what we're seeing here. Great to have you guys. And I know basically nothing about tech, so I'm very excited to learn about some of that

tonight. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com. Become a member to help support our journalists and the work we do. As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. We'll have another one of those up tonight at 11 p.m., members only.

And you're also keeping our journalists gainfully employed as we hire more and expand our news operation. And you're going to allow us to keep doing our fancy little culture jamming marketing stuff we have planned. A bunch of cool stuff is in the works. We're just trying to, you know, I don't know, rustle up some feathers and trigger some

blue check authoritarian elitists. I think we're going to do a good job of it. It should be really exciting. When I talk to people behind the scenes about what we have planned, they all just go, whoa, are you crazy? And I'm like, yes! We're going to do some crazy stuff. Someone suggested that we hire like a thousand people to dress up like syringes and go dance around in D.C. or crazy? And I'm like, yes! We're going to do some crazy stuff. Someone suggested that we hire like a thousand people to dress up like syringes and go dance around in D.C. or something.

And I'm like, maybe. That's kind of the crazy kind of stuff I'm interested in doing. And then these blue checkies will be like, who is doing this? And people are running around dressed up like syringes or whatever. So again, go to TimCast.com, become a member, but smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show with your friends. It's time we discuss Ultramaga.

Oh, cool. Joe Biden is warning about the Ultramaga agenda. That really does sound like a Trump anime or manga. You know, the Ultramaga. And they're, like, fighting. They always end up making the rights sound super cool. First it was deplorables. Now it's Ultramaga. ultra mega ultra mega what does it mean

does it mean it's awesome ultra okay look look joe biden was talking about the roe v wade thing he's insane he's an insane person okay i i just have to say that and you know i i always i'm always a little reluctant to say that because there's going to be some you know red pill curious left-leaning person who's like i guess i'll check out tim cast irl then they hear something like that and they get scared and they they run away and they're like no he's far right let me just let me just explain okay give me a second let me let me try and break it down for you maga is the most extreme political organization in american history that's a quote from joe Biden. The weather underground was a thing. They blew stuff up and killed people. Okay. Biden warned that after Roe v. Wade was struck down, conservatives might try to ban LGBTQ kids from classrooms. Where did that

come from? It's like just literally made that up. That's not a thing. That's not happening anywhere. But you see, this is what happened. Recently, Joe Biden was asked about Title 42. And his response was, well, you got to get the scientists. You got to review it, you know, and then we'll appeal to the courts. And it's like, wait, what? Joe, are you talking about are you talking about COVID or something? We're talking about immigration. He confused the mask mandate repeal with immigration.

The man is not well. He is not able to articulate his thoughts. This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history. All right. I'd just like to make one point. Joe Biden, in response to news that the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, said that MAGA is the most extreme political organization in American history, and it is based upon overturning Roe v. Wade. All right, here you go, Joe. Biden changed position on Roe v. Wade. In 1982, when Biden was a senator from Delaware,

he voted to end Roe v. Wade under former President Ronald Reagan. The administration was focused on ending abortion rights at the federal level. An amendment was proposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow individual states to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said, I'm probably a victim or a product, you know, however you want to phrase it, of my background, citing his Catholic upbringing. If anything's more extreme today, it's Joe Biden, who's a hypocrite. No, look, the psychological thing, projection, right? We talk about this all the time. That's what's happening here. Obviously, you know, you mentioned this, Tim, but MAGA, you know, in a lot of ways is left of where the Republican Party is 20 years ago. I mean, 10 years ago, you know, you look at like trade and things like that. That was those were

issues where the Democrats were. But but but Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, we're talking about abortion till the moment of birth. We're talking about sex changes for kids. We're talking about censoring free speech. So I think when he says that Ultramaga, which is really cool, by the way, is the most dangerous political movement the country will believe him is because of the media the media memory holds every single example of left-wing extremism and amplifies anything they can pin on republicans so we'll always remember the trespassers at the capitol but we won't remember the people who bombed the Capitol in the 1980s, the leftists linked to the weather on the ground, as you said, Tim. Actually, there might have been another different left-wing extremist group. Even I'm forgetting the details. Even I'm forgetting the details because the media just doesn't talk about these things ceaselessly. Here's the issue. They come out and they're like, but there's so many far right extremists.

And I'm like, there are many far right extremists. Sure. But do they have any institutional power? Are the people who stormed into the Capitol on January 6th working at CNN

or the New York Times? Are any of those people, are they being supported and defended by CNN and the New York Times? Oh, well, when Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioted

across this country in 2020, causing billions of dollars in damage and i think it resulted in between 26 and 32 dead they were actively defended by the sitting vice president and president and the media actively defended them my favorite is fiery but mostly peaceful so if i take issue with that you know then you're like, but what about the insurrectionists? And I'm like, oh, the people who are violent should go to prison. But those people

don't have any support from the major cultural institutions. They don't work there. You actually have active Antifa people at the New York Times. Actively. Okay, you don't have that

with the mock people, but they're police officers. I'm like, dude, and what, like, Bumblehaven in Bufu? Podunk? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm really worried about the podunk cop who drove a couple hundred miles and rioted. Arrest the guy, put him in jail. Fine. I get it. But that is not an institution that is going to harm my life. And look at the difference here between the two parties, right? The Republicans do everything they can to disavow

the insurrectionists, disavow the far right, you know, the alt-right people. The Democrats create GoFundMes for bailout funds for the mostly peaceful protesters. I pulled up this, the bombing you were talking about in the Capitol, 1980s, a far left group called M19 bombed the Senate. It was women. I think it was a group of women, but it was like a male. It wasn't all women. It was like, looks like four women and two guys. They call it like a group of women but it was like a male oh it wasn't all women it was like looks like four women and two guys they call it like a yeah i'd never heard it i don't think i've ever heard m19 until tonight so thank you yeah i i think a lot of people haven't

heard about it because uh whoever controls the history books whoever controls the news doesn't want us remembering it uh you know we have an alternative news media now which is great we probably need alternative history as well. Yeah, they're a communist organization. Well, and has everybody forgotten about Assata Shakur and her shootout on the Jersey Turnpike? That was in, I want to say, the 70s. I'm not sure exactly, but that's just another thing that they never, ever talk about. Incredibly dangerous. People literally died.

It's just not a big deal. Yo, this is crazy. Look, I pulled up M19. Oh, snap. From 1982 to 1985, M19's CEO committed a series of bombings, including bombings of the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard, Computing Center, the Israeli Aircraft Industries, New York City's South African Consulate. Wow. The Washington Navy Yard Officers Club. They've got a whole bunch here, man.

But there's no way those guys are the most extremist movement in American history. That's all from my guy. No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let's be honest and be real. They didn't vote for Trump.

Okay. So everything else, it's bad. It's bad, but it's not quite there. Yeah. It's really like it becomes obvious as you learn how governments will use organizations as like fall guys when it's time. Elam, it's explosive, but mostly peaceful. Yes.

It's bad, but not ultra bad. Yeah, exactly. We even have recent examples. I mean, that's from the 80s. But do you guys remember the Family Research Council shooting that happened like six years ago, seven years ago? No one talks about this, but they were targeted for being an anti-gay hate group. And someone went in there with Chick-fil-A sandwiches, was planning to put Chick-fil-A sandwiches on the dead corpses of all the people that worked there.

Wasn't that like the SPLC? Yep. The SPLC named them and then the group went after them. I mean, you also had the Bernie guy who went and shot up the baseball game. I don't think MAGA's an organization. It means Make America Great Again. It was a phrase that Donald Trump used.

You could say that people are rallying around and attempting to create some sort of organized movement based on Donald Trump, like a campaign. But MAGA is just a statement that means make America great again. So I don't understand why he's trying to create a political movement out of that statement. This is what's happening. And I'll say it early just for you, John. Civil war. Okay. Now, hold on.

I'll say it early just for you, John. Civil war. Okay, now hold on. I'll explain. This leak from the initial draft never happened before that a draft was leaked like this. There was a meme post from some leftist guy that had like 20,000 retweets or some huge number. And he was saying that his law professor told him this is an egregious violation of the court and the integrity of the court. And he was like, I responded, taking away women's rights is a worse scandal. And the professor said, I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about for the courts and what they need to do. And then the person responded, women are losing their rights across this country and you're worried about this. And I'm just like, I don't look.

If the, if the people who are supposed to be coming into the courts do not care for the process of law, the process of justice, then you're going to have psychotic activists saying precedent law and the fabric of this nation doesn't matter. What matters is what I think is right. So those kind of people in courts, you're going to go into court and be like, I didn't break the law. The law says I'm allowed free speech. There's no laws and I can't say naughty words. And he goes, I don't care. Prison. That's what you end up getting. You get activist judges like, who was it? Was it Sotomayor? No, no, no. Was it Kagan?

One of the Supreme Court justices who said that I don't understand why the federal federal so the mayor yeah which i don't understand why the states would have this power not the federal government or something like that and everyone was just like screams and yeah right yeah it's like you're a supreme court justice and you don't know these things so we i can rag but but i'll tell you what's happening to go back with why Joe Biden said MAGA is the most extreme. If you put out an article or a rallying cry that says Donald Trump is racist, it will not work again. You've got to up the ante. So the next day, he's the worst racist. You can't say that again. You got to up the ante. The next day, you say he's almost as bad as Hitler. You can't say it again. So the next day, he is as bad. The next day he's worse than

you have to keep escalating it because people want that fix of anger and hatred and they need a reason to hate and be angry. So Joe Biden comes out and he needs a way to rile people up for the midterms. The Roe v. Wade thing leaks. And he says they're the most extreme organization in American history. And, you know, you know what what he's doing he's targeting 18 year olds 18 year olds who don't know about the weather underground who don't know about m19 co who don't know about these bombings who don't even know about joe biden because we've had these leftists on the show and they're like i don't know anything about biden or his administration or what he did with obama and i'm like well he blipped kids but they don't know that he says it kids. But they don't know that. He says it. They believe it.

I don't know nothing about no M19. M19 CO. It's the May 19th Communist Organization. So here's what's going to happen. Right now, I think the one thing that's preventing just balls to the wall chaos and violence, boomers. Boomers were 30 years old or so in the 90s. And they were the political faction that

overlapped Democrat, Republican. To this day, it is still mostly true. We had a boomer on the show recently. We talked to her, and she didn't know anything about what was going on with our generation's politics. When the boomers age out, retiring, exiting politics, and or passing on, that tether is gone, and you're going to have millennials who are very much at odds in the culture. I mean, look at where we are compared to where the young Turks are. But it's all screaming at each other. But we do have young people, and there are some older people involved, don't get me wrong, boomers are involved, but they're overtly fighting in the streets. What happens when Gen Z and Gen Alpha are raised in a world dominated by millennial worldview, which is

hyperpolarized, what happens when the next generation comes in, raised by millennials, millennials are going to have kids, Gen Z is going to have kids, and their kids are going to be raised in those ideologies, completely bifurcated politics in this country. That's when chaos happens. The one thing that I think is missing from all of the discussions about escalation of violence and hyperpolarization in this country is how demographics shape what's going to happen in this country. If in the 2000s, conservatives were having more kids than liberals, then by 2020, you would have a generation that was slightly more conservative. Surprise, surprise. We literally have that only slightly, though. The left doesn't have kids. They have

your kids. So as long as they're in schools indoctrinating, now you've got millennial conservatives and you know, Xennial, I guess, necessarily Gen X because they're a little older. But people in their 40s and down to millennial are fighting in these schools and complaining about it. You do have some boomers involved, some older generation stuff. They're fighting about the indoctrination. The indoctrination is likely going to stop because of the culture wars, or at least I believe it will. The left is going

to react, revolt. The one thing that may happen is if they can't indoctrinate conservative kids, then leftism just fizzles out because these people, I mean, let's be real. They don't have kids. If they get pregnant, they abort their babies and they are actually moving towards sterilizing or at least permanently damaging the reproductive organs of their children. Mathematically, it just stands to reason 20 years from now, it's going to be two-to-one conservative in this country. Yeah, but that's assuming that they don't have your kids. That's the thing about horizontal gene translation. There's vertical gene translation, which is parent to child.

Then there's horizontal, which is your environment changes your genetics and if you have enough kids getting brainwashed with TV where they're being told they're transgender they're being told they're evil or wrong they could very well become that daily wire. Memes versus genes the entire education system is leftist and then you also have

culture and people on social media telling you you have to be leftist to be cool or else you get cancelled if you're an social media telling you you have to be leftist to be cool or else you get canceled. If you're an impressionable teenager, you're going to respond to those things. But not if you're a French teenager, apparently. One of the interesting things I've noticed from the recent French election was that the younger people in France tend to be more supportive of the right there, which is an interesting contrast with America. But this – no, I think that tracks exactly with what we're talking about, that in the 2000s, conservatives were having slightly more kids than liberals.

20 years, that means someone who was born in 2000, they're 22 years old. They're voting. And they're more likely to be conservative because conservatives had more kids. That's it. It doesn't matter if you win the culture war. It doesn't matter if you've been effective in your persuasion. To start, the most influential element is the parents. That's why they're going for schools.

They need to cut the parents out because they know parents are more conservative than they are. Right. And I think the white pill in all this is we do seem to see a movement pushing back against this indoctrination. I think that's what the Virginia governor's race last year was all about. And, you know, the thing here that I see is that I don't really see when we talk about civil war, which is always a fun topic. To me, it seems like conservatives won't ever be the instigators, but butives, leftist woke people will. And so it's really critical, I think, for us to, you know, to take back power, to be willing to use the government

to shut down some of these institutions that are trying to do this indoctrination to really go after them. And so that's like one of the biggest debates on the right right now is like, are we going to continue to be this like small government party that lets schools do whatever they want to your kids? Or are we going to take a more active role and say, no, absolutely not. Parents should have some control over that. Yeah. The meme works, both directions works in multiple directions. You may have indoctrination towards one thing, but just this show having you, you listening to this right now are you are being indoctrinated. This is the part of the conversation. And if you want your kids to learn this kind of information,

let them listen to this kind of conversation. It works. So we can heal the earth and we can heal our minds and our children's forethought proactively by exposing kids to good ideas. And this is why, for me, it all comes back to Internet censorship. I think this is the most important issue for all of these culture war topics, because if you can't control the flow of information,

then you can't indoctrinate people. I remember being in college and hearing absolute nonsense from gender studies professors and thinking, that sounds a bit weird. I'm going to go and look things up on the Internet, see what the Internet has to say about this particular debate about the social construction of gender. And then I'd find threads on 4chan and Reddit that broke it all down

and explain to me that, yes, I was absolutely correct. You are listening to nonsense right now. Here's the facts. Here's the data. So it comes back to Internet censorship. This is why they're so fixated on it. This is why they're so determined to stop Elon Musk bringing free speech back to Twitter. If they can't control those choke points of information, the indoctrination machine completely collapses. And as these left-wing institutions, you know, really beclown themselves, I think people are – the media, for example.

You look, CNN's ratings, MSNBC's ratings, always going down. You know, some of these things, I think people realize, okay, these institutions are bad. But as Alam said, like, if you take away our ability to access information, take away our ability to go to the Daily Wire, go to some of these other institutions to kind of counter this programming, then, you know, people are going to say, well, I heard that Trump's a racist. I guess that's true, because that's the only source that they saw. Ah, they're losing. I hear it more and more. And you know, the craziest thing to me, actually, is having people say things like, you know, I started watching your videos, and then I kind of realized about all the lies. And it's just, it's really fascinating, because we have been

doing this now for a little while. But it's not just it's about, you know, Steven Crowder. It's about even people like Jimmy Dore, you know, who's a leftist, but who are challenging the establishment. It's about breaking points with Crystal and Sager. These more and more people are rising up doing shows just saying no to the manipulation and the lies. So it'll be it'll be fascinating when these institutions lose their power. But let's let's talk about your article, Alan. We have this story from Breitbart. Legion of Doom. 26 leftist NGOs team up to stop Elon Musk from changing Twitter. Alan, what's this all about?

So the left, as you all know, have been freaking out nonstop for the past two or three weeks because of Elon Musk, who calls himself a free speech absolutist, and his plans to bring free speech absolutist and his plans to bring free speech absolutism back to Twitter, which is the correct way of explaining it. Free speech was originally an ideal of Twitter.

They changed that. Elon Musk wants to take them back to their roots. They can't let that happen. Who is this old guy? I've never seen that guy before. Who is he? That's a good question. He looks familiar.

Yeah, that's old George. Jack Dorsey? Jack Dorsey. That's the old CEO of Twitter? He's not Asian. Jack Dorsey. That's Trump's dad. That's Dupree Kowski.

That is Jorge. This is... Soros. George Soros. That's right. Wait, are we allowed to say that? I thought that was like an anti-Semitic thing to even say his name out loud. George Soros is allowed to be said, yeah.

Remember when Newt Gingrich, I think it was, who was it? They mentioned George Soros on Fox, and Fox was like, no. And he was like, what? He said George Soros was funding DAs. Like, no, no, we don't talk about that. And he was like, but he is. What? I don't understand.

Like, it's not a secret. Yeah, so he's funding a lot of these organizations. Is that what's going on? He is. So are some foreign governments. What? So some funding a lot of these organizations that's going on he is uh so are some foreign governments what so uh some foreign governments are funding these organizations uh the government of sweden the government of canada denmark uh the netherlands foreign interference in our elections indeed heavens foreign manipulation of social media i can't

believe this there's no way the left would be that hypocritical. Next, you're going to tell me that the left is advocating for using horse medicine to induce abortions. Oh, wait, they are. This is part of why. You can't make it up. When I think people's obsession with nationalism, but adherence to nationalism worries me because it's like, let's be realistic. We're on a global stage now. Everything is global. There is no more.

I mean, there is still a United States Constitution, but the united states is permeable everything is here we're all interacting with each other at this point this is this is literally what jack dorsey was saying on rogan he was like well we're making rules for i think it was actually vagina we're making rules for our global community and i'm like this is america this is america we got american law here you don't silence someone for someone some other. What are you talking about? That's all Elon Musk has said. He said he wants free speech on Twitter to go as far as the law

and no further. That's a very reasonable position. And he said people can change the law. He's like, if they don't like it, they can change the law. You can. Well, you remember when there was a debate as to whether this acquisition would take place, Saudi Prince came out and said they had a huge stake in twitter and they were like absolutely not the reason is because they need to be able to censor their own citizens and their

own citizens are using twitter i love this take a look at this the full list includes free press ah yes the free press um you may remember them from such campaigns like stop people from having free press. Yeah. What? Is this freepress.net? Classic. Is that who that is? I think it's the same one, yeah. Because I want to give a shout out to freepress.net because I know some of the people who used to work there.

And I remember, you know, back during Occupy when they were very much like free press, free speech until Donald Trump got elected. And then they were like, we should ban speech. And I remember talking to this guy and I was like, dude, how? I had hung out with him. And then a few months later, he was advocating for banning Alex Jones. And then I was like, I thought you were the free press. And he was like, but this is hate speech. I'm like, when did you guys start deciding that certain things weren't free press anymore?

Like, I don't get it. Dude, I pulled up their organization on the Wayback Machine. And it was like, we believe in free speech and the free press. And then you look at some point, all of a sudden, it's like diversity and equity are core values. And I'm like, that's not free press. They used to praise them for free speech. They used to praise them for opening up communications, for democratizing the news until Trump wins. It's all great until Trump wins. And they realized how much institutional power they have, and they realized, hey, we can prevent Trump from winning again. Let's exert it. And now they're just full-blown left fascists. I mean, that's just where they are.

They even used to praise data mining for elections. There's this fantastic article. Maybe we can pull it up's cool you can probably google it you'll find it it's called obama facebook and the power of friendship this is the way they were writing about the way facebook data was used in 2012 from the guardian yes obama, and the power of friendship. The power of friendship. The 2020 data election. But then Donald Trump did the same thing. Actually, I don't even think he did. I do think because I read a lot about the Cambridge stuff. Yeah.

No, he did far less than this. I think it's all BS. Facebook gave the Obama campaign their entire social graph. Like Cambridge Analytica was nothing compared to what facebook did in 2012 and i think a lot of what i think they overhype what cambridge was actually doing oh absolutely absolutely because like they can't you know whatever let them lose these are people who can't admit to themselves that they suck and so it's like they're at a party they've got you know dog crap all over their boots and no one

will go near them and they're like it's because i'm too cool you know the real problem is russia russia is telling everybody not to hang out with me dude russia's so lame that's what they're doing it's like no you suck hillary was terrible why would you run hillary clinton and they did and it's funny because yo if they picked literally anybody else, Trump would not have won. Like, they went with one of the least popular persons. Yeah, Bernie Sanders would have beat him for sure. I definitely think Bernie Sanders would have won. But I think they could have found, like, you could have taken any moderate Democrat.

I could take Joe Biden. That's true. But I guess because of his son is why he didn't run. They had planned for Joe Biden to run. Hillary was just next in line. She was going to get it. She was not going to have it. That's very regime-like.

Anyone who got in her way, you know. That's crazy. Metaphorically, of course. The DNC just chooses the candidate. Like, that's really crazy. Yeah, the superdelegates and all that. I mean, that's what they did. Did you guys see the meme?

The Twitter account? Roe v. Wade says, I have information that will lead to the arrest and prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Anything gets canceled, shutdown ends, like a burger shop can go out of business and someone will make a meme about Hillary Clinton. I think what gets me about this, and I'm trying to see that point of view, the other point of view here, is that Trump can go on stage and be like, the sky is not blue. The sky is red. I. The sky is red. I heard the sky is red. And then a bunch of people will go online. They'll be like, the sky actually is red.

People be like, okay, there are such things as cult worshipers that believe anything, even if it's not real, when they hear it from their cultist, when they're called. So people are afraid of that and they want to censor it. I think of it backwards. I think he's a very powerful speaker and people believe him at his word. Donald Trump reads a story about some potential medications that was published in TechCrunch. Because I know because I read the news. Two days later, Donald Trump goes, did you hear the news about this thing?

It sounds very great. There's a medication. We're very excited for this. And then the media all of a sudden flips and is like, no, it's donald trump is dangerous and i'm like but you reported on these studies donald trump had a tendency of watching cable tv putting too much stock in these institutional news outlets because he kept giving them interviews believing them but then the next day they'd be like uh actually i think we said yesterday is gone here's a good example politico reported that ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.

And then when Donald Trump and Trump supporters are complaining about it, Politico then reported that Ukraine did not meddle in the. I'm like, have you retracted the initial report yet? No. OK. You know what, man? And so that's actually, you know, to your point, I think what's happening in reverse. We can point this out that Politico, that Politico basically made something up. And we're able to do that in the digital public square and correct people and help them come to the truth. And so with your point, if this was a good faith argument

that they were making, it's actually better for them to say the sky is red out in the public square because we'll be able to correct them and guide them to where the truth is. Unfortunately, what they're doing is they're suppressing it. And so you're going to have two Americas. Yeah, it's an overreaction. Let's just, let's just, let's just admire this. But it could very well be an intentional overreaction. Because I know there are many people who want to share this show and share the show with

people who are not initiated in the past several years of politics. Here is an article from Politico in January of 2017 from Ken Vogel and David Stern. Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump. And his advisors. A Politico investigation found.

They never retracted this. This is damning evidence. This is a story that came out. Right after the election. That is still there. That has never been retracted. But yes. Politico and every other ally came out.

My favorite moment. Shout out David Pakman. When he did a segment about meet the press asking Ted Cruz, do you think Ukraine meddled in the election? And Ted's like, it was reported by Politico and like NBC. And then a guy in the background starts laughing. So like it's super unprofessional. And Pakman is like, wow, they're laughing at him. And I'm like, Davidid did you google the story he

they don't do it they live in crackpot fake news reality where i can at least say this maybe ukraine did not meddle in the election maybe but politicos report both they did and they didn't so you tell me what's true i bet they all did at this point it's a global game and the united states is the leader so everyone involved everyone's involved that possibly can but it's it's good global game and the United States is the leader. So everyone involved, everyone's involved that possibly can. But it's good if there's global meddling to help the Democrats. It's only bad if it helps the Republicans. I mean, that's their perspective. Like, honestly, one thing that irks me about what you just said, Tim, is that you said,

did they Google it? And we're talking about censorship and who controls the gateway of what you can see at Google. So, like, did you Google it? Does it even matter if Google can decide what's going to be on the Google search results? I don't like using Google as a verb. Think of it as a company that has a search algorithm that is very hidden from view. I use Brave

as my search. Well, the fact is that people don't do the barest amount of research before they talk about anything, including this. If someone like David Pakman can just be like, oh my gosh, you're laughing at him, that must mean it's crazy, right? No, it's actually not. And if you looked into it, you'd know it. It's like one of the first things you see.

To wrap up what I was saying, Trump will say something, whether it's true or not, people and then people may or may not believe it. They're afraid that the cultists will believe him at face value and that's dangerous. So they try and suppress it. But I think also that there's like, Trump wasn't part of the liberal economic order.

He didn't want American military supremacy all over the earth and they didn't like that. So now they're going far beyond like, hey, this guy's dangerously corrupting people too. This guy's impeding our agenda. So let's make sure that we smash him in the press. That's the vibe I'm getting from it. And I'm tired of it. So we're building decentralized free software, which will be AGPL, where you can run your own network and have your own server and interact with other people using the software, try and bypass this stuff. I'm still concerned with Verizon having ISPs and things like that.

We've got to figure out a way to use decentralized tech like Noster, N-O-S-T-R, stuff like that, where we don't need an internet to interact with each other. It's all meshed web. Look at this. Look at this. Politico. Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. When Russian disinformation met a Trump obsession, the Kremlin may have been laying the groundwork

for blaming Ukraine for 2016 as early as 2015. Oh, my gosh. What are you crazy? Three weeks after Election Day 2016, the Kremlin officially floated a theory that would ultimately lead to only the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history. Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump's election by planting information aimed at damaging his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, a spokesman for Russia's foreign ministry, told reporters on November 30th, 2016, accusing the Ukrainian government of scheming to help elect Hillary Clinton.

This is the Euro, my Dan. Just fascinating. Just so fascinating that Politico reported that Politico was Russian disinformation. Okay. Okay, so look, I'll say this. Maybe it is. Maybe Politico really is Russian disinformation. Good job, Politico was Russian disinformation. Okay. Okay, so look, I'll say this. Maybe it is. Maybe Politico really is Russian disinformation. Good job, Politico. Why did you not retract the initial article

then? If you're going to publish a story claiming it was Russian disinformation that Ukraine meddled, retract your own story and apologize. You are fake news. Fake news. This is also concerning because it was the government basically there's a revolution in the ukraine in 2014 you know the i don't know if the cia was involved in it but

that's what i've heard that a bunch i i can't verify 100 backed by western uh western eight intelligence like i don't think that's even in dispute anymore and so if that's the government that was meddling to keep trump out of office, it doesn't surprise me. My thing about the whole Ukraine war right now is the U.S. and the West was using soft power to win over Ukraine. That's what they were doing. It's better than kinetic warfare. Russia is

being terrible at what they do and not understanding how to compete in fourth and fifth generational warfare, decides just going with bombs and tanks, killing people and destroying a country. I don't like what the U.S. was doing when they do these manipulation campaigns. But I think the reality of the world is that everything is influence peddling. China's going for the, you know, the was it the Belt and Road Initiative or whatever?

They're going and they're offering money. The U.S. going to Ukraine to be like, we're going to give you a billion dollars and give you all this stuff. Get us what we want. I'm like, OK, welcome to global politics. Joe Biden going in and being like, fire the prosecutor. You're not getting a billion dollars we're gonna give you all this stuff get us what we want i'm like okay welcome to global politics joe biden going in and being like fire the prosecutor you're not getting the billion dollars joe biden should be in prison for that but you know i think russia's wrong it seems like the liberal economic order is the borg and that the russian federation federation

is the klingons like they're just brute brute force yeah the russian soft power like really is pitiful compared to the u.s all these myths about you know the kgb and their uh you know insane covert abilities i mean they weren't able to stop a coup happening on a country right in their border uh u.s soft power really is unparalleled even compared to china's i would say although china's catching up it's it's it's tough because i don't like war i don't like uh conflict and violence and bombs and nukes and all that stuff but if if it's like if the line is that the u.s goes to countries and they're like we're gonna give you a bunch of money to side with us i'm like isn't that better in terms of global interests to like at least sort trade kind of you get look at the economic the

confessions of an economic hitman he wrote about that they come in and they offer money and then but if you say no that's when the problem begins because then they're like okay now we gotta send this is my point jackals here's the thing with ukraine though you're kind of asking for trouble if you do that to a country on the borders of a great power estonia and latvia are nato countries on the border of russia i think the issue is that Russia needs the warm water port with Crimea. And so that's a big issue for Russia. The U.S. is encroaching, and I think Russia is one of the next dominoes to fall. So Russia probably tolerated Estonia and Latvia. With Ukraine, they were like, Ukraine goes, in 20 years, we go. You take a look at what happened with those Instagrammers from Russia crying, no, don't

ban me. Russia already lost the culture war. Or I should say they're losing it and now they're trying to reverse it. But man, are they late. Their children were being indoctrinated by Western social media. And so they were freaking out when Russia declared this war. I'm telling you, man,

the difference between boomers and even millennials and down, this gap in Internet usage, people like Putin and his advisors, his top military guys, they don't understand the cultural and mental worldview difference they have from their kids because their kids weren't raised by them. Their kids were raised by the Internet, and they were being raised by Facebook, face CIA book, as the activists like to call it. So what happens after Vladimir Putin ages out, as it were?

You can't spell facial without CIA. This is one of the big reasons why the establishment was praising Facebook and Twitter and social media for their free speech before Trump, because there was a chap who worked in the Trump administration, an appointee, I won't name him, who said the – and this was like – follows the foreign policy part of the deep state very closely. He said the U.S. establishment, the defense establishment liked social media because it helped them do regime change abroad. But then with 2016 and Brexit, they realized, oh, no, can regime change the rest? That's what I'm wondering. It's like we're in an avalanche, this whole globalizing internet culture.

And we can't stop the avalanche. I mean, I can't fathom that. So we just got to ski the avalanche. I mean, at this point, build technology like open source free software. And it's hard even for companies like Google and Twitter and Facebook to do it because these are all started as open platforms. So you still can find articles and your videos debunking this Politico stuff with enough creative Google searches. You could find it on Twitter going viral. They haven't been able to censor these platforms completely because these platforms were not made to be censored. Which, by the way, is why the left is furious with them.

I mean, the left wants total control here. That's where, you know, as much from the right, we see big tech as being censorious and terrible and all that, and they have been. The left wants them to double down, triple down. I mean, it's absolutely insane. I mean, you know, my entire job is exposing big tech. But if we're talking about the regime, big tech is not entirely a reluctant partner, but they were pressured into it to a large degree by external forces, especially the media.

And this is why we see these 26 organizations coming and saying we need to advertise a boycott of Twitter because that's their leverage over the tech companies ultimately that's how they get them to do things yeah you know what elon musk was trying to get away from ads anyway he knows exactly what he's doing he's thought about this he wants to do a subscription membership model he wants to charge for premium access and i think it's a brilliant idea and i i will i'll be totally honest uh i got a lot of followers on twitter if they came to me and said we've got a premium suite i'd be like done yes show me like show me data on uh there's like there's the analytics sucks for twitter give me like a premium analytics suite i don't i don't care about twitter because you can't use it the way you can use say youtube youtube tells me here's how many people watched your video in the first hour here's how many, like how long they watched your first video.

And I'm like, oh, okay. So here's what they like and here's what they don't like. Twitter is like, say something and cross your fingers. If they actually came out and said for X amount of dollars, we'll do this for you. I think they should be verifying everybody. I think, you know, I guess Elon Musk said he wants more like two bucks per month for Twitter blue. And then they'll verify you, your identity and all that stuff. Not everyone has to be identified. Not everybody has to be verified.

People will still be able to use it for free and I'm like, I think he's got a good plan for this. And he's so smart. I mean, I know he made comments about this isn't about economics, which is great. I'm glad that he's doing this for free speech, but he's too smart for that. He knows that he paid $44 billion.

He's got Web3 ideas. He's got decentralization that. He knows that he paid $44 billion. He's got Web3 ideas. He's got decentralization ideas. He's got all sorts of things. I'm sure he will turn this into a trillion-dollar company. I would bet everything. I'm not sure he has Web3 ideas. He constantly dunks on Web3 projects,

which, to be fair, a lot of them are a bit bad. Shout out to Hive and the recovery of the Steam network. I think Elon, in this situation, is a student. He's been the master at all his other companies because he started them. This one he bought, so he's here to learn. How cool would it be if, after Elon buys Twitter, one day everyone wakes up, and when they log in,

they just see, when they log into their account, it's just GeoCities. And there's just the banana guy, the peanut butter jelly time gifs and all that stuff. And people are like, wait, what's going on? And Elon's like, the internet was better back when we just did it this way, so now Twitter is this. And it's like, just... You're reminding me of YTMNDs. Remember those?

I remember those. Those were 4chan before 4chan. That was amazing. You guys ever go on Newgrounds? Oh, yeah. Back in the day. That's crazy. Newgrounds.com, for those that don't know, was YouTube before YouTube existed.

And they missed the train. Big time. Yeah, they had Flash video because they were cartoon-oriented. And so what happened was I could be totally wrong about this. I was on Newgrounds every day looking at every new submission. These were people uploading cartoons. I used to do flash animation stuff. And then I remember when YouTube came around,

and then all of a sudden the animators started putting their stuff on YouTube because it was just easy and fast. Newgrounds could have done video. In fact, they had some video sometimes, but I guess they thought, no, no, no, we're an animator community, so we're going to stick to that. And then everyone migrated their animations to YouTube and that was

and they probably thought they were so big they didn't see the threat coming but the crazy thing is they were so big but nowhere near as big as YouTube came to be do you remember the ultimate showdown I was nine I thought it was the funniest show ever

imagine if right now we were streaming not on on YouTube, but on Newgrounds. Because they had Flash Player. They could have done video. Imagine if they built out that infrastructure. We'd be in a very different place. I wonder what they would do because a lot of the content they posted is just adult humor, like not for kids. Could you comment on videos on Newgrounds? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Of course. YouTube had those video responses, which really enlivened the community before Google bought them. I wonder if Google was planning on buying them before that or if they were like, whoa, there's a community here and we want to build communities, so we're going to buy it. But they bought it for a billion and YouTube was dying. It was like they couldn't pay for their infrastructure, so they had to sell the company. That's what it came to. Let's talk about what's going on with Will Chamberlain, because as we talk about our cultural decay and our institutional collapse, Will Chamberlain has tweeted out a law clerk by the name of Elizabeth Deutsch.

He says in his humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says, a disclaimer, I have no inside information. This threat is speculation based almost entirely on publicly available information. I could easily be wrong. Now, apparently he's being threatened that he's going to get sued over this, which is just laughably stupid.

Elizabeth Deutsch is arguably not a public figure, but guess what? People can become public figures. Whoa. Now, Will prefaces he doesn't know for sure. It's a speculation and you're allowed to speculate. And Will is also a lawyer, so I think he knows what he's doing. But I think this is a really interesting thread because of how the reaction has been. Let me see if I have this one from Eric Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, you know him, you love him, he farted on TV. He said, under Supreme Court law, as a public figure, I take a lot of defamatory attacks because Barr is too high to sue.

Ms. Deutsch is not a public figure and would likely have a strong defamation case against Will Chamberlain. Republicans are bullies, but they always back down when challenged. Ron Coleman says, you are not scaring anyone, but you are getting some of us pretty excited. And then it's Elmer Fudd saying, I wove civil litigation. Okay, okay. So here's the gist. I'll just give you the simple version. She is,

according to this thread from Will, she's a reproductive rights activist. Is that how they call it? Her academic background isn't uncommon. He says, things get interesting. Every law student has to write a note, a long legal research paper, making a novel argument about the law.

Hers is about reproductive rights and abortion. She argued that Obamacare's nondiscrimination provision should be interpreted to force Catholic hospitals to perform emergency abortions. Aggressive argument, but hey, law students are aggressive. He says while in law school, she wrote a New York Times op-ed about reproductive rights. Her career page on LinkedIn doesn't reveal that much until we dig a little further. Thanks to her New York Times wedding announcement, of course, we know that she clerked for Judge Nina Pillard.

Pillard was one of the D.C. Circuit judges appointed by Obama and forced through by Harry Reid, blowing up the filibuster. She's stridently pro-choice, perhaps not shocking. After her clerkships, she got a Gruber Fellowship at the ACLU for a full year, working on abortion and reproductive rights. None of this proves anything. Deutsche's career seems pretty focused on abortion, but without some connection to Josh Gerstein,

the journalist who received the leak, there would be no reason to suspect her. Let's go back to that New York Times wedding announcement. The bride and groom she met at Yale, she is a lawyer, he is a journalist. Isaac Arnsdorf just got hired by the Washington Post as a national political reporter. Of course, he's on the Trump beat. But where has he written in the past? Politico, sharing a byline with Josh Gerstein. Interesting. So that's the connection.

It looks like Gerstein and they are still bros, chatting on Twitter, interacting as recently as last year. To conclude, we have a currently sitting Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion. She wrote her law school note on abortion. She wrote op-eds about reproductive rights. Spent a year working on abortion at the ACLU. Clerk for a pro-choice judge. And just so happens that her husband is a journalist sharing bylines with Josh Gerstein at Politico,

and it looks like they're still friends. Sharing a byline means they work together. They've shared this story that's published, so they know each other for sure. He says, I don't know that Elizabeth Deutsch leaked the draft opinion but I certainly think someone who has spent much of their academic and professional life fighting to expand the rights to get an abortion

could be desperate enough to do so. I think it's an interesting thread and some good journalistic work. He didn't publish any private details outside of here's a person who publicly works for the court and we're looking for a leaker. Robbie Suave says, what is the argument that it's okay to do this, but not to reveal the name of Libs of TikTok? Ian Miles-Chung, she's not anonymous for one. And secondly, Will didn't publish Deutsche's home address. She's not anonymous. She's literally a law clerk. Someone

leaked the information. We're going to start looking who the publicly available information on law clerks is. Libs of TikTok's name was not in the public, but my argument on that one was always, I disagree with it, but there's an argument to be made about the journalistic issue around whether or not someone's, who someone is, should be public knowledge. Considering Libs of TikTok had 600,000 followers and was influencing politics, I think the reporting was warranted, but the name didn't serve a purpose. Posting the home address was crossing the line. As for this, this is not an anonymous person. This is someone who has stamped law clerk at the Supreme Court under their name. All of this is in the press. Libs of TikTok's information may have been public, as they argue, but it was in like registriesries it was in like real estate

licenses there was nothing saying linkedin person libs of tiktok like this individual has now the threatening to sue i wonder if will is over target on this one and he actually found who may have leaked the also making popular beams on twitter and not even making popular means sharing videos on twitter of other people of other people and being at the highest court in the land. Those are like two different categories of power. Oh, yeah, posting memes is way more powerful than being blocked out at the Supreme Court. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that this isn't a public person.

You work for a member of Congress that's publicly known. If you tweet something as a member of Congress, I guarantee you the New York Times or whoever will go after you. So, you know, I think, look, Will is an incredibly smart guy. He's very careful. I imagine he went through all of these clerks and kind of did some process of elimination. And look, I mean, this is really interesting. You know, the media is not going to do anything about this, right?

They're not going to look for the leaker. They're happy it happened. So I think it's going to have to be on people like will and other sleuths to this is the media as well and so that's part of how we're changing what the media is right we're so used to being on the being outside of the building looking in that the media usually refers to the establishment but we're we're taking over when we're taking that space so the corporate press i think is usually even this is corporate press at this point this is not timcast as a corporation that's not we're taking that space, so the corporate press, I think, is usually – Even this is corporate press at this point. This is not corporate press. Tim Kass is a corporation.

That's not what it means. We're usurping that title. The bad. I mean, this is one. You guys are the good media. Here come the semantics that are completing the material to the argument. I am the semantic master. You know what's been crossing my mind?

That it's a spouse. Somebody talked to their spouse. It's so easy to go home after work and lay in bed all stressed out and just blab about what you did at the job. So it's very well could have been her husband. They'd still have to get it. They had the physical 98-page draft. Yeah, they need it. And apparently that's really limited in terms of who could have it.

I'm not saying that this – I don't know what this is. Tons of journalists are married to people in politics. Yeah. It is one thing. It is not – was it the fourth estate I think the press was supposed to be? Yeah. Yeah, no. The fourth estate and what's – the third estate, is that – which one?

Is it the third estate government? I think it's the third estate. I don't know. Whatever. Whichever estate is supposed to be – or like the representatives has merged with journalism. Gross. And now it's polylism. Now it's a monopoly of states.

A monopoly of states? Here's the – we've got another tweet. Mike Cernovich. He monopoly of states? Here's another tweet. Mike Cernovich said, New talking point just went out. Doesn't matter who leaked. Adam Schiff says, I don't care how the draft leaked. That's a sideshow.

What I care about is that a small number of conservative justices who lied about their plans to the Senate intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care. Codifying Roe isn't enough. We must expand the court. Oh, incredible. So a leak from the Supreme Court is a sideshow. women of reproductive care codifying roe isn't enough we must expand the court oh incredible so a leak from the supreme court is a sideshow this is this is an interesting precedent how many more leaks from the supreme court are going to happen in the future now when some progressive

clerk doesn't like what she sees these i'm telling you man boomers had scruples i asked this question why is there why can't you bribe a cop in the United States? Because the cop will arrest you on the spot. But why can you bribe a cop in Russia? It's still illegal to do, but there's no scruples. They're not worried about repercussions. They're not worried about being ostracized or canceled or anything like that. For the older generations, they're genuinely worried that if I step out of line, people will be mad at me. Now you've got these law clerks who are like, I literally don't care what anyone else thinks. My tribe must win. When you have two distinct political factions and within those umbrellas, you have many different ideologies like libertarian and conservative are kind of in the same space,

but they really don't agree with each other. Just like progressives and neolibs don't, but they're in the same space. What happens is we had one United States and a Republican would be like, I can't do that because Democrats, you know, I'm going to get all the flack from my colleagues in Congress. That one goes too far. Nowadays, it's basically come to the point where left and right says, I do not care at all what the right thinks. The left must get this thing. So the attitude now with cancel culture.

Ethan Klein, really great example. H3H3. He makes an offensive statement. He apologizes to his fans. We all laugh and be like, look what you have to do. But to him, he's like, I don't care about what the right thinks because the right's not paying my bills. So I'll apologize if I have to.

That's where we're at right now. Ethan can come out and accuse anyone on the right of being anything, and there's zero damage he will face. We had a detransitioner on the show yesterday, and I'm like, I'm sure a bunch of activists are going to come and scream in my face, but they have zero

impact on my work or my show, so why should I care? And that means when the boomers are gone, there's going to be two distinct political realities in this country. You said that there's one United States. I see 50 United States. And the reason we have 50 states is because just in case a political faction attempts to seize power at the federal level, the states have total recourse to resist that. And that means civil war. Or it just means a revolution. No, because California will not tolerate a Republican revolution.

If the right goes in the federal government and takes over, California says no. I don't think it has to be a political revolution, a technological revolution. Dude. A revolution of states. The issue with this is Republicans, conservatives will always say federalism will solve everything, that we should push things back to the states. But I do think it's important to know who our enemy is here. And to Tim's point, I mean, these are people who think that the ends are always justified. And so why would California listen to something?

I'll take a different view here. I think the most important war is the information war. And the reason why these divides are happening is because the media has gone so far to the left of this creating this alternative reality. Yes, yes. But, well, I disagree a little bit. I think social media created a generation living in a broken, fractured world where there is no truth but power. And then they got jobs in media. And now the New York Times is being worn as a skin suit, as is the Washington Post.

I mean, look. Yeah, it was kids using Facebook when they were 14 and they figured out how to go viral. Now they're working in the journal. Now they're at the New York Times. Sort of. It was news organizations funded by venture capital who found the fastest path towards making money was rage bait. And so you ended up with websites like Mike.com, which initially started as Ron Paul supporting and then went woke because they were like, this stuff works. You know what doesn't work for the right? What worked for the right was anti-SJW. We don't like

the things they're doing, so we're going to complain about it whenever they do it. What worked for the left was literally lying about anything. It's claiming that cops are going around hunting down black people. Russiagate, Covington, Jussie Smollett, Ghost of Kiev, that's a new one. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Kyle Rittenhouse, lie. They do it nonstop all day, every day. And it works every time. These people live in a chaotic dimension of flame, fire and destruction. And they don't care. They've been wrong about almost every major cultural story of the past decade. They don't care. You will not change their minds. So when I pull up Politico,

quite literally having two articles, one saying Ukraine did metal and one saying, actually, that was Russian disinformation, but they never retracted the other one. How can these people exist? How can their brains function with such cognitive dissonance? That is the problem. The information war, yes. But if these people are in a cult and you can't reach them, then there's going to be fighting you can but you got to figure out how everyone can be reached every cult member can be reached usually got it there's a way and it's true the way to do it is to show them they're not as popular as they think and what's insulating them from that is social media censorship what i want to know is

why are republicans so keen on bailing this industry out, bailing the news media out, the same industry that is publishing these Politico articles, the same industry. Who's trying to bail them out? A bunch of Republican senators. Apparently, they've jumped onto this Amy Klobuchar bill called the Journalism Competition and Preservation. I'm going to disagree on this, by the way. This is going to be fun. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, I think I've discussed it on the show before. So you've probably seen all these bills in Australia and Canada that force tech companies to pay news outlets for content.

This is the American version of that. a cartel to collectively negotiate with the tech companies on things like uh ads things like ads and things like uh paying them for content and uh so which republicans are on it well if you get if you get paul yes ran paul's on this lindsey graham cynthia lummis cynthia lummis has also signed on to a really terrible bill. Rand Paul, you come on this show and explain your position on this, because I trust, I like Rand Paul. So I want to hear why he's... I have the

answer to why so many Republicans are on this. It's because News Corp is one of the biggest pushers of this, and Republicans like News Corp. Do they trust it or something? Well, you know, R rupert murdoch and his media companies have them on have them on fox news they lean conservative give us the elevator pitch of what the bill does it says to provide a safe harbor for publishers online of online

content to collectively negotiate with dominant online platforms regarding the terms on which content may be distributed it's a it's a temporary waiver on antitrust to basically allow these small publishers to collectively bargain against facebook and google small publishers where in the bill where are the builders that say it includes all there's a non-discrimination provision so you like it i like the bill i think it's a good bill so it allows me to me my thing is facebook and google are the bigger enemy here and they have absolutely destroyed local news. I want decentralization of news. I want local newspapers to be able to report on stuff.

And I think the way the model is currently, it benefits Facebook and Google. It's absolutely put media out of business. The issue is, local news has been destroyed. But it's because people want national stories. So it used to be that to get your news,

you'd turn on Channel 5 for the 5 o'clock news. I remember we had Fox 32 in Chicago. Simpsons were at like 5.30 or something. Central time. Yeah, central time. And then at 6 p.m. was the news, and I'd go, ah. And then afterwards it was Seinfeld,

and I was like, meh. I liked The Simpsons when I was a kid. And you'd watch your news, but your news would be like, who's that guy at WGN? Is that Larry Potash? I don't remember. He's still there, I think when I was a kid. And you'd watch your news, but your news would be like, who's that guy at WGN? Is that Larry Potash? I don't remember. He's still there, I think.

It was local stories. You'd get some national stuff, but they'd also be like a fire hydrant burst over on the corner of 63rd and California, and now there's water everywhere. The road has been blocked off. And you're like, oh. Now you turn on the news at CNN, and they're like, Trump is a Nazi. And you're like, okay, that's not anything relevant to me. Then you go on Google. You type in news, you get CNN.

CNN is going to give you all national stories. CBS, all national stories. So you have to actively choose as someone in an area to find your local news. But I think most people don't do that. The other thing is local news, how this is being pitched to Congressmen. I mean anyone who's been in politics for a long time knows that the great soundbite is, we're on the side of the little guys against the big guys. That's how politicians have been selling almost anything for a very, very long time. There's nothing in the bill that limits this to local news. But there is a big part of the bill that allows any cartel that forms to exclude whoever they want as long as

they're not similarly situated to them i don't think that's true so and hold on bro you gotta have a billion viewers the bill says you can't have fewer than 1 billion monthly active users in aggregate i'd we'd have to look at the language i think i think it's talking about social media it's got to be also i'm pretty sure that draft of the jcpa is not the most accurate the most recent one because there's been a lot of work on i've i've seen i've actually seen a draft of an unreleased draft of some amendments and it's even worse they're going to extend it by 10 years instead of the original four that's how long it'll apply for plus they're going to add something that they're going to separate into categories one for broadcasters which they define as stations. They don't define it as YouTubers.

You're not going to get a handout because of this bill, Tim. No YouTuber is going to get a handout. No podcaster, no Substack author is going to get a handout. It's all for the legacy media. It's all for paper newspapers. It's all for traditional broadcasters. They're trying to rescue them from the internet. They should not be doing that.

No, it's a bailout. It's the same thing they're doing in Canada. It's the same thing they're doing in Australia. And, you know, the way this works in D.C. is that the News Media Alliance, which is the big umbrella lobbying group for all the big media companies, you should check out their website. Go to newsmedialiance.org, Board of Directors, and look at some of the people who are part of this organization that basically wrote this bill.

And you're not going to see a lot of local news in there. The board of directors. We've got Antoinette Bush, Maribel Wadsworth, Pamela Browning. Who are these people? Look at their titles. Executive Vice President, Global Head of Government Affairs, News Corp, President of Publisher, USA Today. I'll say this. This is very strange because I just don't – so what would you suggest? What would you suggest is a better play to prevent Facebook and Google from getting all this ad revenue from basically incentivizing the nationalization of everything?

Free market. No, it goes back to what we were saying when we were talking about how evil is big tech. Big tech was pressured into censoring by advertiser brokers driven by the media. So big tech is bad, but they're bad because they are favoring the media. And this is a bill that would force them to favor the media even more than they are currently doing.

What we want is for them to allow everyone to compete on an equal playing field, not to give massive handouts to the journalism. Why on earth would Republicans want there to be handouts to newspapers, even local newspapers, which are just as left-wing and biased as the national newspapers? We don't need a handout, and I don't want my competition to get free money from the government or for protections. If these news organizations can't figure out how to run their business for the modern era, they shouldn't exist. Look, I think it's a complicated bill. I think there's a lot of arguments on both sides on it, but

I will say this, which is, if you're going to take on big tech, the biggest problem conservatives have is that these companies don't respect Republicans. They don't respect them as posing any sort of threat whatsoever to them. And so if you're not going to embrace, which all of them, I know we disagree on antitrust too, but if you're not going to embrace any sort of actual solution, that'll do something to these companies. They're not going to change their, you know, they're going to continue to censor. I got your solution. You free their software code.

You can't break the company apart enough times. You got to make sure that the code is available. If you want democratization of the network, then everyone's got to have access to their own version of the network. Are we saying we have to sign on to every tech regulation the Democrats want? No, but we should offer an idea. We have all these Republican members, establishment members... I'm not objecting

to all of the bills, John. I'm objecting to this particular bill. I am a huge supporter of Bill Hagerty's proposed tech particular bill i am a huge supporter of bill haggarty's proposed tech regulation i'm a huge supporter of texas's proposed tech regulation well yeah i like we agree we agree we agree on section two i like the jurisdiction bill there are lots of bills i like this one is a bailout is the it's the word it's actually i will make it close it is the worst bill of this congress bailing out the media the reason we uh we have parents who think it's a good idea to chemically castrate their own children is because the media made that idea cool the reason

why we have uh people supporting defunding the police is because the media made that into an issue the reason why we have uh libs of tiktok being doxxed is because of the media. The reason the entire country believed Russia was in control of the government for a full two years is because of the media. The reason why children were masked in schools. And for Republicans to support a bill that bails out the media, that's an obscene betrayal of their voters. I think that's a really good talking point. I don't think if you had talked to Rand Paul, if you would talk to these guys i don't think that that's i know exactly what happened the news corp loyal the news corp lobbyists and the news media alliance went and went and spoke to them um and uh they like this organization it says any print broadcast

or digital news organization that has a dedicated professional editorial staff that creates and distributes original news and related content concerning local national or international matters of public interest on at least a weekly basis and is marketed through subscriptions, advertising, or sponsorship provides original news and related content with the editorial content consisting of consisting of not less than 25% current news and related content,

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And to my, to my knowledge, there's a more recent draft that actually even excludes some of the larger.

And there's – well, the new one says 1,500 employees, but that's a trick because you can always corporate restructure your organization to make it into lots of little small 1,500 employee chunks um what you the thing you the thing you read out there tim dedicated professional editorial stuff that leaves out every uh one man independent journalist every one man operation on subsector leave that glenn greenwald glenn green will do not be covered by that we are change leave that lucretkowski glenn greenwald went before congress and opposed this bill for the oh wow for uh you should actually watch his testimony before the House Committee. It says the bill creates a four-year safe harbor from antitrust laws for print, broadcast, or digital news companies to collectively negotiate with online content distributors, requiring the terms on which the news company's content may be distributed by online content distributors.

I completely oppose that in every way. You're telling me that you think the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC should be able to come together violating antitrust provisions to negotiate collectively

amongst all of the biggest and most powerful media in the world. I don't think that's what it does. That's literally what I just read. Well, so as I said, that's an older text. I know that they've excluded some of the larger ones i my concern is local news i want to make sure that we're not having everything nationalized same thing that you just mentioned i mean it's

117th congress 2022 no i know no i know there's okay it hasn't been marked up there's a there's a markup coming but the the local news talking point is pure marketing. They know everyone dislikes the big national media corporations. That's why they're talking about local news. They were marketing this. They were marketing this draft as well. Who's going to be able to deal with Google and Facebook screwing them over more, local news or the big guys? I would rather Google and Facebook destroy the media machine through technological advancement, and then people like us figure out how to pick up the pieces and build outside of that ecosystem

and create something new through merit. So one of the things we did was over a year ago we launched TimCast.com. We are funded primarily now through memberships. We are removing our reliance on big tech platforms, and we have been reducing our reliance on big tech platforms. The next thing we're going to be doing is doing mobile apps and smart TV apps. We are finding a way to navigate this. We've got infrastructure being built right now to make us more sensor resilient,

and I do not want to see CNN team up with The Washington Post and The New York Times to give themselves more power by leveraging the weight of their massive conglomeration against Facebook and Google, leaving all of us holding an empty bag. And, you know, I was covering this from the beginning, this favoring of the media. It's the culmination of that trend. So Facebook already pays billions to news companies in licensing. Google has poured hundreds of millions, if not not billions into propping up the media already and they're doing that because they've been told for five years by the by the media if you don't favor us we're going to whip up advertiser boycotts and this is a part of that

it's trying to enshrine that same trend in law the worst trend of silicon valley promoting the media and making what was previously an even playing field uneven by the way i also want to bring up one one uh tremendous uh tremendous little statistic i found recently according to gallup as of 2021 11 of republicans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the media, 11%. And according to Pew, the number of Republicans who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases is 35%. So the media are less popular with Republicans than abortion. Wow.

I feel like I'm maybe not being sensational enough when I say we need to free their software code. I want to hear what you guys think about this, too. I think what these Republican senators have done is the equivalent of taking money from Planned Parenthood. The free the software code, Ian, you've never articulated what that would do besides just making people know what their code is. It would give you the opportunity to make your own network with that code.

You can do that right now. No, you don't have access to their code. What code? What are you talking about? Like Google Analytics. You brought it up earlier. Twitter doesn't have a good analytics platform because Google has a proprietary analytic platform. They become the commons, so we need to treat it like the commons and liberate the software.

That's my argument. But that's, I mean, I suppose my issue with that and what most people probably argue is you're just talking about seizing the means of production. No. Quite literally. I don't think so. I mean, it's like there's tolls on every road that are owned by Alphabet right now. We need to get rid of those tolls. Bro, you can build your own analytic software.

Yeah, but it takes a long – how many employees does Google have? Yeah, welcome to the world. Hey, if you want to say, I shouldn't have to build my house, you could start your own army. Now, stay in your cage. I think what we want is very simple. If you look at what was happening in 2016,

the independent media was eclipsing the mainstream media because at that point, Google and Facebook and Twitter were not favoring the mainstream media. It was a relatively even playing field. That's what we want. We don't want the news media to be protected in any way, which is in the literal title

of this bill, Journalism, Competition, and Protection Act. It's protecting. I'm not seizing the means of production. I'm liberating the means of production. Yeah, that's exactly what communists say. No, they would take it from the state. I'm not giving this stuff to the state. I'm giving it to humanity.

What do you – bro, you need to read some communist literature. It's not property of anything. It's just – Is what he's saying communist? It just – it depends on what you're saying exactly. So like if you're talking about like data, I think it's really interesting. Like if I provide my data to Facebook – He's saying code, the literal infrastructure.

Yeah, like code is a little tougher because there are property rights to consider there. He's saying code. The literal infrastructure. Code's a little tougher because there are property rights to consider there. Ian, you're effectively arguing that it's too hard to build a factory so the factory should be open to the public to use. I don't want Google's factory.

I'm not seizing their headquarters. It's not 20th century time anymore. It's 21st century where digital property is a real thing now. We have to treat it like such. They built a machine that took millions of dollars and years, and you are saying, well, no one else can do that.

It would take too long, so we should be able to have it. No, the machine they built is server space, and they can keep their servers. I'm not talking about seizing their stuff. I'm talking about giving people access to the information. We've had this discussion before that you don't believe in intellectual property rights. Well, I mean, yeah, for sure there's intellectual property rights, but when something functions in the commons, then you've got to start questioning if they still have the right to own it.

Right. I guess the fundamental difference is I believe in private property rights. Yeah, me too. But up to a certain amount of daily active users, a billion daily active users, and you own the thing that is controlling the billion active users. Is that righteous for one human anymore? I don't think so.

The website would just be like, okay, we're locked at 999 million users. 999 million, 999,999. They might destroy their business model. I would say, if we get one more user, we lose our property rights. Don't do it. Because then if 100 million other people spin up versions of YouTube and they all interoperate, the original YouTube benefits. It has more activity on the network.

You're not making sense. I'm making perfect sense, but I understand you don't understand. No, Ian. You're saying that if a platform reaches a billion users, its code has to be released to the public. Yeah, it's an arbitrary number. The company would then choose to restrict their platform to not exceed that, otherwise

they would lose their IP, which means they would not give out their code. And no one would spin up their own versions because the code's never released. Well, you could pick a number that's well under their daily active users. You could say, start a new company and we'll own all five versions of it. And we'll have them as separate corporations. See, I think the issue that we often see with the leftist arguments is they don't know how business or IP works. Yeah, wait, okay. So let's go into that.

So Google, you're saying, will split up YouTube into five companies that each have a fifth of the daily active users yes you think that people aren't going to see that and see that they're committing some sort of in fact they did sort of already do that with alphabet that's what they were trying to do corporate restructuring and i think the issue is your ideas are not formulated based on an understanding of how business is still just an idea yeah an idea. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer. So I'll give you an example. Taxes. The left says, like, we should tax the rich. Okay, well, we have taxes on the rich.

They do pay a large amount of taxes. Well, then why didn't Elon Musk pay any taxes? Well, Elon Musk, this year, he did pay a lot of taxes. Why didn't he pay taxes in 2018? Well, probably because he didn't take any money because he didn't need to. He did not need to pay himself. He eats food at the office. His business pays for things.

So he takes no personal income because the business pays taxes. They say Amazon didn't pay any taxes. Actually, Amazon paid an insane amount of taxes because they're not just paying corporate income tax. They're paying employment taxes, property taxes, healthcare, all of this stuff. They're taxed very, very heavily.

When it comes to the arguments about how do we then make the rich pay their fair share, it's like you've not defined what fair share is. Okay, well, what if we said they have to pay 20%? It's like the rich already have a higher tax bracket than that. Well, then why aren't we getting their money? There are laws in place that make sense. Once you get to a certain amount of power, those laws don't mean anything anymore. And I'll put it simply. Elon Musk has no reason to pay himself any money if his business

is always stocked with food. He walks in and there's a luncheon for all the employees and he can just eat what's there. He doesn't need to buy himself a car if the business has a car that he drives for business reasons. So they're saying, why is he paying taxes? Because of the existing structure, which makes sense that he is using, but the taxes are happening somewhere. What you're saying and arguing about the free the code all the time fundamentally misunderstands how businesses work. You know what they would do?

They would put their headquarters in Dublin and then it would negate anything you proposed. Well, I mean, if they want to operate in the States, they got to follow United States law. No, they don't. They do not. They also don't have to follow the first amendment in your strange uh which is why i'm dangerous reality which is why i advocate for a change to the laws to enshrine maybe your idea then so uh nationalization or uh but i'm the one that wants to seize the means you're the one who wants to nationalize the thing yeah yeah yeah i'm sorry

to interrupt you but right right right, right, right. See, the issue is I'm going to come out and say that when Twitter takes control of the public space in terms of communications, we could do a hybridization of a privately owned public space, which means the public has a right to it, but it's owned privately and they can dictate how they run the business to make money. That's how Zuccotti Park work in New York. What you're saying is you would take their ownership of the code itself and give it to everyone else which would, I don't think would

do anything at all, to be completely honest. I think ownership... I'm interested in the idea because what's the incentive for a corporation to do this? You said a bigger network? It's like breaking up a monopoly. I don't think they would want it. It wouldn't destroy the company. That's the point. It's removing the monopoly without destroying the company. That's the point. It's removing the monopoly

without destroying the company. So in terms of ownership, I don't think I would agree with you. But in terms of if we reformed Section 230 for the largest companies to be like a First Amendment standard or something like that, and you were trying to prove in court, say you had a private right of action in the law, you were trying to prove in court that Google was suppressing your content, there would be a discovery, right? A discovery phase where you could look at the algorithm, something like that. I'm more interested in what you're talking about if it's disclosure of what it is. The actual ownership, I think I'd really struggle.

No one owns it. It's AGPL3. It's just free software. The idea would be if you spend 10 years building software code to run a service like Twitter, if they get to a certain size, the code itself is then given to the

public who can then take all of that reverse engineering. Not reverse engineer. Literally just press go and have Twotter. Truth Social could be Twitter. Truth was built off of Mastodon's code because it was open source. They're supposed to credit it. I guess they still haven't.

Oh, jeez. I don't know. But I think the issue there is what we see every time we try and take away someone's property. No one's going to invest in building Twitter if they lose that investment. You're going to go to a person of means and say, we need $100,000 to build a program that does X. And they're going to say, and in 10 years, where's my money?

Completely gone, because everyone gets it for free. Maybe social media no longer will be about making money. Maybe it's actually going to be about public good for once. Who will do that? Bill Ottman at Mines. Does Bill make money? We build free software. Yeah, and you can make money by selling services related to the software. Does Bill have investors?

Yeah. Do those investors expect a return on their investment? I don't know. It's a private company. It depends on what Bill wants to do. The answer is yes. No, that's public. That's the public malaise.

It's obsessed with making money. Private companies don't have to make money. You just do your service if you want to. I think maybe if we're talking about mission-driven culture where people are like, I want to make a company that does, like Tim Guest is.

I'll interject. I know the guy who led the investment in Mines quite well. He definitely does care about free speech and open software. So that's,

some investors do actually care about that stuff. No, for sure. Does he expect to get his money back or make money off of it? You'd have to ask him. I wonder –

If you want him on the show, he'll be happy to come on, I think. Well, we actually have Bill coming on, I think, soon. Yeah. So we'll talk about a lot of this. I think if you want to do – what did they launch a while ago? B Corps? That they're allowed to – I could be wrong about about this but someone told me once that they're allowed to they're a corporation that doesn't have to make money

they're like a hybrid of a non-profit for profit so whereas most corporations have to make money for their shareholders they have a fiduciary duty I think B Corps are the ones that are like they're like a do good corporation or something like that the goal of Timcast is

it's to make money, but mostly about the mission. We want to do cool things when we have an impact. That's why we did the Times Square billboard thing. I know people are like, we've heard about it. Yeah, yeah. The point is, I sit back and I look at Elon Musk. He's buying Twitter. That's what I'm talking about.

I sit back and I look at Joe Rogan. He does his show, but I wonder, does Joe do anything like challenging the establishment or the system outside of just his show? And if not, because I've not seen it, I wonder why that is. In no way am I saying he's obligated to do so. I'm just like, where are the people of wealth and means who are sick of all of this standing up and being like, F you? They're in this freaking room. You should definitely have the Bynes investor on the show, Aaron Wolf.

He is exactly what you're talking about. I met him in Austin. He's fantastic. Love you, Aaron. Part of the problem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the people with means have desires that go against, I think, where we would be at, where a lot of the American people would be at. And so I'll tell you, as we're a very conservative organization, when we've been raising money for politics to get involved in these campaigns,

it's really hard for conservatives, especially to talk about, you know, raising money to do ads on abortion or on the trans stuff or any of that, because the donors just aren't out there. The donors are much more interested in giving, you know, for, you know, mass immigration or things like that. And so I think that's a difficulty that we have. I think one of the issues is that- Except for Elon. My view of capitalism is if you do good and you're effective, you will make money. If you are providing a service, however, I don't believe in absolute unfettered free markets. I think

you'll end up with people doing really weird things like metaverse porn where people become carrots and that's probably going to happen anyway. And I'm like, I'm pretty libertarian on that, but I do think it's bad for society as a whole that will chase after self-gratification instead of going to the space. So I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk.

Go to Mars, Starship, Twitter stuff, Starlink, all really awesome stuff. I look at it like traditional idealistic capitalism is you invent a light bulb. You illuminate the world. Congratulations. You'll be made rich because of it. You are being rewarded by people for saying we appreciate your service and now you get to live comfortably because you did something great. I think TimCast.com does really good things and I think we're going to continue to grow and do more good things and for it we get rewarded for doing great things.

Nikola Tesla is an example of someone that didn't know how to capitalize. What a brilliant, generous, good man from what I know about him, and man, he did not know how to write a patent or whatever it was, whereas Einstein knew how to patent his stuff and became very, very wealthy. And Nikola died a pauper. Like, he was alone. He lived in a hotel room telling people he had a death laser to stop not having to pay for his room every night. It's just a tragic story of not understanding capitalism.

And I agree that it is important to at least stay afloat. But my light is in heaven, my friend. If I make the light bulbs on earth, I don't want the money for it at this point, man. I could be dead tomorrow. That, I think, is like a sort of leftist ideal. Money is means. It's access. It's power.

So if you make code and that code works really, really well and you don't get money for it, how do you make more code? How do you feed the people who are working for you? You need what's called, I guess they would call it,

not money, but what's the word when someone has capital? You need capital, which is either workforce power or money. So how do you feed the people who are going to do the work for you? At that point, it's like farm, grow your own food, inspire them to start growing their own food. I don't know. I can't feed everybody. There's a guy down the street who's got a whole bunch of corn for sale.

He did the work. Money's good. Money's good. Currency is cool, but we don't always have to use it. This is one of, I think, the biggest mistakes that young people make when it comes to entrepreneurship. I remember when I was younger and I was talking to some business people. I was probably like 20 or 23 or something. And then I was like, look, I don't care about a million bucks cash.

I care about making this thing that works. We had a program for nonprofit fundraising stuff. And they said to me, kid, we'll give you some advice. Never tell that to anybody. Because investors who want to see this succeed understand that money is how it succeeds. You can't run a company off good intentions. How are you going to pay your staff? How are they going to feed

their family? How are they going to pay their rent? How are they going to pay their mortgage? Making money doesn't mean you want a Ferrari. It means you want to make sure the machine continues to feed the families of the people who work for you. So you want to tell everybody, your goal is to make a company that makes money by doing good. And I'm like, good point.

I get it. And also you talk about profit because making money doesn't mean you're going to make profit. So how much profit are you intending to make? And at what cost? Psychological cost? At what damage to society? It's a lot of unquantifiable concepts. Everybody thinks they're the good guy. Even the people who workquantifiable concepts. Everybody thinks they're the good guy. Even the people who work for these big petroleum companies

are convinced they're the good guys. And these activists show up and they say, you're destroying the planet and they get violent. And the people who work for these oil companies are like, I'm doing everything in my power to make the world a better place. You know at Mines, we had to figure out how addictive do we want to make Mines.com? And I was like, 89%? That's not ethical.

You don't want it to be like a gambling network. It's the same as how profitable do you want your make minds.com and i was like 89 that's not ethical you don't want it to be like a gambling network it's the same as how profitable do you want your private company to be like elon said it's not about money buying twitter is not about money i assume he's planning on running it at a loss you know he's just going to subsidize it i i think he's talked with morgan stanley and if you go to morgan stanley and say if you give me 20 13 billion dollars i will lose that money for you. They're going to say, get out. No, what he did was he went and said, I'm going to save you money.

How? I'm going to dock pay and fire executive staff. We're going to turn it around because take a look at this data, these metrics. I'm going to put my own money in and collateral. And then in three years, we're taking the company public again. He exactly told them how they were going to make money. It does have to be successful to make an impact i mean and for that you do need to be at least at least as addictive as your competitors surely

i don't know maybe but do you really want to play their game like can you become evil to be evil i don't i don't know if i understand what you mean well you can make it more addictive if you want what i was thinking mines has tokens right you get the mind when you use minds.com you can make it more addictive if you want i was thinking mines has tokens right you get the when you use mines.com you can generate crypto that's worth money every post should have a slot machine in it you could do that then no one will ever leave the website i had a whole like a gamification game a mod for minds that i've built we could still install it one day where you get avatars and you can spend mindss tokens to get characters that you can send out on missions every day

to go get. And then if you click the notification at the right moment, then they get the item when they come back and then you have a hall of fame with your item.

You just dump money. It's just a money sink. But how gamified and addictive... Minds is just a beautiful piece of free software that I want to be... But it's like, yeah,

how sensational do we need to be? My biggest flaw in life personally is charity. I'm too charitable. I've always been too charitable. I give my wealth away before I get it. And I haven't used my money to make money because I feel like it just felt dirty. So thank you for making the money for me, Tim. Well, I'll give you a, I'll break it down for you in a way that you can understand, Ian.

You are playing a game of magic, and you have all of the planes before you with the good, righteous knights and the angels, and they're all good and charitable and trying to protect the people. And so you say, I'm going to give this power away. And then along comes a necromancer who's loaded with swamps, and he goes, yes, Ian, give me the power. I'll help everyone. And you're like, sounds and he goes yes ian give me the power i'll help everyone and you're like sounds good to me and you give him the power and then he laughs at you as he burns

everything down charity they say it's a virtue but it's also a vice it can be i guess very very evil people would love to get access to the free code and let me just tell you these these left censorious people they're like zuckerberg he's probably so excited whenever he sees the free code come out and he's like great i can add some of this to my empire yeah but he's probably so excited whenever he sees the free code come out and he's like great i can add some of this to my empire yeah but he's gonna have to free his too that'd be great if youtube facebook and twitter's code was available to make new networks with it all that'd be super cool why is it that gab interoperability is like a huge do that could really break the uh big text why is it that the twitter alternatives haven't taken off? Like, why doesn't Mines have more users than Facebook?

I mean, it's better, right? I think because Twitter was already there. The first and best dressed, I've heard you mention before. Right. So with Facebook and Twitter, it's because people are there. The real platform is the people. I don't do anything on Facebook. Facebook has all these weird features I don't care about.

I use Messenger. Why? Because people are on it. And so when I want to message someone, I can message them on Facebook. I use Twitter, mostly. Well, mostly to just troll because people are on it. But there's less of an impact on other platforms because people aren't on it. I don't care what Twitter can do.

I can post words. People can get mad about it. Yeah, it'd be cool if you could log into Twitter and then see your minds. Like, it was linked to minds and to gas. Sure, sure. But what would happen if Twitter's code was forcibly revealed and released to the people? I can't foresee exactly. Nothing.

Nobody would leave. It would get used, yeah. Nobody would go do anything. The open source network would take it. Sure, maybe Gab might implement some of it. Maybe Parler and Getter and Truth might implement some of it. And Minds, we talked about it. And Minds.

And then everyone would be like, yeah, but everyone's on Twitter, so I'll use that. But you could get the same experience on... Well, you'd have a different experience, but you'd have the same information from different... It just depends on how you want to go at it. Do you want to come with your gab, through gab? I think the issue is your perspective on this is rooted in

you're looking at code because that's where you come from, not realizing that people care about people, not code. No, I come from entertainment. I'm an actor. That's my – I mean like with minds. You're looking at these social media companies from this minds perspective. And what makes Twitter work is that Twitter has people.

That's it. Twitter could reduce the amount of characters back to 140. It's still going to be the dominant platform. Which, by the way, is why – and I think Olam and I have both written about this. But this is why the build your own doesn't work. Unfortunately. I really want Truth Social to work. I really want Ketter to work.

But people want to go where the people are, right? You fish where the fish are. Little mermaid, right? It's like imagine if someone said if the lake gets to a certain amount of users, they have to build a lake or give someone all of the means to build their own lake. It's like, okay, I go to the beach because there's fish.

Or I go to the lake to fish because there's fish. If someone else builds a lake and there's no fish in it, I can't fish there. But what you can do is build a channel from one lake to the other.

If there's like, your lake has all the fish in the middle and then there's like a thousand other lakes but they have no fish, you just build a thousand canals. But you can't... Everyone can fish together together you can't force twitter to allow that

oh you can break up monopolies that's for sure yeah for sure what i'm saying is taking the code doesn't change that if you're saying you want to pass a law that says they have to create interoperability between other networks let's have a conversation about that the idea ideal would be if it was easy for everyone to just make a post that it gets broadcast to twitter to gab to mines to all the platforms instantaneously but that doesn't happen without interoperability to some extent yeah we tried to do that with mines in the early days but we didn't have access to the code so we couldn't do it yeah using their proprietary apis and stuff yeah and the great thing about platform like mines and Gab that are based on values

is that you know when you go on them they're not going to sell you out in free speech. They're not going to be like Twitter where they promised it to you in the first few years

and then took it away from you years later after you built your following. I think Gab may have banned advocacy of porn. Yes, they did. So they're not a completely free speech platform

but they're not going to ban you for political speech. Oh, I don't agree. I don't even trust Mines and I helped build the network. You can't give that power to one person because if Bill leaves and another guy comes in, he can ban everyone. But I think that's fine. That's the private network if it wants to do it. That's why I have my own version of it.

Will Gab ban you for saying, I believe a law should be passed legalizing porn, blah, blah, blah. My understanding is that Torba said, I could be wrong, so, you know, Torba, if I'm wrong about this, but there was a tweet where they said, you will not be allowed to advocate for this, you'll be banned, degenerate, or something like that. I describe Gab as a free speech friendly platform. For ideas that they like. They're not

completely free speech, I'll grant you that. Well, I mean, to Gab's own admission. They will admit that themselves, yes. They ban doxin. They're private companies. They can ban whoever they want, and that shouldn't change. But we should also be able to spin up our own versions of it so that I can ban. It will create a marketplace of terms as opposed to a marketplace of code. My position is Gab is different than Twitter, right?

So I'm pretty comfortable with Gab banning whoever they want. I don't want them to, but if they do, they do. If Christian Mingle wants to only have christians on their site that's fine but once you become the actual digital public square you have different responsibilities and that's where like i think section 230 comes in uh ultimately like you know we like section 230 for the small guys for the medium guys but once you're the largest guys uh twitter facebook google i think you have an obligation to speech wasn't wasn't the famous quote free as in freedom not as in beer when it came to open source and free software

yeah it doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything it means that it's free and available for people to use no like you're free in the united states that doesn't mean that you don't cost anything free as in freedom it means you can use these platforms to be free but it's not free as in beer like we just give it to you exactly yeah you can, you can still sell free software, for instance. My problem with what you're saying is having anyone in charge, even if Section 230 is like, you have to do this and this, having anyone or group of people in charge of free speech is antithetical to free speech. Agreed. Well, I mean, the responsibility of government is to secure the liberties of its citizens.

So technically, I mean, that is putting free speech in the hands of government. A government can either respect it or not respect it. Government is irrelevant. Culture is everything. The Constitution says the right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. Good luck in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, California. I mean, the list goes on. Your rights are absolutely infringed.

I love bringing this up. Maryland has banned the M1A. I believe it's a 308. It might be a 762, actually. They're sort of interchangeable, but the pressure is different. So I think it might be 762. SCAR-20S, the more AR-style 308, legal. It's remarkably insane.

KSG 25 double mag tube 25 round pump action shotgun. Totally legal. Semi-auto Benelli. Illegal. The laws make literally no sense. So your rights are infringed upon to absurd degrees. It's about who's in charge and where they're in charge. And, you know, we're talking about government solutions to the problem of tech centralization and big tech.

I help persuade Republicans that they should actually abandon some of the free market stuff when it comes to regulating big tech. I was doing that when they had power in 2017 and 18, but the people who have power now are the Democrats, and they are never going to pass any kind of bill that will make censorship harder. In fact, they're going to try and pass bills that make censorship easier. And that's something we have to be very cautious about because there are lots of interests that want Republicans to jump on every single anti-big tech effort just because it's anti-big tech. But we need to look at the detail of the bills. Then we need a convention of states and term limits because we can't get these people to vote term limits for themselves, but we need them out.

They don't understand what is going on in the tech sector. There's too many of them, and they don't know. This is crazy. Well, let's take Section 230 as an example. There are many bad ways to reform Section 230. Disney has been pushing Section 230 reform behind the scenes in D.C. for a very long time because they hate big tech. They think big tech has made it easier to steal their copyrighted materials. Their Section 230 reforms are almost always bad.

In fact, most of the Section 230 reforms pushed by corporations are almost always bad. There's just one specific part of the law that allows them to censor anything they consider to be objectionable. That is the part that needs to change. And anything else that people are coming to you saying we need to reform Section 230 this way or that or abolish it altogether, be very cautious of them. Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, please hit that like button. Smash it. And subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends if you really want to help us out. And go to Tim Chats. If you haven't already, please hit that like button. Smash it. And subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends if you really want to help us out.

And go to TimCast.com. Become a member to support our journalists, to support our work. And we're going to have a members-only show that goes up at 11 p.m. Monday through Thursday. That'll be up tonight. Let's read what you guys have to say. FairShark says, Can Ian explain why graphene is better than borophene, or is borophene the future? I got sent the borophene.

Have you seen the video? Forget graphene. Borophene. I'm like, all right. First of all, they're probably both awesome. And I started to watch the video. I watched like three minutes of it. I don't know.

I don't know anything about borophene yet. I guess I should. I got like 25 people have sent me that video. All right. Caleb South says, Ian is what happens when you put your points in intelligence and charisma, but use wisdom as a dump stat. Love you, man. Never change.

Well, that's funny. Maybe I'm not as wise as I think. Wise. Elvin says, Tornadoes in Oklahoma tonight. Just saw a pot farm get demolished on News 9. Whoa, crazy, man. Hope everybody's all right.

Did you guys see that viral video from the drone of the tornado ripping through? Was it Kansas or something? No. Crazy video. Wild. Just like houses just coming off the ground and just flying away. Yeah, we have these human problems, but it's good to put things in perspective sometimes. All right.

What is this? Joseph Laliberty says, I want this guy with an accent to break me about why argyle socks are better than just plain black ankle socks what? wait I didn't even understand the question I think he's assuming you're wearing argyle socks are you?

I'm wearing pure black socks right now I'm not a proper English person I guess alright that's a what's the word amalgam? ok we got a question from somebody with no name. What say you about in vitro fertilization and the possible 10 plus fertilized eggs some of these women may have? Should the states that outlaw abortion force women to birth all of these? What are you asking me?

I would say I really have a dark opinion of IVF because they are fertilizing and then discarding of many human eggs. I see this as a big issue, and I think we definitely need to reform that process. I think that everyone should be looking at adoption before they look at IVF. That's just my two cents. Jumping back to socks, it just occurred to me that Justin Trudeau ruined elaborate socks for everyone. Yeah, he did. So if a woman does get IVF and she has 10 viable fetuses in her getting to work,

what should she do? Just have 10 babies? I don't know what to say to that. She probably should have thought of that before she got IVF. I figured that'd be the answer. It's completely preventable, you know? I don't know. Tough.

It's kind of how they used to have 10 kids and only two of them would survive. Now they're just doing it in the womb. All right. Adrienne Contreras says, this dude should be giving awesome gadgets to James Bond with that accent. Didn't you know Alan is James Bond? Yeah, he is.

Yes. Ken says, heard 10-year-old in other room listening to Freedom Tunes. He said it was recommended. I don't talk politics with kid. He assured me it's funny, dad. It is funny. That's right.

Freedom Tunes is very funny. Good stuff. That's fantastic. All right. Caveman says, get Tom McDonald on the show, Tim. You mentioned it a while back. Yeah, I've talked to Tom before.

He's a rad dude. It's up to him. I mean, he's a busy guy, you know. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Biden, the great unifier. It's working. It's working. Matthew Reckham says, to everyone who keeps saying we're in dark times now, let me remind you that the movie Demolition Man, based on Brave New World and predicted self-driving electric cars, Zoom meetings, culturally enforced germophobia, and more is set in 2032. Buckle up, Buttercup.

That is an absolute classic. Everyone go watch that movie. I love when they're like, he doesn't know how to use the shells. That was good. You saw it, right? Demolition Man? Yeah, yeah. He gets frozen.

Sandra Bullock. Yeah, and everyone's like, it's actually. Oh, no, I? Demolition Man? Yeah, yeah. He gets frozen. Sandra Bullock? Yeah, and everyone's like... Oh, no, I'm thinking of Judge Dredd. Sorry. They're very similar. Demolition Man was Van Damme, right? He gets frozen, and then they take him out in the future

to stop a terrorist. Or am I thinking of Time Cop? And every time he swears, a machine prints out a ticket, a fine for swearing. He just swears a bunch more. It's great. No, no.

He goes to the bathroom and he's like how do i do this there's no toilet paper and they're like use the shells and he's like what so then he walks up and starts swearing and then takes all the paper and goes in the bathroom with it oh that's perfect yeah it's a good movie free paper all right let's grab some more what is this roberto lara says i was hoping for far right musketeers but ultra maga sounds like whoever wrote that for biden copy stole it from goku's power levels biden is literally stealing from history and making everyone forget the actual history somebody said i think i may have missed it but they were like we need a trump anime a one one punch man do you guys ever see one punch man

yeah it's really really popular among non-anime fans for some reason and it's like it's it's a good it's about a guy who's just like for some reason godly and he'd like punch and defeat anybody but he's kind of dumb so it's funny but i'd love to see a one trump man and it's just like someone made um there's an anime called my hero academia and they made it there's the the superhero in it that everyone loves. It's called All Might. So then someone made a comic called Wall Might and it's Trump as the main guy. Superhero Trump. Someone is

working on an ultra-maga comic book right now. It's going to be great. It's going to be amazing. Chris Light says we love Timcast IRL but Tim please stop saying Russell Feathers. It's Ruffle Feathers. LMAO. Russell Jimmies. Russell Jimmies. Is that what it is? I was combining the two. Yeah, it's true. Yeah, it's good. Good combo.

Joseph Liberty says, Can you bring the dad off of Gen X Talks on here? I don't know who that is. Who is that? I looked that up. Maybe. Gen X Talks. All right. Maxwell Griffin says, Why don't people identify as Supreme Court justices and vote to uphold Roe v. Wade?

That's a great idea. I identify. They want to expand the court. Cigars and Cig Arms. The U.S. government is the most violent and extreme group that has ever existed in this country. Their body count of innocent people is in the millions. Beast. Yeah, I believe that is true and correct.

Lots of children, too, under Obama. Dead. All right. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know. Light up the base and I'll glow to the extreme Iraq MAGA-like ultra civil war. Yeah, Tim told you. Ice, ice, baby.

Wonderful. All right. Toy Painter says, there will be no civil war. If it comes to violence, the right will roll over and take it like the left's prison. Be the right are all talk and no action. Sadly. Well, I don't completely disagree with that, but the right sermon went in a whole lot of stuff in the past week or so. It's been crazy.

It's been great. It's been just chaos and implosion among the left. They've been freaking out. John Curry says, Tim, that was Melissa Francis who wouldn't let Gingrich talk about Soros. Her husband works for Soros. No way. Is that true? Oh, that's insane.

Interesting. Interesting. All right. Cornelius says, I missed last night's stream, so I'm sending this now. Ian, the human brain isn't finished developing until around 25 years old, so can we abort children and young adults then? Being born doesn't make you human. It is what you are. No, abort is in reference to a pregnancy that is aborted. So anyone that's

already born cannot be aborted by that definition. Also, no. The answer is no to your question. Paul Renfer says when is the Freedom Tunes stereotypical animation parody where Trump supporters power up and get Trump hair? Yeah. Oh, that's a good bit, actually.

Their hair turns gold, but instead of spiking like Goku, it swirls like Trump. Yes. Ah. Ultra mega. Navy Sooner says, since we know what national socialism is, can we change the Dem Party to the Glotzi Party?

Global Socialist Party? time to start demonizing them like they do to everybody else you know i think what works though is that we don't play their stupid games right the regular people are looking for the truth and when the democrats lie they go if you just if you just come out and start lying the way they do people are going to be like ah screw it what's the point and you have to you have to have the institutional power to lie and get away with it if we lie they'll just point it out. Well, I think when boomers age out, as it were, cable news is gone. Just completely gone.

Unless Congress protects it. Bails them out. Yeah. But the key demo viewership is in the hundreds of thousands. I think Tucker Carlson is like 400 or 500. And then CNN is like 89,000 people. Like, that's crazy. I posted a Chicken City video and it got more views than some of these hosts on CNN get.

It's remarkable. I will say politicians do listen to the old media more than new media, though, because they don't understand new media and how powerful it is. It depends. If they want to run for president, they start to listen to the new media though because they don't understand new media and how powerful it is. It depends. If they want to run for president, then they start to listen to the new media. They actually say that this new alternative media is the fifth estate. And I guess the first three estates are the three branches of government.

I had to look it up. I was really curious. OG Lesbian says, Tim, I'm still laughing at the firefighter comment the other day. Although we don't agree on everything, I love watching your show. Hey, really appreciate it. When we were talking about, was that the story, the joke we made about how the woman would give birth to a baby? Oh, yeah.

Leave it at the fire department. You can drop babies off at the fire department. And then the joke was like, this is actually how you make new firefighters. So the daily polish, Chuck. Yeah, they have to raise the baby now. And the baby is like the firefighter teaching how to fight fires. And then you end up with this superhero firefighter telling a story about how he came to be the best firefighter in the world i love it that was really funny the firefighters teaching him to cook

og lesbian says i'm convinced my mom is a npc i'm sad to hear it that's crazy when you talk to the people when you talk to the dmt people like proponents of it about this stuff it's a it's weird how the psychedelic and the political kind of merge because a lot of people were saying npc non-player character as like kind of an insult referencing someone just not paying attention and not caring but then you take you talk to the people about dmt and you're like oh man because you Because we were talking to Michael Malice and I may be getting this wrong, but he was saying we're like meat puppets of some kind of

entities or something. And then I'm like, what if some people don't have an entity controlling them the way you do when you do DMT? Are those NPCs? Calcification of the pineal gland. They can be shaken awake, of course. You can't have an NPC without PC in there.

Yeah, they seem like NPCs because they're not as aware as you are, but that doesn't mean that they're not available to play. Sean Anderson says, There are two things that hold the USA together, boomers and the dollar. The next 10 years, we'll see both become irrelevant. Yeah, we were talking about the Russia-Ukraine stuff. The dollar, the American hegemony over the dollar. This is something that's going to be a huge story coming up because Russia found ways to kind of go around by selling their oil.

They're in an alliance with China on this stuff. So it's going to be really scary. about Strassau generational theory. We are looking at, I think, the end of the winter, the fourth turning in 2028, which means 2026 should be extreme turmoil. I wonder if four more years is enough to see many boomers and older generation leave, younger generation come in, that will create a massive upset.

I don't know. It's possible. I fear my concern is without term limits in congress that it won't they're just going to ride the wave into the ground i i can't mathematically i don't see any other it seems probable i'm into term limits ready to rumble says i can't the question is where are the time limits for the deep state yeah four years yeah for all administrative state you'd have to do both i think think you would have to do both. That was what Thomas Massey said, too.

Yeah. I think it was Thomas. No, no, it wasn't. Anyway, sorry to interrupt you. Ready to Rumble says, I can't believe you just med Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the funniest TV show ever created. You need more Seinfeld in your life, Tim. You know, maybe it was at the time, because I remember watching it,

but I wonder if it's like a certain kind of humor for what, like boomers and Gen X? It's a show about nothing. Yeah. It's not a show about nothing. It's a show about four friends who have emotional problems. And, like, that was the idea they tried claiming Seinfeld, a show about nothing. No, it's four friends, and they have interpersonal drama like any other sitcom. It's about a comedian living in New York with a wacky neighbor and a short friend who has life

troubles. And there were a lot of really, the show was really funny in a lot of ways. But I feel like that kind of humor maybe was a lot funnier back in the day. I don't find it as funny today. It was groundbreaking when it came out. Yeah, we have the internet now. It was Michael Richards, really. His physical comedy was off the charts. One of my favorite episodes, well, I just watched a funny bit. It was on, I think

Reddit post. Someone posted it on Twitter. Who was it? It might have been Elijah Schaefer posted this. Someone said, everyone needs a friend like Kramer. Kramer walks into Jerry's apartment, and he's like, hey, I got to go over to do this thing. Do you want to? And then Kramer goes, sure. And he's like, I could have just said anything, huh? And he's like, I don't know.

And they just walk out. Kramer was great. I was thinking about this recently. I think traditional comedians can't compete with the internet yeah because they don't have that instant feedback like they never had to subject themselves to reddit upvotes or having a replies on a 4chan thread well uh comedians go do stand up to test out right jokes and then go on tour with the internet you can try things out in real time yeah and you're doing it with thousands and tens of thousands of people one of the best episodes of seinfeld is when george decides to do everything of the opposite

of what he would normally do because he's like his life sucks he can't get a date his job is you know so he's like whatever i'm going to do i'm going to do the opposite of it and so he like orders the opposite sandwich than you normally everything goes great for him that was brilliant writing that was great larry david's um steinbrenner is it was incredible incredible oh i figured out it was tom garrett that was talking about uh term limits for the administrative state when he was on a show ah yes we've had many a conversation about limits it's tough it is difficult conversation because then you get rid of the ron pauls you know or the rand pauls and but like we said up to now i love rand paul i love rand paul and then you see he votes for something or he's

on supporting for something like what we were talking about earlier. James Nelson says, Ian doesn't get it. The code is worthless and can be reverse engineered. Big tech's power comes from its user base. They have critical mass. Yeah, that's why the interoperability part of it. So you get not only the software code but the access to the people as well. I don't know how you mandate a company to build a thing.

Like you can't go to an Apple orchard and be like, we mandate that you build an Apple launcher. They're going to be like, okay, we can't do that. Well, you have to. You mean command Google to interoperate with other people? Going to Twitter and saying, you need to now make your company able to interact with other networks in it, they can be like, you're asking us to build a thing we don't know how to build. No, that has

happened before. They did that to the telephone companies way back in the day. They did it to British retail banks after the financial crisis. They forced them to give all their customers their data in a universal standardized format so they could easily transfer it between banks. Interesting.

So I'm talking about they have to build a bridge. So I suppose it's one thing to be like, I think the EU wanted to standardize phone chargers so that every phone would use the same charger and they'd stop having this problem with all these different chargers. The issue with Twitter is that you're asking them to build a protocol for which their

things on Twitter can be transported in real time actively forever between different networks. I think that it's already available. It's theirs just proprietary at this point, the API. I could be wrong. It's a question of, you know, can they continue to be profitable and be a successful business if you ask them to do this, where I don't think it's ever fair or smart for government

to say, let's, you know, force this company to build this, and then they would rather go out of business, right? I don't think it's possible to force their API open to require Twitter to send their data out to third parties because it would make them worthless. It would cost them a lot of money to do, and then they're losing what makes the network work in the first place. Twitter needs to be able to make money unless you want to nationalize it and pay for it through taxpayers. Then it's forced subsidization. But if Twitter has to give its code away, and then people do decide with interoperability,

I can go to Gab instead, then Twitter loses membership and advertising revenue and collapses, then there's nothing. But if you're on Gab and I'm reading your Twitter feed, Twitter's still getting my activity, even though I'm on Gab. But they're not running ads. No, I think the ad revenue model's dead.

It's gone. So then they're not going to get the memberships. You might be able to work out memberships where if someone subscribes to the mega network that Twitter gets 20%, Gab gets 20%, Mines gets 20%, or if you subscribe and you're connected with what networks are you in that you want to

pay for? They all get a piece of it with a smart contract? I don't think the answer is for the government to go in with a sledgehammer and just destroy Twitter, as much as I like the idea. I think it's that we have to build these open source interoperable systems and make people use them. Like incentivize.

Also, do we like the idea? This is another reason I want to come back to look at what the tech regulations are on an individual level and also who they apply to. You asked me two months ago should we regulate Twitter? I'd say yes. You asked me today, I'd say, no, maybe not. Maybe not.

Because it's not about, you know, do we support regulation or do we not support regulation, but who's in charge, who's in charge of enforcing the regulation, wackos at the FTC, and who's going to be affected by them. Luckily, not Twitter under most of the antitrust laws, but I'm sure the Democrats will try. Also, what is the regulation? That's a vague term. Right, exactly. You've got to look at each individual proposed regulation to see what it does. But I'm sure the Democrats will try. Also, what is the regulation? That's a vague term. Right, exactly.

You've got to look at each individual proposed regulation to see what it does and, importantly, who will enforce it. There's a crazy person they hired at the FTC called Meredith Whitaker, and the FTC is going to be enforcing a lot of the antitrust stuff. I think Zach Bell might have the best response to Ian. He says, please explain how freeing the code won't just open up the floodgates to allow hackers to utilize or even destroy the system. Well, there's security code that you don't have to open up, but as long as the network itself is available to be interoperated with from a user-based perspective, I think that kind of solves the problem. And then what they'll do is they'll entwine specific core functionality with security and say you can't do anything about it. Yeah. I've never seen a network have

all their security open. I mean, that makes no sense. That'd be like leaving copies of your key on the front porch. If they don't give up their code for security, how could someone actually spin up their own version? You don't need...

See, I'm not a coder. So I would like to bring people that are code developers in to talk, have a greater conversation about that. Cause that's a good question. So, uh, to clarify, to expand upon this, for those that don't understand the, if a random, if, if the whole world knew Facebook's code, they would find every exploit imaginable to break in spy, steal, and destroy everything from the company. You'd also have people empowering, like strengthening the code and making it more

resistant. It's not open source. So they could probably do like bug hunt and then good people might help. But they're called zero. So a zero day exploit means it's spent zero days in the public sphere. You open up the code from these companies and you're going to have a million hackers discovering a million zero days and then you're going to cross your fingers the good guys will find out

yeah Mines doesn't have their security code is not free that would be insane because then people could just hack it like you're saying but you can still interoperate with Mines. What about the code for like logging in? I don't know I don't know I gotta ask Bill because if they release their code that allows

you to create your login system, then you are not secure and anyone can just enter your account. We need a unique login like a passport where you can log into other networks with your personal passport wallet type thing. Like Facebook. Well, it's kind of what we're building with the foundation. I think the issue is any

code for any functionality of mines that goes out allows someone to exploit the system and makes it so you're not safe and so they have any code i was reading all about so the ones in chat sorry i was distracted the code for for like the the recommendation algorithm that's probably fine but someone will then exploit the recommendation algorithm to maximize viewership for themselves if it's one i'm really not as concerned with security as I am with freedom at this point. I can agree with that to the extent that

for this show, for instance, we have to have security because of the amount of... I'm not saying that we shouldn't have security. I'm saying I'm way more concerned with freedom than security. If we didn't have security, I don't know if we could keep doing the show. In the United States, they say it's freedom, then security.

Without the security, we wouldn't have no freedom. If we didn't guard and protect don't know if we could keep doing right like in the united states they say it's freedom then secure but like without the security we wouldn't have no freedom if we didn't guard and protect our borders and our streets with police and military we wouldn't be free to walk around without getting our back so the issue is facebook is so big if they released their code they would be destroyed instantly i don't think so no it's too big it would take for it take a long time and bad policies for them to lose their users at that point. Let's read some more Super Chats. Sterile Hybrid says, this is for last night's episode, As an intersex person, I'm no fan of trans ideology.

Sex does not exist on a spectrum. As a result of my condition, I'm a mix between the two. Not some magical third sex nor a transgender prop. Interesting. James says, Coca-Cola has a billion users a day should they release their secret recipe uh not unless they're part of the commons what does that mean if everyone uses coca-cola's network every day to communicate with each other or to get from place to place all right calvin ramsey says hey tim 30 yearater here. Curious who your favorite skaters are currently.

Been digging Ace Pelka and Mike Anderson lately. Love the show. Johnny Geiger is, I hope I'm getting his name right. Yeah, Johnny. One of the best. He's a flip trick guy. And just absolutely one of the best. Really great game of skate with him over at the Barracks.

I forgot the name of the guy who he was up against. Joslyn, I'm actually wearing his shoes right now. And these are some of the best shoes. Oh, you can't even see it because the camera's in the way. So I got the Joslyn's on right now. These are great shoes. I've mostly been doing inline recently just because

I'm just having fun. Just doing something new and something different. So I just kind of felt like I got to the point in skateboarding where I've done too much. I've just done so much in skateboarding. I wanted to do something different. So I started blading. We got some people here who blade and everyone kind of does it. The other issue too was

we built the skate park. Nobody used it. It was literally just me skating by myself all the time. And the thing about inline is that almost everyone knows how to inline so it's like you get you get a pair of blades and someone can put them on at least ride around and go do stuff so it's actually just easier to do community stuff with with with inline but uh it's still skating every so every every every so often but i thought a good thing to get would be those rings

you know the hanging swinging rings like would that be a cool thing to get yeah we gotta we want to do some kind of like parkour little thing maybe we can do it in the front because arm day gotta get gotta get arm day all right hugh jennings says never listened to alan before his voice reminds me of alec guinness a lot of people commenting on your voice that's a huge huge compliment i am going to give gadgets to james bond after this by the way. He's just finishing his gender transition. Oh, yes. And a racial transition, right? That's right.

Okay. What did we do? I just had one. Where did it go? Stuart Cooper says, Techie me partially sees Ian's point of view on the free of the source code, but creator me sees an issue. The intellectual property loss could apply to written works such as novels and screenplays.

Not if they're not the commons. This is a very unique type of technology. If you can't, screenplays are not used to communicate across large swaths. So it's, no, I'm talking about communication tech platforms. It's a very specific function. I don't know. Maybe there would have to be something like, well, first of all, the security issue, I think you can't get around. Like if people can see the code for how Messenger works on Facebook, they will learn how to inject and take over Messenger. And you can already do it.

China will do it. Well, so when I went to Venezuela, I was doing a bit of trolling too because they were threatening me and stuff. When I left, I got a message from a friend of mine saying, dude, what's going on? The FBI called me. You need to call me back right now. So I call him. He doesn't answer. Call me. Doesn't answer. Call me. Doesn't answer. Wait a few hours. He calls me back and he's like, this is someone I hadn't talked to in like four years. And he was like, dude, what's going on? You call me all morning. And I was like, what's up with this FBI hitting you up? And he says, what are you talking about? And I was like, you messaged me on Facebook. And he was like, no, I didn't.

I haven't talked to you in like four years. And I was like, okay, I got a message from you on Facebook saying the FBI called you. And he's like, bro, I didn't do that. So what we think was I consulted with some security experts. I screenshotted the image, sent it to him. I think I still have it, actually. I think I posted it not too long ago. And what they said was Venezuelan hackers

did an injection attack on Facebook. They knew where to send certain information to make it appear as though my friend had messaged me. They wanted me

to make a phone call so they could pinpoint my location by triangulating cell towers. They thought I was still in the country. I wasn't. Yeah, those networks

are compromised anyway. And we need peer-to-peer encrypted messaging basically as a function written into our daily behavior. Mick Chilla says, Facebook has an entire library of open source code

to support developers. It literally took me 15 seconds to figure that out on Google. There's some, yeah. Most companies have some open source code. Google does too. Alphabet, I guess I should call it.

Seriously, JK says, Ian, I am an expert on IP law and am a sme in software architecture you have no idea what your ideas even mean you don't understand open source sw licenses or business it's brutal to listen to you say this stuff that's really vague man you gotta be a little more specific if you want to make an argument max stall says tim have you ever thought about what it'd be like to be the carrot from Pajama Sam what is Pajama Sam

I don't know what that means JXN says Twitter is working on freeing the code by developing an open standard for social media see Jack Dorsey's December 11th 2019 thread on Twitter search Twitter is funding a small on Google first result yeah I know he's been saying he's never done it. That's why I'm

kind of like, eh, I don't know, whatever. We're working on right now with an open index protocol as part of the package that we're building right now. All right. Patrice Bake, we'll do this last one, says Lydia, Karlyn Borisenko challenged you to a boxing match. She's well informed about

women leaving the left. A boxing match, huh? I'm pretty sure I'm about a foot taller than her, but we could try. We're probably in different weight classes. Might be fun. Alright, everybody. If you have not already, please smash that like button to help support our work. Subscribe to this channel.

Share the show. Take the URL. Post it wherever because the grassroots marketing is how we've grown this show and got to the point where we are, so eternally grateful for all the support. Head over to TimCast.com. Be a member. We're going to have that members-only show coming up at 11 p.m. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL.

You can follow me personally at TimCast basically everywhere. I guess me saying that has resulted in people following me on Twitter because I was just thinking like, why do I have so many Twitter followers? I guess that's it. Well, thank you for following me. Elon is probably helping too. Yeah, Elon tweeted out that meme of me crazy days. You guys want to

shout anything out, Alan? Just as always, follow my writing at Breitbart News. I post my articles on Twitter as well for the latest happenings in the world of Silicon Valley bias and censorship. I have a big paper coming out tomorrow about big tech's interference in the 2020

election. It's bigtechpaper.app. Cool. Awesome. And Twitter? What's your Twitter handle? John Schweppe. Beautiful. You guys follow me, iancrossland.net, where you can find all my social medias and get in touch with me there.

I'll catch you later. Thank you guys for tuning in this evening. I had a great time learning about all this techie stuff and a lot of fun talking to these two cool dudes. You guys can follow me on Twitter and minds.com at Sour Patch Lids. Sour Patch Lids. I forgot my own name. And you guys may see all my socials at Sour Patch Lids dot me. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. We will see you all at

TimCast.com. In the meantime, why don't you go watch some Chicken Sleep over at YouTube.com slash Chicken City or ChickenCityLive.com. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see y'all soon. Bye.