Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #536 - Elon Musk Is PISSED At Report Of Bill Gates Funding Smears w/Eron Wolf & Ian Mason

Episode Date: May 25, 2022

Tim, Ian, and Lydia host co-founders of FUTO Eron Wolf and Ian Morgan to discuss Elon Musk and Bill Gates sparring over dark money funding, how Bill Gates corrupted the tech industry, the court ruling saying that anyone charged with 'insurrection' may not run for public office, Elon Musk's proactive legal plans, and the Fox News personality who said that Tucker Carlson should face 'jail, or something worse' for his speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recently, Breitbart released a report showing that much of the non-profits that were going after Elon Musk, criticizing his attempt at buying Twitter, were funded by Bill Gates. Elon Musk was already very critical of Bill Gates, even posting a meme of him as the pregnant man emoji, and we all had a laugh. But now he's responded to the story saying, sigh. Now, I don't know exactly what that means other than Elon knows about it, but this resulted in Breitbart trending earlier today on Twitter because Elon responding to it has elevated this story. And there's something interesting here because there's like some kind of yin yang good versus evil Elon versus Gates thing going on where Elon Musk is like, hey, we need more people like you. You need more people on this planet to sustain

and develop and grow. And population is declines are bad things. And free speech, the people should have a right, should have freedom. And then Bill Gates is exactly the opposite, saying we need to reduce population and free speech is bad, issuing a statement saying he's going to he's going to muck things up on Twitter. So this is actually a really interesting story that gets to the heart of this. I mean, you've got two billionaires basically at war in the greater culture war. So we'll talk about that. We've got a couple other stories. Democrats have won an appeal to a federal court, allowing them to now pursue disqualifying Republicans from being able to run for office under the 14th Amendment. So there was a ruling saying

you can't use the 14th Amendment to disqualify Republicans because of this clemency bill that happened in 1872. And a federal court said, no, that's not true. If you today, after the Civil War, insurrect, you can be barred from running for office. So it doesn't mean anybody has been found to be insurrecting against the United States, but you've already got many Democrats saying anyone who voted to not to certify the election in 2020 committed insurrection. So this is where they're going. They can't win the election. So they're going for lawfare, which says to me that all of this is just pushing us ever closer from civil strife into some kind of civil war. And don't take my word for it. Robert Reich wrote an article where he explained that, you know, it's not going to be a civil war. It's going to be a peaceful

divorce that people will just slowly start going to other places. The red, you know, red voters will go to red states and blue voters to blue states. And it's funny because that's kind of exactly what was happening with the first civil war. So we'll talk about all that stuff. We'll talk about tech oligarchy and censorship and And joining us to talk about this today, actually, we have two Ians. But our first guest, Aaron Wolf. Hi there. I'm Aaron Wolf. I'm working on tech freedom.

Do you want a little bit about your background, maybe? You want to point the microphone, just like trying to aim it at your mouth. There we go. There you go. Perfect. So, Corey, what do you do? So, I'm a programmer. I dropped out of grad school in 97 to go work at Yahoo.

Basically spent 18 years in Silicon Valley. Going with the flow for the most part, but also kind of being an obnoxious dissenter a lot of the times, too. By 20, I basically worked for five years at yahoo um did random gigs and nonsense uh invested in whatsapp um doubled my money several times investing in big tech and um kind of at a certain point i decided i needed needed to do what I dropped out of grad school for, which is create good software. So I'm trying to do what I can to kind of facilitate good software to be created. And I don't see any of the big tech giants doing that now. They're actually conspiring to make our software worse in many

different ways. Censorship kind of is the biggest right now. And you're involved with Minds.com. Yes. One of the first things I did is invest in Minds.com. So I helped them keep going. They're doing great work with an open source social network, very, very focused on freedom of speech. Right on, right on. And we also have another Ian. Hey, I'm Ian Mason. I'm helping Aaron build Fudo. I moved to Austin to do that. Yeah, I mean, his mission just attracted me. The internet and the tech world as we had it for 20, 25 years there created so much. It democratized speech. It gave people access to information like they'd never had before. I mean, this show couldn't possibly be happening without that sort

of the freewheeling spirit of the tech world prior to maybe 10 years ago. And if we're going to preserve that, I think it can't just be done through politics. It has to be done through technological means. And that's what I feel like Aaron's mission is. And I'm here to help him. So as we talk about big tech censorship and the tech oligarchs and all that stuff, you mentioned FUTO, right? So this is what you guys are working on. What is it? Just so people get a general idea of what your mission is and what's the background.

So FUTO is an organization where basically spending a lot of money trying to do whatever we can to chip away at the power that the tech oligopoly has. So we're going to be funding people with grant programs. Get them coding. Get people coding. Get people to quit their jobs at Google and Facebook. There's a lot of people at those companies who hate those companies, but they're getting, but they don't know what, if there's anything else they can do. That's interesting even. Yeah. So, uh, you know, project Veritas is often telling people be brave,

you know, let us know if these things are going on. But a lot of people feel like if they do, they're, they're, they're going to be destitute. They're not going to have anywhere to go. They're not gonna be able to work anywhere. So I think people need to understand there's, there's other places to be where you can work or there's at least you guys are encouraging them to get away from that and build something new and unique. So we will talk about that. It's going to be interesting. We also have Original Ian. What up, everybody?

Yeah, it's great that we're talking about Bill Gates because a lot about this – we talk about the locking down of the tech industry in the early 80s. He's kind of notorious for taking – I think it was Unix code. And correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you guys could tell the story better than I could. He bought MS-DOS from another company and basically worked with IBM to kind of dominate

with Intel. It was called Wintel in those days. And he took free software and then made it private? Or took open source code and then privatized it? I don't know if it was open source, but it was, you know. I don't think it was open source. I think it was proprietary. He bought it and then privatized it? I don't know if it was open source, but it was, you know. I don't think it was open source. I think it was proprietary.

He bought it and then, you know, distributed it. I remember Richard Stallman, you know, just all about the open source community, free software. He's the guy that wrote AGPL3 and stuff. I mean, the worst thing that Bill Gates did is he actively conspired to keep Linux from ever getting a decent market share. We should save this.

Yeah, this is hot. We can concentrate all of the red and Bill Gates in one nice position. I'm also here pushing buttons in the corner. I'm sure I will be overwhelmed by all the tech terms in this show, so please pray for my button pushing skills. Before we get started, head over to timcast.com. Become members, help support our work directly. As a member, you will keep our journalists working. You will get access to exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. And you're also supporting

exactly this alternative infrastructure. We are using Rumble's cloud infrastructure to try and get away from big tech Silicon Valley, at the very least create competition and let them know every single time I bring it up on every episode is on purpose. So they know that people are building alternatives, that we can use them, that they're working and we are finding success on these platforms. And so can you. And that means if they don't shape up and change what they're doing, we're going to leave and we can leave. And that's, that's one of the most powerful things you can do as a member, just support more businesses that are using technology outside of Silicon Valley. So don't forget to also smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

And let's jump into that first story from the Daily Mail. Billionaires at war. Elon Musk deepens feud with Bill Gates by touting article claiming the Microsoft mogul poured millions into dark money fund targeting him. That is dastardly. But before we show anything, I want to show you this. Elon Musk posting the pregnant man emoji next to a photo of Bill Gates. So here's the funny thing. He posted this April 22nd, and it shows, you know, Bill Gates.

It's the haircut's the same. You know, there's no wearing glasses, but he's got a big belly and a blue shirt. And, uh, you just need to understand that Elon posted this, uh, Bill Gates had already been funding these groups. Now here's the crazy thing. Apparently Bill Gates reached out to Elon Musk about donating or some kind of philanthropy, but was, was running a 500, I think it was 500 million, right? $500 million short against Tesla. And Elon's like, I'm doing the most for climate change, and you're trying to short my position? I don't trust you. So they've kind of been going at it.

The one thing I want to reiterate for this as we start this segment is that Elon is a guy who said, we need more people. You know, you need more people to sustain this civilization and this planet, to colonize other planets and all of that stuff. And people should have free speech, should have the right to use these platforms and speak and all that stuff. Bill Gates is the opposite. He says, we need less people. There's too many. And people shouldn't have that free speech. It's really interesting. We have these two billionaire factions going at each other. So in this story, the report came out that Bill Gates poured millions of dollars into

dark money fund attacking Elon Musk. He responded with sigh. That's it. But it does say a lot. As soon as Elon acknowledged Breitbart, what ends up happening is Breitbart begins trending on Twitter. Every blue check journalist starts claiming, oh, Breitbart is fake news. You don't trust it. And now they're trying to claim, you know, once again, like, oh, Elon Musk, he's far right or whatever. I think this just goes to show that there are efforts to silence us from very powerful interests. Whether you like Breitbart or not, Bill Gates absolutely is funding NGOs. Many of these big corporations we see, we just saw State Farm, I think.

What was State Farm? They had this thing where they were sending, you know, LGBTQ stuff for kids. All of this stuff is happening behind the scenes. All of these groups are opposed to free speech. So what happens next? What do you guys think? I think that we doubled down on the U.S. Constitution, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yeah, I mean, to me, Bill Gates embodies kind of the tech elitism that I fled when I left Silicon Valley. It very much is this very pompous attitude that, you know,

if people are like, if we allow these people to think for themselves, like they're going to give us bad results. Like, and it is just like, they're so stupid. We have to take care of them. Like,

it's very much like there are, there are pets almost like I feel, I don't feel like Bill Gates is evil, but he doesn't trust the everyday person to kind of make their own decisions, read information, read Alex Jones, or watch Alex Jones, right? Watch all these things and come to their own conclusions. Whereas Elon Musk does seem to be,

to some degree, fighting kind of for the more common man, fighting for free speech. He's not saying only elites should have children. He's saying we should all have more children and things like that. Well, he actually had a tweet earlier. He said, I think it was today, right? He said most rich people he knows have one or two kids. Yes.

No, it's like one or none, right? Yeah. And then he's got eight. True. He has eight kids. There's a lot of kids. Octodad. Octodad. Indeed. That's like one or none. Right. Yeah. And then he's got eight, eight kids. Yeah. There's a lot of kids. There's a lot of kids. Yeah. I mean, I mean, that's, that is rampant in Silicon Valley, this disbelief. And I think it was big in the seventies too, just like there's too many kids. Like a lot of them think that there should be licenses to have kids. They don't even have kids.

And then, yeah, they don't have kids themselves. You're right. I mean, I got to say, haven't you ever encountered someone that was just so stupid? You were like, you know what, Bill Gates is right? Yeah, absolutely. But it's, you know, you got to believe in freedom. I mean,

for me, I believe in freedom first. Maybe you see that person and think that, but then who's going to work at the licensing office, right? Maybe that guy. Yeah, right. Take that into the equation. Exactly. When I think about how they founded the U.S. government, it was kind of like an elitist.

They had an elite. They were like, we can't trust the common man to govern themselves, so we're going to create a congress to do it for them just in case. No, that is the common man. Well, it's a representative of the common man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the most intelligent among them to – I mean, what were they going to do? They weren't going to do a for them just in case. No, that is the common man. Well, it's a representative of the common man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the most intelligent among them to... I mean, what were they going to do? They weren't going to do a direct democracy.

Because that doesn't work. Mobs are dangerous. But before the United States, it was a king who ruled by decree and it was just like, do as you're told, pay your taxes. And they were like, we just want representation.

They're like, no. I think with social media, when you get like what they call fake news or like misinformation, disinformation, it's the mob mentality that's dangerous if a piece of bad information goes out and then everyone shares it or if 50 million people share it it's kind of like democracy in action and i get i see the danger in it yeah no bad things can happen i mean there was a problem where some indian village or we've been told there was an indian village that started like murdering tourists because there was some likeian village that started like murdering tourists

because there was some like superstition about tourists that spit on whatsapp like but at the end of the day you know yeah it's a it's a double-edged sword i'm gonna go for i'm gonna be on the side of freedom they they have this uh utopian view of everything saying like there's a problem happening we can solve it. You can't solve it. You can't. And we're witnessing this with all of the big tech stuff. They try banning memes. And then what happens? They end up banning random people on accident and banning a bunch of regular people. The famous moment was when the editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller got banned for referencing hashtag learn to code because they create an

automated system saying, okay, anybody's saying learn to code. You got to ban them. Why? There are a bunch of white, like, you know what it really feels like? They're a bunch of, they're like the class president, you know, they're snooty and elitist and they're angry that everyone's laughing and having fun. And they're like, stop having fun is not allowed. And so they just like tell the algorithm to ban anybody who says learn to code and that's a really bad idea here's a really great example remember when the ceo of reddit went to the donald and manually changed the comments from donald users because he was mad at them talk about a whiny pathetic loser someone said mean words so he went into the reddit database and changed what they said yeah that guy's just sad what a loser and he's got how much money see this is the problem this

is why i agree we can't we can't be like we need licensing and we need to restrict free speech because then you get losers like that in charge of the system which you have now and they flex their muscles thinking i should be in charge and then they do petty garbage like that how sad my biggest takeaway from the from the bright part piece as well is that so many of those arguments are made in bad faith which i think is what is what you're getting at you know the same people who are now saying we don't want this this uh this purchase you know they have ties to bill gates or they have ties to other industry people um the same people who before this saga were saying, you know, actually, there is no censorship.

Everything is just moderation and all that. When Elon says he's maybe going to buy this, suddenly there is censorship. And not only is it real, it's actually essential that it continue for our democracy to continue to function. And in all cases, these arguments are, you know, they were bad faith arguments before and they're being revised. I understand local censorship, like in your house it's your rules and if the kids speak up out of turn you know it's your house they follow your law that's your you're censoring your but top-down censorship doesn't work doesn't seem to work not i mean

not really not really you well they have like sedition laws and stuff parents and kids and small you know private homes is one thing. It's like it's my house. If somebody comes over and they act up, I'm going to be like, bro, you can leave. It's my house. Now, that's the argument we see from a lot of Democrats. It's a private company. And I'm just like, yeah, who controls the common space where adults are all trying to discuss with each other?

There is no super parent. There's no like after you're 100 years old, you know, after you're a hundred years old, a hundred years old, you elevate to a higher authority of adult. No, no, no. We're all adults. We all have thoughts and opinions. We all have rights. And we're going to argue those things. They think they shouldn't have to argue at all. They think they should just be able to stamp you out. And a good example is what's happening with this lawsuit. Democrats are trying to disqualify Republicans instead of saying, I'm going to stand in front of the common people and tell them my thoughts and my plans, I'm going to go to the judge and say, you shouldn't be allowed to run for office.

Come on, judge. Ban him. Because they can't win. They don't want to actually play by the rules. They're whiny, pathetic losers. What have you guys found is the most resilient, I guess, resistance towards this stuff at this point? In what fashion? Well, like the best tech you could build to circumvent censorship or censorship that's gone too far.

Well, I mean, are you talking about like what are the biggest hurdles that we have to overcome? I mean, I would say like it's gotten way worse with the app stores. With iPhone totally locking down their computer, it used to be that you could program whatever you wanted and your friends could install it. And now Apple approves what you can do. And they'll even take you off of the store if your buttons and, you know, if Steve Jobs' corpse doesn't like where your button is, you can get removed from the store.

For real, they'll remove stuff for design? Yes. Really? What's an example of that? Well, they have very strict guidelines for their design. So my company that I helped start in 2014, we got removed because it was, um, it wasn't quite for design.

It was because, and it wasn't really removed. It was just, we couldn't upgrade it. And it was because, um, they weren't happy that we were allowing people. We were,

we were, we, we kind of looked like we had a list of games. They were like, Oh, well, you have a list of games in your app. That's, that's kind of our job. We have the list of games on ours thing. looked like we had a list of games. They were like, oh, well, you have a list of games in your app.

That's kind of our job. We have the list of games on our thing. So we might be competing too much with Apple. And then they said we couldn't upgrade until we made it feel like it was less of a list of games and more like a chat app. They said it's okay if you have a chat app. It's not okay if you have a list of games. Yeah, Roblox is on the Apple App Store, and it is, that's the exact thing.

It's a list of games. They call them experiences. Right, so you probably deal with this with YouTube all the time. Their guidelines are always shifting, right? So they kind of have this gray area where they can operate in, and they can enforce things in an irregular fashion. And they absolutely have people at Facebook who, you know, Facebook gets to do what they want way more than a smaller developer gets to do what they want.

And, like, if you're an open source developer trying to create, like, you know, something federated like Matrix or something, it's even harder. When you're looking at F-Droid, whenever I think about open source app stores, I think of F-Droid. Is that good? Or is it dangerous? Or what's the deal? I mean, they would say it's dangerous. I think it's great. They're basically operating systems based on the Android open source project, which people have removed the Google control from. So, yeah, you can install Graphene OS or Lineage OS and install F-Droid and kind of get whatever apps you want.

But this is, you know, for the average person, they have no idea what you just said, to be honest. You know, what's F-Droid? What is Graphene? What are these things? I agree. That's one of the things that we really want to focus on with Fluto too is educating people about their options

and also making them better. I mean, we have to admit that the oligopoly is doing a great job at building these things. It's very easy. The product is really good. That's the first problem with the tech oligopoly is. Yes.

The App Store, I think, is one thing that's often overlooked in the discussion about free speech because that's probably the most important. Because even if, like, we all saw Gab get pulled from the App Store and banned, and then they have to find alternative means to getting back on the App Store. One of the funniest things I think they did was they created

a clone of the Fediverse app, which is just a, there's no website. It's just a shell. Then you plug in where you want to go and oh, it can boot up, you know, Gab's, you know, servers. That got banned too. And they were like, it's a clone. I think it was a clone of Mastodon or something. And so it was like, why was that? It wasn't a clone of Mastodon. I think it was a clone of Fediverse. So for those that aren't familiar with what this means, it's like a web browser. It's like they ban your website. So you launch your own web browser and then they ban your web browser.

And it's just that. That's how insane the control of these two app stores really is. Maybe there's something there. Bill Gates got hit for antitrust for what? Putting Internet Explorer on all these Windows machines? Is that what happened? Yeah, that was in the late 90s when Netscape was dominating the browser market. And, you know, if you want to talk about Bill Gates, like the first thing he did before that even happened,

before the Internet even got big, is I believe it was Dell was trying to sell PCs with Linux pre-installed instead of Windows. So Linux would have had a decent market share and gotten a lot more momentum than it got as a desktop operating system. What Bill Gates did is he basically did some sort of deal. I don't know the details precisely, but it was something about, unless you're exclusive Microsoft Windows on your PCs that you're exclusive microsoft windows on your pcs that you're shipping you're going to pay a lot more per license so dell would pay like you know five bucks a license or something for windows and it would have been 10 bucks or something if they had also if they kept selling linux machines so so linux is is awesome. For those that aren't familiar, it's an open-source, free operating system that works really, really well.

I guess because it's Linux, most people would recognize it because it's similar to macOS, right? Yeah, macOS was derived from a Unix. It was derived more from FreeBSD, which is Unix. Hard to tell the difference, really. So for all of you out there who use Mac, you might easily understand what Linux is. I think a lot of big chain stores use Linux for their terminals for self-checkout and stuff because it's free and they don't have to pay licenses. But it's really amazing. I didn't know that story that Bill Gates basically shut that down. Because imagine if we did not have Microsoft Windows as the dominant platform. Imagine if it was a free, open-source technology.

And you get some jerk like Bill Gates who comes in and sticks his foot in the door and then stops that from happening so he can control that piece. And now you have tech oligarchs like him specifically. And now he's gone from just being some guy who's like, I think you should have my operating system instead to there's too many people on this planet and we should have less people. Right. And all of that went. Tim, you bring up antitrust enforcement because that has played sort of a role as a final check here over the decades. It took 10 years of practices like that before finally it was the Internet Explorer integration that finally did trigger that. We've seen far less. You know, antitrust has not provided an effective check in the last bit here

on what I think most observers would say is at least somewhat anti-competitive practices among app stores and 100 other things we could go into. I think that the fact is we need something like FUDO because antitrust is not going to handle it on its own. There are things inherent in the system as it exists now that are anti-competitive. I mean, down to the engineers themselves, that this sort of the model of Silicon Valley now is to lock up talented engineers within four or five or six companies forever, not based particularly on their output, but based on the fact that them being there prevents viable alternatives from coming into existence. Now, Steve Jobs, I hear he was kind of a dick

as well. Was that the case? I mean, sure. Yeah. I mean, I would say like one quality that like, you know, all these oligarchs, the trait that they have in common is they're all kind of – Steve Jobs is maybe special. But if you look at someone like Mark Zuckerberg, they're mediocre, above-average programmers. Maybe they're top 10% programmers. But the trait they really have is they do like to control things. So Bill Gates was having a conniption when Dell was trying to sell Linux computers. Mark Zuckerberg was having a conniption when he saw that tons of people were uploading photos to WhatsApp instead of Facebook, which within a couple of years that happened.

So yeah. So Steve Jobs, the same thing like very very very very controlling people like steve jobs is like you must have one i don't know if you remember he insisted on one mouse button for a long time even though there were so many people who wanted like two mouse buttons well there was the gag i think it was the onion who made it where the new mac was just instead of a keyboard it was a it was a wheel and if you want to type you had to wheel to the letter and then press the button because it's just simpler that way right i i i couldn't i could i couldn't stand apple it's the same thing it's like these these these people want to control and extract as much as they can from from everybody now look good business good for them i suppose but i remember

my friends telling me that they were they were obligated by their professors to buy Mac, to use it for school or whatever. And I'm like, that's five times more expensive for the same processing power. They take, what is it, FreeBSD, you said? They take a Unix system, they slap their logo on it, and then charge you money for it. I mean, they did. I'll give them a bit of a pass. They did a lot of good work. And honestly, in 2006, 2007, they were still very small market share. Like they actually did beat Microsoft by making it better. So I'll give Steve Jobs a pass. You know, if you're the small guy and you're, you know, trying to control things, that's OK.

If you're like if you have your vision, your unified vision for a beautiful product and you're at 10 percent market share, go at it. As soon as you get to, you get to have too much power, like 50% market share and the only other player is also 50%, that's when you got to step it back a bit. For sure. I suppose it's fair to say Steve Jobs never came out and said there's too many people, so we got to figure out how to reduce those numbers and population growth. Because that's kind of a weird thing for a computer guy to say. Oh, buying farms and stuff. Yeah. What the heck?

It kind of makes me think like when you have a big network, you kind of want to see what the people want and then build the network to support that as opposed to build a network that decides what the people are going to want. But there's so many people that want so many different things, it becomes challenging, if not impossible to, to support all those different ideas at once. That might be what's stopping them from why they become so authoritarian and controlling the network. But I haven't been in that position yet. So I'm not sure exactly what's causing it to, to rise to the position where you are running a company like Microsoft. You have to genuinely believe you're smarter and better than everybody. So it's like, if you, if you'd say a 100 people and you put them in a sieve and you shake it as hard as you can to see what falls out and what sticks, the people who hold on the tightest, they're the ones who have that energy. So naturally, the person who rises to the top at big, massive companies like this are the people who are like, I'm smarter, I'm better, everyone's got to do what I

say. That's why you end up with the Bill Gates. Yeah. And the collusion works. I mean, the collusion works. You're going to win if you're colluding. Somebody who just wants to, you know, likes competition and wants, if they see a threat and they say, well, let's do better. Like, let's view this as a friendly competition. That person's going to lose to the colluders. Yeah. So it's, you know, it's kind of formed naturally, this monopoly, in a lot of ways. I want to add one more thing to what I was just saying. I was reading about how celebrities tend to be sociopaths. They tend to be narcissists and egotistical, very arrogant.

And it's actually fairly simple as to why that is. You have two people. One person is very humble. One person is narcissistic. Which one's going to get up on stage and shout out how beautiful and amazing they are? It's going to be the narcissist. The humble person is going to be like, well, you know, maybe it's not for me. You're going to have someone say, I'd like to audition for this role. And they're going to say, we don't know if you have it. And they're going to go, well, okay. You know, I'll try harder next

time. You get the arrogant narcissist guy and he's going to be like, no, no, no, no, you're wrong. I am the best and I'm going to prove it to you. And they're like, this guy's got energy. Those people are going to rise to the top. And that's one of the challenges we face, I suppose, with a free market is that snake oil salesmen, con artists, arrogant narcissists are the ones who end up gaining tons and tons of power. And rarely do you find someone who doesn't have those qualities but just does a really good job.

Or I should say not rarely but less often i mean yeah they they get bored or they they they feel like they've accomplished something and they just want to go live their life they don't really care about controlling things and and they've done their thing there are a lot of people many people i follow on twitter for instance and yeah they they they do really well and they're like well you know i did my thing and i don't want to be the boss i don't want to be in charge and they dip out it's like the killer instinct probably is what they call it that comes from our past hunting like if you were if you didn't have that killer instinct and you couldn't hunt

properly then you're you would die and you didn't but the ones that could hunt and kill and then kill the their opponents so that their village didn't get raided and murdered then they survived so now there's this killer instinct in business which is like maybe we're doing it wrong that's why i'm doing free software anyway i think it's i think i think it's wrong i don't understand locking down all the money it doesn't make sense i always go back to culture is is the most important if if we if if as a culture people were into open source and linux and stuff bill gates would lose all his power. And he'd be like the Wicked Witch of the West melting. Like, people adopting Linux across the board would be incredible for that reason.

We've got to explain it. You said Graphene OS. So you get an Android phone. You flash Graphene OS onto it, which basically means you erase the operating system and reinstall a new one, which is an open source software called Graphene OS. Right, right. It's this guy, Daniel McKay is doing graphing OS and there's a few other groups doing similar things with the Android open source project. So one, these things, we have to understand

we need to make these things better before we're going to get tens of millions of people using them which is what I want there to be. I want there to be hundreds of millions of people using them, which is what I want there to be. I want there to be hundreds of millions of people using software that is not locked down by the oligopoly. How do you do it? How do you flash a new software operating system on your phone? I just did it.

It was not easy. I bought the phone they told me to buy. It turned out that it was locked down at some point in the history of the phone because it was refurbished, so I had to get another phone. You can go through the instructions at the Graphene OS site. It's pretty straightforward. Your grandmother could probably do it, or your

mother-in-law could probably do it, if she has the right phone. It's still going to not work as well as you want, though. It's worth it. I love it. Most of the phones I've had throughout my life, except for iPhone, I can't stand iPhone, what I would always put on some either bare bones Android operating system, just gut all of the bloat and the garbage that they put into it,

and then just get that base system. Or using something like graphene. There's been a whole bunch throughout the history of Android that are just better, simpler, cleaner, safer, et cetera. What are some problems with it? You were saying that sometimes it doesn't work as good. What's the problem with it? Yeah, I mean, that's the problem.

I mean, do you have problems with like Uber working with your phones, Tim? What was that? Does Uber work well with your phone? Like a lot of these. I don I have Uber So some of these apps that people expect to work won't work Anything very notification heavy

those rely on Google's services to work well So is that a monopoly, Google's notification system? It's not quite a monopoly but it's one of these things that Google's software is much more delightful both for the user and the developer So there's a long way to come in that. And that's not a slight against Graphene or any of these other groups. They're doing fantastic work.

I've been using Windows since 93 or 92, Windows 3.1. And it's because of video games. I use Steam and I couldn't game on Linux for like late 90s, early 2000s. I mean, Valve is doing a lot of great work trying to make linux work well for games and i i think that like i'm a gamer like like i i started out doing games for yahoo um so i love what valve's doing to try to make linux better for games but it just does kind of hammer home how difficult this problem is that valve is this super super powerful i consider them to be like one of the better companies that's kind of on the more independent side of things

with Steam being so popular. They have not been able to deliver a successful Linux product yet. They're trying now with the Steam Deck. Hopefully that works. I want to jump to some current events from today and talk about the ramifications of this control and these oligarchs and where we're currently at.

Because it's a hard segue into more political stuff, but I think all of this is tied together in the culture war. From TimCast.com, court rules anyone charged as an insurrectionist can be barred from political office. The decision comes after North Carolina voters challenged Madison Cawthorn's reelection bid. To put it simply, we thought that this was crushed because Democrats are basically trying to make it so that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn cannot run for reelection. What ends up happening is a court says, because of this clemency act or whatever in 1872, you can't use this against people anymore. Now a federal court says, now actually you can. So one of the things we end up seeing from all of this manipulation and control on social media, they're trying to craft the narrative.

They've been trying as hard as possible. Before free, you know, an open internet, before we all were, our culture developed on the internet, the big networks controlled everything. If they said it, it was true. And that's power. The media has been desperately trying to claim that all of these Republicans are insurrectionists simply because they voted not to certify election results because they wanted an investigation or who knows why they did it. You also had, I think, half the states in a lawsuit against the other half of the states at one point with Texas leading the charge, taking issue with how the election was handled

in 2020. Now they're trying to argue that everything that happened was an insurrection, and therefore 147 Republicans can be barred from office. I've got to say, just the fact that there is a vote to verify the election results means that you can vote yes or no. They have a vote on purpose, so it doesn't matter how you vote on that. Well, this is the crazy thing that I think we see with everything. Why is it that they don't want free speech? Because they don't want a fair playing field. They don't want to have to deal with proving themselves right. Why are they going after this 14th Amendment thing? Because they're going to lose. They know they're going to lose. We are dealing with an establishment. It's the big tech companies, the media companies,

the Democratic Party, many Republicans as well. They're part of the establishment, and their goal is just to maintain control and power by any means necessary. Is this true that, so it's just being charged with this? It's not even being convicted? It's just being charged can bar someone, even if they're found innocent?

Well, being charged for insurrection is ne they're found innocent well being charged for insurrection is is nebulous it's what does it mean i don't know the media the media said the media has repeatedly said definitively that certain people have committed insurrection they're just they're just outright saying it and that's why they tried arguing they they tried suing saying no madison cothorn can't run because by speaking this event he engaged in insurrection man i'm i'm using brave and i'm using the brave search brave browser research i just typed in insurrection to get a definition the on the right 2021 united states capital attack attack comes up it says attack like this is mass media manipulation in my face and it's brave what do we what just ins? And they just assume that I'm,

I mean, well, I mean, I suppose you can say some people, a lot of people there did attack, you know, I guess. I mean,

it's propaganda, right? You say attack on one side and you say protest on the other side. Yep. And whoever controls the narrative is going to control the outcome. And it taken to its logical conclusion. Yeah. You wind up with one of the constitution,

the sovereign constitutional branches of government, democratic branches of government, having its sovereignty replaced with that of another, whatever you want to call this other media branch or whoever is going to decide what is an insurrection in the public eye. They are able to decide when what we would take as the unlimited sovereignty of Congress to vote how it will be to impose its will on the other two branches as laid out in the Constitution comes to an end. And I mean, that's scary. This is why our ability to speak freely in the public is so important.

For the longest time, you spoke in the public. I mean, actually, for the longest time, people go to churches and they would talk to each other. You also had physical events, but you did have media controlling a large share of what people thought was true and they just blindly believed it. Now with the internet, they're trying to lock down. I think they were surprised by 2016. They didn't realize how powerful the internet was going to be that people basically mean Trump into the presidency. They have to stop it. So they go after Alex Jones. They go after Milo. They go after Laura Loomer, all of these people who are

on the right, who are allowed and generating tons of attention. All of a sudden we see one day, Alex Jones gets purged from basically every single, from app stores, from podcasts, from every social platform. There's no way that wasn't coordinated. You can see the coordination too when one network will ban it and then within like a week, another network bans it. You could just be,

say that like maybe Facebook watched Twitter ban them and was like, we're going to follow suit. But I got a feeling, I mean, you were in Silicon Valley. You'd know better than anyone. I actually think it was more, they're just kind of like this group thing. And like with Alex Jones,

Alex Jones is probably the best example of this where like within a day, like he was removed from three or four platforms yeah i feel like there was just so much so many people whining to get rid of alex jones at those companies as soon as one of them actually like like dove into the pool they all just kind of followed automatically afterwards so i don't i i guess maybe i'm a bit of a skeptic on like that they had like a boardroom meeting where they all decided now is when we ban alex jones it's just my group like if they had like a meeting like davos switzerland or something to decide on this stuff i think crazy i think it's the middle ground i don't think that they all had you know they pressed the button to go to the sub

basement where all of the big tech buildings meet and they sit in the council chamber with torches or anything like that. I think they went out to lunch and they were like, what are you guys doing over at Twitter about this Alex Jones thing? And they're like, well, we don't know. What are you guys over at Facebook doing? What were you thinking about banning them? And then, you know, a handful of guys

who were from different departments were talking. They went back and said, this is what they're going to do. And so then when one person did it, okay. And then everyone does it. Because they walk in lockstep with each other. Yeah, they're probably like one of them texts their friend over in the same department at another company and says, we finally got rid of Alex Jones. And then they text their friends at the New York Times and Washington Post as well. They say, this is what we're going to do.

And then those people get in touch with the PR department of the tech company that hasn't taken the same action. It says, did you know that these other platforms are going to ban them? What are you doing? Are you going to allow this to continue on yours exclusively? Yep. And the nail that sticks out gets hammered, and they know that. If there is one profession that I would say I despise more than anything, it's probably journalists.

Because the actual real profession is honorable, noble, and important. That's not what we have today in any sense of the imagination. I mean, you've got a handful. You've got maybe a handful of people over at Breitbart, Alan Bakari, for instance, a friend of ours who's done great reporting on the tech censorship stuff. You've got good journalists who really do work at a lot of mainstream corporate press. That's a fact. Local outlets especially, they do their job. A lot of reporting is like, you know, the local fire department is being shut down for renovations and they're telling their local community all that's fantastic. But we have at the highest level exactly what you just described, where a journalist will reach out and say, hi, I'm calling from the New York Times and I'm just wondering why you support white supremacy

by allowing Alex Jones on your platform. We're going to write that you are Klansman, by the way. And then the company freaks out and they're like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We'll ban him. We'll ban him. Please leave us alone. Please don't wield the power of your millions of views or whatever against us. I wonder if it's more coordinated because I'm looking at who owns Meta, which is Facebook's parent company.

Well, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street. Those are the three of the top four. There's also Fidelity Management. Who owns Alphabet, the parent company. Well, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street. Those are the three of the top four. There's also Fidelity Management. Who owns Alphabet, the parent company of Google? Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street. So is it the corporate CEOs of these companies? Are there even CEOs? Because these companies own each other when you start to look into it.

You're like, who runs what? Like, is it just 20 dudes sitting in their mountain base? Like, okay, now we're making – like, do they decide Facebook's going to ban Alex Jones or was that Mark? Who makes that decision? These guys own 20% of the company. These three corporations own almost 20% of these companies,

both of them. And it's just a question I maybe can't be answered because they've obfuscated it on purpose. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. It's potential there's a lot more collusion coming from the top up. I would say this, the CEOs of these companies do have to be good to be successful. So they have a fair amount of independence. Good. That's an interesting word. Good. Well, effective. They have to be good

managers. They have to be able to juggle a lot of balls. I mean, if you look at what Bill Gates is funding, there's coordination. Not in the sense maybe where these companies, like I said, go to the sub-basement, have a cabal meeting or anything like that. But it's not as complicated as people might think it is when they say, oh, you're believing conspiracies. Oh, that's nonsense. No, no, no. Look, a rich dude hires people who do, does the things that he likes. So, uh, I mean, look, Fudo wants to hire programmers to, you know, get them out of Silicon Valley. Bill Gates wants to hire people and give access to resources who don't believe in free speech and want to reduce the population.

So reduce population growth to be more specific. So he is going to hire people who are powerfully advocating for these things and empower what he wants, and he's got the resources to do it. So then he gives money to a bunch of different groups. All of those groups agree. All of those groups join forces. And now you've got this coordinated massive wave of companies, many of them focusing in different areas, but now they're coalescing around one thing, Elon Musk bad. There's a coordination, be it on accident or otherwise. Yeah, and you guys seem to have figured out that bitching about it isn't the answer.

You got to create a parallel system with Futo. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say a parallel system. Certainly I would like for Futo to be a, one of the things about Google that is really nice is just you have so many smart engineers around you who kind of know how various things work. We would love for Futo to develop into that kind of organization where you, you can actually quit Google and not just be isolated by yourself, um, without, um, without kind of any of

that knowledge to feed off of in your work. Tell me an example of like, if a developer came to Futo and they started getting involved, what would it be like for them? Well, ideally, they would say you needed to know how to do some GPU programming. That's very, very obscure. And right now, only a few people who work on low-level Android code or who work at Qualcomm know. There would actually be somebody at Futo that we would have that they could talk to and get that information about how to program their computer.

You guys should talk to James O'Keefe. Okay. Then when all the whistleblowers come to him, you can just be like, right this way, gentlemen, here's some jobs. Would they relocate to Texas or would they be able to work remote? Both. It can be virtual and in person.

Our headquarters are in Texas. Are you hiring? Because I know you had mentioned before the show, it's kind of like a Y Combinator style, like what are those called? Incubator? We have a couple of different initiatives on. First, we are trying to hire full-time engineers. We are first and foremost

an engineering firm. We have a couple of projects underway in-house and we'd like to have more. We're doing some regular hiring like that. We're also doing a Y Combinator style, if you will, grant program this summer in Austin, Texas. It's residential. We're going to have a cool house to stay in, incubator space, lots of support. We're going to select three teams of up to five engineers, $20,000 for each team member, no strings attached. We don't want equity.

We just want people working on cool stuff that creates viable tech alternatives. So I want to pull up this other story from Elon Musk about his plans for a legal effort. But we've got to talk about solutions to what's happening with politics, culture, and all that stuff. Hearing you guys mention that you're giving grants to people, like just no strings attached, no equity, just do the work basically, is that what you're saying? Yeah. If you're working on something cool, yeah. One of the big challenges when we look at Project Veritas, James O'Keefe comes out, he says, be brave. We've got, obviously at these companies, there's censorship. Obviously, they're not being honest. We just had this expose where there's this engineer at Twitter talking to his date saying, oh, yeah, they're censoring the right all the time.

Why are these people not coming out and being like, yo, they're lying when they go to Congress and say these things. They're lying under oath. I think one of the reasons is they're scared. Many people say this. They say it all the time. I got kids, man. I can't, I can't just up and dip. So I often talk about infrastructure being a key element to, you know, getting away from Silicon Valley. So Rumble, for instance, I'm a fan. We use their video player for the website members only section, and we use their cloud services for our website. And we're integrating more non Silicon Valley infrastructure into the website. We have more plans. We'll announce those as soon as we have them ready to create competition, to push back.

That's another big move. If people are going to be able to blow the whistle and come out and just give, maybe it's not James O'Keefe, maybe it's any news organization, and be like, here's documents proving it. There has to be a place for them to exist. There has to be something telling them you can find work. You can be supported. You will not be thrown to the wolves just by coming out.

You're not sacrificing yourself. Doing the right thing actually could benefit you. It actually can be really great for your career. All of a sudden, you'll be getting a better job. But I want to pull up this tweet thread from Elon Musk from the 20th. Check this out. He says, Tesla is building a hardcore litigation department where we directly initiate and execute lawsuits.

The team will report directly to me. Please send three to five bullet points describing evidence of exceptional ability. Justice at Tesla dot com. He says my commitment. We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we probably win, even if we will probably win. We will never surrender, settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose, please include links to cases you have tried. He says, looking for hardcore street fighters, not white shoe lawyers like Perkins or Cooley

who thrive on corruption. There will be blood. Sounds like he was watching the show last night. Yeah, we do. Well, that's from four days ago. Oh, nice. This is from four days ago. This this is this is from four days this is the sentiment man we need lawyers that are willing to lose that are willing to take a chance this is

what one of the things that frustrates me in in all the the conversations are people saying there's oh don't i i've every single time i've been defamed every time there's been some question of section 230 every lawyer i've spoken with has been like there's no point in trying don't do it elon musk certainly has the funds to be like don't know don't care here's the money have fun that's what we need we need real solutions to all of these issues that are happening so i'm curious what you guys think about the legal side of things in terms of suing or going after you know we we had talked privately about Section 230. I mean, I'll defer to Ian here, who's a lawyer by training. I'm a lawyer by training. I no longer practice, so I won't give direct legal takes.

But, I mean, obviously litigation is a huge part of this. You know, we just had the Fifth Circuit rule and a preliminary motion in the lawsuit to enjoin the social media law they passed. That could have a huge impact. There's a similar case on with a similar but not quite as powerful law they passed. That could have a huge impact. There's a similar case on with a similar but not quite as powerful law in Florida that's on. I mean, these things are important in themselves, but they're also the culmination of, at this point, really five or six years of litigation around this very issue, around 230, around

free speech, around the power of social media networks, and so on. And he's absolutely right. The entire industry is coalesced around this. You have these industry associations that are spending a large amount of money on lawyers to fight because they do know how impactful it could be. And at FUDO, we're not directly involved in any litigation. We kind of are focused on the technology side, but we know that it is a multi-pronged fight and that those lawsuits are very important. How do you feel about copyright law from the past being used in future tech, like with social media technology and things like that?

Well, okay, I'm going to differ to Aaron on intellectual property law in particular, but I'll just say that that's been an issue for 25 years. The very first political issue I ever remember being engaged in when I was, what, nine years old or something was the DMCA had just passed. And if you remember, DCSS was a very simple piece of software that allowed you to decode a DVD on a device without having paid the license fee for a DVD player. And this was one of the first things that they went after as a copyright-breaking tool under the DMCA, which alleged to shut it down. And that, I mean, right there is a huge, that is a use of a copyright enforcement mechanism to limit the freedom and, you know,

not necessarily just to protect a copyright holder, but to go after the entire universe of freely flowing tech and information and so on. And I think that that's a principle that extends more broadly. The same technology that's used to enforce copyright or intellectual property can and often is used to enforce restrictions on free speech, on the flow of information, and on the use of technology in general. That's one of the big challenges with the copyright stuff that has happened with social media. I had a tweet that was absolutely fair. You just get taken down under copyright, and what do you do?

The challenge is I kind of feel like no matter what you do, the person with the most power wins. If you've got the money, you're going to win. That's just about it. I mean maybe you might get lucky and get a good judge and fight your way through. But even in the instance of James O'Keefe fighting defamation cases, he needs to raise like a million, two million dollars to even try to go after these big companies. And then you just have the courts are always often siding with the people who are defaming or the big tech or the establishment or something like that. This is one of the biggest challenges that it feels like even it feels like I'm fighting an uphill battle

because I've talked about Wikipedia quite a bit. How fractured the system is, how it makes literally no sense, but they have so much money. How do you compete with that as an individual? It just doesn't seem to make sense. You need capital, that's for sure, because it's like a war of attrition in court. It's how long can I pay all these lawyers to stay in this courthouse and keep talking? No one really cares if they win or lose.

They're all getting paid as long as you've got the money to pay them. So you either need people to work for free, which is a form of capital, or money. Social currency, getting a lot of people who believe in you just to focus fire their efforts and their labor towards something more powerful, I guess. I want to mention an idea to you. So, Ian, you're a lawyer by training. I want to ask you your thoughts on this. What if we made a website where as soon as you load it, you are placed in a queue where you can write one word. And 5,000 people all write one word.

Who's sued for defamation when you write a story claiming that Nancy Pelosi eats dogs? It's a tough one. I see what you're getting at here, that what you're running there is an interactive computer service which is protected from defamation under CDA Section 230. And each individual made no statement. Right. Writing the word dog, I didn't say anything. All I wrote was dog.

You can't sue me, can you? It's a very interesting – that could be a good law school hypothetical. All right. We need some coders. If you're a developer, we're going to create this interactive website where it starts with a Q. I mentioned this the other day. And then everyone from your position, if you're the first person and you're number one, you get the first word.

Well, just let everybody fork it whenever they want, and you'll be guaranteed to get whatever insane statements you want. And then as an editor, you could pick the one that you want to show. Exactly. And then we'll feature whichever one that comes up. So you might have an article that says, like, Nancy Pelosi, run, jump, car, drive fast. And you're just like, that's nonsense. And then you'll finally get one that says, Nancy Pelosi ate a dog.

Because people just did. Oh, like Mad Libs. Yeah. Kind of. Digital Mad Libs. Every single word. What if you tell them this has to be a verb? Then are you all of a sudden an editor?

Then you'll get sued because you're telling them to write a verb or a noun? Because that'll help it flow. Oh, that's interesting. I think we're onto something. I mean... What if I wrote Nancy Pelosi... What if we did an actual ad lib? You know, Mad Lib or whatever it's called, where it's like Nancy Pelosi blanked a blank. And then some random person could put a word

in. I didn't write the sentence, right? I put blanks. Someone else put the – would I be able to be sued for defamation? I'm definitely not an expert in defamation law. It seems like a difficult case to me. It's going to hinge on a lot of things. But it's interesting. I mean the problem is your website. It would be hard for you to get enough clout for your website for people to, you know,

believe what it said as opposed to Wikipedia, where it kind of has a lot of clout now. Sure. Sure. I just think, you know, we'll be allowed to post all of this stuff. Sure. Like I'll put it on Twitter to a million, 1.3 million people and let them share it. And then what is anyone going to say to me? They're going to be like, you can't say that. And I'll be like, I'm just sharing a story from people. You can't sue me for it. Or I'll tweet it out and I'll put, what a crazy story. Right? And then everyone will see the headline. And then what?

What can they do about it? There's a question whether it's defamation. If it is a website where these things truly are random people posting words, I think there's some question as to whether it is actually, even if it is something nasty that comes up eventually, as to whether it is like defamation, you know, as opposed to people would not take it. And if no one would take it as such, you know, you know, there's a certain point at which it's obviously satire and not meant as a statement. What if I only allowed a handful of words like Nancy Pelosi eats and dog? eats nancy pelosi you sure yeah yeah whatever whatever whatever combination of the words i love you nancy i'm just like what if it turns out to be true that's the real that's the yeah you gotta be careful i don't know i'm i'm i'm joking but i mean i just i look at what's going on with big tech and how they're basically invincible, how they have these laws that for us, we get spat on, we get pissed on,

we get stepped on. And then Wikipedia can just do whatever the hell they want. That, that, that can't be that. That just cannot be. It's when it says from Wikipedia that it gets, starts to get real fishy for me. Like if it was, if they were clear, like this is all community and they, they linked to the, the screen names of the people that put the little pieces in and stuff, that's a different story. Except someone could write on Wikipedia, Nancy Pelosi eats chicken.

Another person can go in and change chicken to dog and they've made no statement. You can't sue that person because they've made no statement. The person who said she eats chicken, maybe that's true. The person who changed chicken to dog did not make a statement. He just said the word dog. You can't sue someone for saying a single word. There's no defamation there. Wikipedia needs to be sued into oblivion because it is them. They have automated the editorial process under their own byline. And this, this argument that they're protected under section two 30 makes absolutely no sense. You know what we need? So how do we how do we do this do we set up a go well a go a give

send go raise a couple million bucks find someone withstanding and say have fun is that is that allowed is that legal i mean you've had i mean my my preference would be to solve this technically and like build a better product than wikipedia but it's it's see i i just i i disagree i think culture is the issue. That regular people know Wikipedia, use Wikipedia. Google has integrated Wikipedia in every facet. This machine is here. And they are clearly violating, at the very least, the spirit of the law.

But I believe technically, like, at a technical standpoint, they're, you know, totally open to being sued. Someone just needs to do it. Where's James O'Keefe? Someone call James. James, what are you doing? I mean, there's been lawsuits, right? So, I mean, they happen and Wikipedia will settle. I just, we need... Wikipedia will change it even if they feel they have to.

Well, they should change it. I mean, that's the goal, right? Get them to change it so they stop allowing this. Because right now, I do not understand how Wikipedia can publish such false statements. I mean, look, the Project Veritas article on Wikipedia is clearly an opinion piece. It's outrageous how much opinion it is. They're this, that, or otherwise and conspiracy. It's loaded with fake news.

It's loaded with provenly false claims. And it's from Wikipedia. James, you got to sue. Maybe we shouldn't be able to have people on Wikipedia. You shouldn't be able to have a person's page or a corporation's page on Wikipedia. Because in Encyclopedia Britannica, they didn't have people. It would just be things. Well, I mean, you had –

I think there was maybe no living people at some don't i'm not actually sure about that but i think maybe at some point it was no living people but i could be wrong okay i just i mean you've had larry sanger on i mean he's working on this we're actually futo is the grant for his organization to try to fix this i i kind of agree with you like like wikipedia owns the culture right now. It's hard to solve. Still, this is a hard work. And as FUTO, as a tech organization,

we want to try to create technical solutions. I do feel like there is some ways we can chip away at Wikipedia. Clearly, free speech has already weakened their stature in the culture. There's many people who like know that Wikipedia is propaganda on any kind of contentious issue. What I would like to see as from the technical solution would be some sort of way for dissenting editors at Wikipedia to very, very easily fork it

and have their own kind of, have their own articles show up and have, you know, building this product is one of the trickier things. I consider Wikipedia to be a very special case of social media. It's crowdsourced. It's a bunch of editors, like you said, making dips to articles, right? But it still is very much, you know, crowdsourced from millions of people or hundreds of thousands of people. It all comes in. How can we get it so that those contributions are more ubiquitous for the world and different editors can decide

different editor organizations can decide which editors should be banned and which shouldn't. And the dissenting side in any kind of these Wikipedia edit wars actually has a viable thing that people will find. And those are the sorts of things that Larry's working on with his organization. You could have a page with all these overlays that would pop up

with different percentages of how accurate are each overlay relative to these editors. Like if an editor has a 72% rating, then they're going to affect their overlay that they edited, and then you'd be able to sort all the overlays on like DOG, the Wikipedia's thing of like hillary clinton or whatever right and then so you'd see like 900 000 hillary clinton wikipedia pages on top of each other and then you'd sort them by the ones with the most trusted editors and you'd sort that one to the top maybe i think the issue is the most trusted editors would be 50 50 if that right so i i once i was talking with a group of people way back in the day about a journalist rating system or news organization rating system one of the things we want to do with our our fact

checking non-profit is create a browser extension and then actually hire the fact checker hire fact checkers to do to rate various news outlets based on violations of journalistic ethics one of the ideas has always been what if you create like a meter showing like how much do we trust a journalist okay well if they write foritbart, they're going to get a zero, right? Because every mainstream, every liberal Democrat person is going to be like liar, liar, liar, liar, liar. At best you could hope for 50, 50, but that means you need like, if I came out and said, Joe Biden, uh, is corrupt, you know, has engaged in overt corruption with the Ukraine scandal saying, fire the prosecutor. I mean, that is a statement of fact.

When they claimed that Donald Trump was trying to get a quid pro quo in Ukraine, Joe Biden did literally that going to, going to the president saying, fire the prosecutor, or you're not getting a billion dollars in loan guarantees. It's exactly what they claimed it was. So it's corruption. He's just not been held accountable for it. If I say that people on the left are going to say either knowingly, or I should say that willfully, they'll call me a liar knowing it's true because they want political power. So they'll say, oh, that story from Tim Pool is false, minus one. Then you're going to get a bunch of other Democrats and antip types are going to be like that's not true i heard on cnn minus one you're hoping then that if a thousand of these people rate downrate you that some conservative

who knows it's true is going to uprate you or at the very least you'll end up with conservatives saying i believe that's true whether it is or not it's going to be the inverse version of the same thing so we need a trustless way to identify their value. Maybe if people don't realize they're rating the articles or the individuals that edit the articles, but they're either. Maybe with crypto, I like the trustless smart contracts. I'm kind of throwing out buzzwords here. I got to be a little more pessimistic, though. I think the issue is culture. It doesn't matter if you're going to say a journalist is trusted or not. What matters is what the culture wants, believes, and expects.

And right now, we have two very distinct cultures in this country that will never come together. I think it's natural. Resistance is natural. It's part of our evolution, our nature. You'll always have people saying that you're wrong and always have people saying you're right for the most part things are things are different i mean it used to be that there were democrats and republicans they'd argue with each other but they were all americans they'd all come out for the fourth of july and be like oh you know i don't agree with that stuff but hey america america right now you've got people that CNN, for instance, all these big news outlets know for a fact they're never going to sell to a Trump supporter. So they have

absolutely zero reason to be honest about Trump and his supporters. If they know their bread is being buttered by a bunch of, you know, left activists, why would they ever tell the truth on Trump? I mean, right now, Jim Acosta, you know, he did a segment the other day where he claimed Donald Trump appears to have been calling for civil war, which is just BS. It's not true. Trump retweeted basically a guy who said the words civil war. I don't know what that means. It's like you on the news story.

Here's the facts. Donald Trump reposts comment that says civil war. That's it. Take for it what you will. That's the fact. The opinion is, was he calling for it? Was he predicting it? Was he scared? I have no idea. But Jim Acosta, CNN, all these big mainstream outlets say he's either calling for it or predicting it. That's not true. None of that is true. That's all opinion. But they know there's

no one for the most part who is buying from them for truth. Everybody wants their confirmation bias. Everyone, no matter where you come from. Now, I think there's a tendency, more so on the right, to associate with those who are right. You know, post-liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives, whatever the freedom space is. You have more people who are like, no, no, no, just tell me what's true. The left, for the most part, has gone full zealot, as far as I can tell. I don't like the word true, truth anymore.

I used to be a zealot about what was true, and I'd be like, it is the one true something. And I was like, come on, Ian, you don't know. Get over yourself. And also the word trust. I don't think humans trust each other. We're wild animals. We've domesticated each other. We kind of sit in peace together with pretending like we know we're not going to hurt each other, but like,

it doesn't mean it's never going to happen, you know? So we live in this idea of truth and trust, which is just like a hundred percent. They're extremes that don't exist. And so we should code our stuff that way too. And trust can be, can be in a way kind of productive. And let me explain that just briefly. The, um, I've talked to several people who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, and what they always say about that is we knew our news was fake. We knew the newspapers were nonsense. And in a way, that's sort of because there was no trust. They knew that, okay, you have to read between the lines. You have to really think about this.

In this country, for better or for worse, we used to have much more trust in media and our institutions. And I think part of that is technological, that we had an era where the main means of media distribution were the broadcast television channels, a few major newspapers that were sort of had a legal interest in being, I don't want to use the word objective that strongly, but more neutral. And we don't have that, and we sort of carried over this unwarranted trust. And as that's broken down, I think people look at things, even Wikipedia, I think with a more skeptical eye. And if you can

shore that up, you can find things that people can trust, I think you do a service. I like, well, i think trustless they talk about like um like smart contracts crypto smart contracts are trustless because you don't have to trust that giving your money to the guy he's going to do the thing that you gave him the money to do it just automatically happens so you remove that that level of trust um like i get like trusting your parents if you don't trust your parents i mean the world's going to seem like it wants to kill you every moment you're, you're living in it. But if you can trust your parents,

it's still like, it doesn't mean they're never going to turn on you, but it's just like an acceptance. Like when I step on my foot's not going to go through the ground. I trust that I'm going to land on solid ground. I guess it's just not an ideal. Like, like what do we have to trust something?

Every individual should be allowed to decide on their own who they trust, right? I mean... Based on what parameters? Everybody gets to decide through their interactions with them, right? We can't have a top-down approach to trust where we're told to trust certain people. I kind of feel like there may be an inevitability in the hyper polarization, though I think it's possible that the tech oligarchs, the censorship has exacerbated this by banning only some people. I kind of feel like we saw early on in the internet,

tribes were forming where people like to rag on each other. There's a video that I talk about often called this video will make you angry by CGP Grey, where he mentions that communities don't actually argue with each other. They argue amongst themselves about the other, and they get riled up and get angrier and angrier about it. And this tribalism eventually leads to conflict. So I wonder if, do you think that's an inevitability with the internet? I mean, the culture war itself arising out of these tribes that have formed where everyone hates each other? I mean, yeah. I mean human nature, we see it with sports teams. It's inevitable but it doesn't –

How do you stop it from getting to the point where people are killing each other? This is a philosophical point but I think that, yes, if you do have, I don't know if you call it a free market for, but if you do have different groups able to trust who they want and able to use an alternative technology when they want to get the information they do, I think that you have, I understand that that can lead to problems, but I think it leads to fewer problems than one of, like you say, this top-down enforcement of trust where inevitably one tribe or one side or another is going to feel this intense resentment. I think that's when things get really dangerous, when people are confirmed in their belief that everything is against them. Well, let's talk about this. We've got a story from The Independent. Put people in jail.

Former Fox reporter calls for arrests over right-wing's talk about this. We've got a story from The Independent. Put people in jail. Former Fox reporter calls for arrests over right wing's great replacement theory. Tucker Carlson responded saying this is going to get really ugly really soon. Slamming ex-Fox News colleague who suggested he should be in jail or something worse. What's something worse? Carlson asked his audience after hearing a clip of the remarks from the former reporter Cameron made over the weekend at CNN. We're not sure what something worse is, but it certainly feels like we're moving toward it at a very high speed at this point.

Rhetoric has its own internal logic. We've experienced it. We can talk ourselves into things. Democrats are doing it right now. And what they're talking themselves into right now is, quote, something worse. It's scary. It's time to pull back. It's time to de-escalate.

Otherwise, this is going to get really ugly really soon. So, you know, should I say the magic word, civil war? You can always say it if you want. I mean, I would hope that everybody ignores people like that on the extreme. They don't. Right? I mean, this guy made it. Some people do, some people don't.

My friends from Silicon Valley are all Democrats, but they're not going to say Tucker Carlson should be executed for talking about replacement theory. But are they active in politics? Are they the public speakers? No, exactly.

So you have on CNN, here's what happens. I don't think intent matters on either side as this conflict escalates. This guy goes on CNN. They probably didn't know he was going to say this. He says it. They probably say, okay, well, that's a little over the top, but we know we don't mean it, right? We don't want to go that far.

But then Tucker Carlson sees it. And then he talks about it and says, look what they're doing. Look what they're saying. And then, of course, people who see that are like, whoa, those people are crazy. So it's exacerbating the problem. It's escalating things, regardless of whether they're being tongue-in-cheek or hyperbolic or otherwise. Feels like the network should be responsible for these people that are talking on the network. I know it's not a social network, so they don't have, I don't know, 230 in parity.

They don't care, though, because they know they don't make money from Trump supporters. They have no cultural tie to conservatives, Republicans, or libertarians. But this guy's saying something worse. The only thing worse than jail for a criminal is death penalty that I know of. I mean, you either put life in prison or death penalty. That's the next thing that's worse. So what's this guy going CNN and suggesting that

someone needs the death penalty for talking on a news channel? And now people are going to hear you say it. CNN needs to come out and speak against that. And so whether anyone has the full intent of it or not,

people will hear us talking about it. Right. And they're going to be like, man, these CNN people have lost their minds allowing this. Yeah. They're going to say, Ian's right.

They shouldn't allow that. This guy's calling for the death penalty for Tucker Carlson. That's crazy. And then you'll mention my Democrat friends don't believe that. But this is something at the highest level of the conversation. Right, right. I would say that, you know, it's kind of all of our collective responsibility to do what you can. I mean, I do what I can to keep my Democrat friends. A lot of them, you know, I'm an independent and I've still lost a lot of friends, you know, just by being a

little bit more outspoken. But try to make an effort to stay friends with people that most people are reasonable. Like and, you know, if you point out things like this to them, they'll probably be. Yeah, that's batshit crazy. I thought all the batshit crazy people were on the right i didn't realize there were batshit crazy people on my side too yeah uh it was part of the french oh i'll do it i'll do a little bit uh uh try and do a little a little bit of that conciliation say like look what he said is is is totally legal i mean what he's suggesting is ridiculous and unconstitutional and a million other things but But, you know, him saying that that should be the penalty for saying things he doesn't, you know, believe or should be said on public air.

I mean, I guess he can say that. How does he get to that point? How does this guy get to the point where we'd actually say something worse than jailing for talking about an idea pushed by. So I just want to clarify. He should lose his job. I don't know. He said he had to go to jail or something like a jail for a week or lose your job. I don't know. He said go to jail or something worse. Like go to jail for a week or lose your job.

I don't know. I wouldn't apologize for it. No, I'm not. What I would say is these people, I'm sorry. I don't know how we solve this because I think they're nuts. And I'll tell you why. It has been many prominent Democrats who have argued for demographic change in efforts to maintain power. When Tucker Carlson points that out,

they accuse him of pushing a conspiracy theory. And I'll say it again. Many Democrats have said immigration is a path towards maintaining political power. Tucker Carlson says, look what they're saying. He shows them saying it. And they say, he has said something so dangerous he should be jailed or something worse how do they get to that point look i know donald trump said lock her up to hillary clinton right maybe that's it maybe maybe it's inevitable hillary clinton actually did bad things joe biden did bad things yeah but political persecution is not the answer that's for sure but what do you do then do you say hillary clinton destroyed 30 000 emails but we're not going to go after her because it would escalate tensions.

Well, he should say she should be charged, not locked up. That's the judge to decide or the jury. And then everyone says criminally charge my opponent. You criminally charge yours. Everyone says they're right. You know, you mentioned it on the show before. The left says the exact same thing about us that we say about them. And then I pointed out, yeah, but we're right.

Like when I say Joe Biden went to the president of Ukraine and said, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollar loan guarantees. That's on video. He actually did that. A prosecutor who was investigating Burisma where his son was on the board. All of that happened. Well, that should be investigated. But then they push things like the Ahmaud Arbery lie, the guy who filmed it goes to prison, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd. I mean, all of these things that were embellished, hands up, don't shoot, outright not true. Jussie Smollett, they all believed it. They keep pushing all these things that are just outright falsehoods. But you have, it's almost like, man, an equal and opposite reaction. As more people get access to the truth through social media, more people join the zealous cult as an equal and opposite reaction.

Is that really it? Is that law of thermodynamics just a reality for every element of existence? We have free will. It exists within our energy, but we have free will. Like when something – I think that people are doing too much these days, too fast with politics. Like you don't need to make a change. Like today we're like, what's going on with the news?

There's not a lot of news today. Good. Let's live in peace. That's the idea. And, and these, these feelings like they got to legislate and create new law and new law, new law and sign this and that like,

dude, what? Maybe it's like that. That episode of star Trek where Bella, which one is that? Is that half white, half black? No,

no, no, no, no, no no no no where they're uh they have this this energy pulse slamming into the the enterprise and so they're like raise the shields and then they're like the energy pulse is getting stronger and they keep doing it and then finally i think it's uh was it data or somebody says lower the shields and they're like are you sure do it and they do and then the energy wave dissipates and it was that the more they increased their shields the more the energy reflected back stronger like a like a chinese finger trap you've got to stop pulling as hard as you can and just push in then you can get your fingers out become friends with your enemy and all of a sudden there's no conflict but i i wonder if right at the point where the finger trap has been ripped

to shreds and there's no coming back. I mean, one of the things I – when people were really fighting in 2020, I was like, well, let's do Tulsi Gabbard. She would be like the compromise candidate for both parties and both sides. And what happened with the left? Yeah. When I suggested this, some of my friends on Facebook went apeshit saying she was just an evil Republican. This is why I say, like, you know, when you say the left does the same thing about us, I'm like, yes, but we're right. It's very simple because I'm not a traditional conservative.

I've never been a conservative. And I supported Yang and Tulsi in 2020 trying to find that compromise that the establishment left and the leftists were unwilling to have so some of my friends were receptive to it too though so i mean yeah keep trying but i think i think those for sure for sure i think a lot of people who watch this show even were probably like oh yeah i used to vote democrat then we started paying attention and now we're just like i'm not interested i'm not saying republicans are going to solve your problems. I don't think they are.

I think they're going to do a lot of nothing. I like your metaphor about the shields creating more than the finger trap because it's like if you're angry about what you're communicating because you've been upset by what they did, then people can tell and they don't want to listen. But if you don't have that resistance and you're just stating it, yeah, Biden, he bribed those guys to to fire that prosecutor so that he burisma didn't get investigated that's pretty much that's that's a fact i saw on tv i should say i'm not mad about it it happened why did biden do it well we can say it it's corruption either way because telling a foreign country that you will withhold aid to them unless they fire someone that's a corrupt act he doesn't have the authority to do that and they even told him that and he bragged about it and said, call the president, see what he says. Like, wow, he's bragging about superseding the will of the people. That's crazy. Now, did he

do it to protect his son? That's a question that needs to be answered through an investigation. What do we know? The prosecutor was investigating Burisma. His son was on the board. Joe Biden did intervene. You don't talk about motives or incentives i don't care he did it so now you investigate look into emails determine whether or not he did it to protect his son or not but either way like he bragged about doing it now when we say that who's telling the truth i mean that's a conversation i had with my dad a couple few days ago about the facts because he was like when he watches this show from time to time he's like oh you guys are saying wrong the wrong information is what you're saying is wrong.

And I'm like, well, what's right? What's true? There's so much information being shoved into it. And he was actually like, but I mean, what's true? How do you know what's true? You get 80 million different pieces of information from 80 million different sources. And they're all like they might be right. They might be wrong.

So it's like we get things wrong. Yeah, of course. The things we get, we get things wrong. Yeah. Of course. The things we get wrong aren't like core details on major political events. The things we get wrong are like, I'll, I'll, I'll say a caliber of a gun and then someone will chat and be like,

Tim, you're wrong about that. It's actually this. I'm like, Oh, that was a mistake. Yeah. But to them,

you're in the same category as, as QAnon people who leave all sorts of crazy stuff. Right. And we're not right. But that's not what they, that's not how they see it. But they are. The Blue Anon people and QAnon people,

they would get along swimmingly in their weird beliefs and things that aren't true. Yeah, you tend to see in others what's in you. But look, QAnon is fringe. Mainstream conservatives and libertarians aren't entertaining QAnon people. Blue Anon is mainstream Democrat. They believe for years the Ukraine gate, Russia gate stuff that's all been debunked. Yeah, I mean, I agree.

I would say in Silicon Valley, the Republicans justifiably lost any support for the future with Cheney and Bush. I would say the same thing today that the Democrats have equally deserved no support in the future from any of these. If anybody who's principled, I would say quit. Quit your party if you're a Democrat. If you go to your average Republican and ask them about

some crazy conspiracy, they might give you a half-baked answer where it's like, well, I don't know, but these things I think are weird and I read this somewhere. If you go to your mainstream Democrat and ask them about Russia and stuff, they're probably going to be like, yeah, I think he did it. Sure. And it's like, even though Mueller proved it wasn't true, even though now with the Sussman trial, we're learning about Hillary Clinton's role in signing off on these things, they're

going to be like, I don't know about that. I mean, first of all, I'm steel manning my friends here, just so you know. But, you know, they would say, well, yeah, we know that there was all this stuff that's like shady about the report that came out of England or whatever. But we still know that there's like collusion happening between Trump and Russia. Like we know that he has hotel deals he wants in Moscow and, and they'll say stuff like that. And, you know,

to some degree, you know, there's probably, you know, there's, you know, you can't be as successful as Donald Trump was without, you know,

having to break, bend the law a little bit. I think it's for sure, you know? And so we, we, we talk about Trump and the things we actually don't like about his presidency relatively often, drone strikes and, you know, why that happened, things like that.

Donald Trump, whether it was him or someone else, Trump hotels were being advertised on a State Department website. Like, these are bad things. Trump tried to have, I think, the G7 at Trump Doral in Florida. Like, really bad thing. You shouldn't do it. And Trump was like, but I'm going to do it at cost. And I said, so what? You're still maintaining your business through a government contract. I think that's wrong. I got no problem saying that. But then you hear from a lot of these people,

they won't even bother watching a show like this. I mean, let alone Google searching half the news that comes out. That to me, I'm sorry if I'm a little pessimistic in that regard, but I think, you know, we talk about technology and all these things, and I don't think that's the issue. I do think we need technology to be developed because there may come a time when we get cut off completely from Silicon Valley. If a civil war really is coming, or we're in one, fourth, fifth generational warfare, whatever it may be, what do you think is going to happen to the anti-establishment when states start breaking apart? San Francisco is going to be like,

eliminate all the IPs from states that we don't like. And then how will you communicate? What will you be using? There's going to need to be something. So in that sense, technology, that's why I like Rumble Cloud Service because I'm like, they might censor me. What you said earlier, Aaron, was interesting, that Silicon Valley people there got disenfranchised with the Republicans, with Bush and Cheney.

And then now they're being disenfranchised with this ridiculousness in the Democrat side. I hope so. I mean, that would be my hope. I'm not there anymore. But the problem with that is that who they care about now? Well, they care about the corporation. So who's the new authority? The corporation?

I mean, if Google thinks it's running the show now because the politicians are incompetent, that's kind of like maybe even worse. I don't know what's worse, an incompetent president or a corporation that thinks it's in charge. I don't know. That's a good question. I would hope that they're still anti-corporation, too. I mean, the left was supposed to always be anti-corporation like from from my entire life and so yeah it's uh it's not a pro-corporate i can't even stop at google it's alphabet which is owned by black rock i mean it's not owned it's it's in part owned by black

rock state street vanguard yeah and that is that is purely a result of the propaganda to like try to scare people about like you know the corporations are only hope against these evil racists in kentucky or whatever who you know are you gonna you know would be throwing gay people off of buildings if they had their way um so well now there's like a big scandal in the uk because they they they were flying the union jack over some street and all these leftists are like this is what the nazis did and it's like yo it's your country's flag like just because the nazis drank water doesn't mean you shouldn't drink water you know i'm thinking about posobic i don't know if you guys are jack posobic he was in

a it went to davos a couple days ago and was detained by by klaus schwab's personal guard i don't know if they were private they were private police i believe yeah were they private police no swiss police it looks like they were just i was told they were private i, I believe. Were they private police? No. Or Swiss police? It looks like they were just cops. I was told they were private. I could be wrong. Okay. Maybe they were. They were wearing police on their chest. So maybe it was police.

Maybe it was corporate security. I don't know. Well, they were wearing police on their uniforms. Yeah. So maybe it was Swiss police. Let's just stop there then. I don't know for sure if it was a private guard. But, you know, you see these corporate private guard, and they don't care about the law.

They care about serving the corporation where they get paid. I think that's the fear. I'm not so worried about the politics. I'm worried about these corporations that are sneaking in trying to buy up land. Bill Gates? What is he, the single largest owner of farmland? That doesn't mean he owns all of the farmland. It means for a single entity, he owns more than anybody else.

That's a lot. It's weird weird i don't trust the guy yeah i don't want to pile on the guy but man he is he is a where's luke at he's coming we need him to hear you luke is luke in the chat i don't know probably hi luke if you're watching luke rudk, ladies and gentlemen. We are change. Big fan. Yeah, I mean, it's funny how you have this belief, or I don't know how you describe it, but you have multinational corporations, politicians. They meet together in big international conferences. The New York Times are invited guests at the World Economic Forum along with world leaders and people like Bill Gates where they're talking about really horrifying things like – what do they say? Implantable bio-tracking or whatever for your lives, tracking your carbon footprint. Yeah, for better compliance.

Yep. They talk about like mandating health requirements stuff. It's so crazy because it's not American. For a while, it was like I just disbelieve it. I couldn't even begin to believe that people thought that way because I'm like, no, I was born in America. First Amendment is paramount. You don't do that to people. That doesn't happen.

But now I'm realizing they're not from America. They're not from the United States. They don't think like that. This is like authoritarian, weird, European, pseudo-communist, fascist, Nazi stuff. Freaking technocratic. There are misconceptions about just how popular I hate the term free speech absolutism because it kind of begs the question, but the American First Amendment conception of free speech is not unique

in the world, but it's very rare. And I think one of my worries is that I think it should become increasingly rare just in a gut conception of what free speech is in the younger generation. In millennials now, Gen Z is even more so. And to address what you're saying, is the government the worst? Is the corporations the worst? I would split the difference and say the worst possible state of affairs is one where both the government and corporations are competing to please each other, that you have in place a corporate apparatus that can do things that a state would like it to do without repercussions.

So people are saying that the police actually were wearing badges that said World Economic Forum Police on their arms. So that's actually what Jack, he stated they were World Economic Forum Police. So it's a private company, and they have the word police on it, which is interesting because I used to think of police as a public service, but not in Switzerland, apparently. I mean, it's not surprising in Switzerland. No, it's not.

But it's terrifying. I bet it's outpost, man. That was a big blizzard. It was crazy. Everybody who was there was, like was betting on crypto for the future, all these ultra-rich people. Yeah, you guys got deep in crypto? Not really, no.

I mean, crypto is something we've been looking at a lot recently. It's actually been overhyped, and we're kind of disappointed that we wanted to find a lot of anti-establishment engineers to kind of just make these kind of decentralized things and open source things that, you know, help free us from the oligopoly. And unfortunately, a lot of the attention, you know, I like to say, you know, all the elite engineers are either working for Google, but those who aren't are working for trying to do cryptocurrency schemes. And some of them are you know bitcoin works you know it's great a lot of these things are just complete nonsense they

don't work they're not going to work i remember in the early days scheme some of them yeah i remember in the early days there were just hundreds of coins that were derivative of bitcoin and people were just trading between them. And it was nonsense. It was like they were all basically just slight alterations of Bitcoin. For some reason, people bought. The craziest thing was when there would be a coin that was the lowest possible value it could be, like an, you know, eighth decimal point of a cent. So if you bought a ton of it, it could only double.

So people would do it. So people would put like a thousand bucks into the most worthless thing possible because at the very least, you sold it and got your money back because it couldn't go any lower. It's the weirdest thing. And then if it went up to two,

you doubled your money and you pulled out. Crazy back in the day with crypto. It was just weird stuff. Game of hot potato ponzi schemes whatever yeah you need utility i like the minds coin as an example because you use one coin on the minds network to get a thousand views of advertising yeah bill's been really good about making sure minds is like not not like what i was talking about yeah it's you know not treated more seriously than it should be.

And it's kind of useful. They didn't take a presale. Like the CEO didn't take 20% of the coins before they went live. They just all went live. He buys them just like everyone else. He has to get them just like everyone else does. That's a legitimate thing. And then they won't nail it as a securities fraud.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. It actually has value on the network. But then do you need crypto? Well, you got to be able to defend yourself against the swift payment system if they want to cut off your bank account i don't know if you need crypto necessarily but couldn't you just make like the mines coin you know facebook did this before remember when they tried making their own currency yeah i mean they did try and telegram did too no no even before libra i'm pretty sure they had like facebook coin or something oh yeah before crypto.

They were, like, tokens you could get for, like, the games or whatever. I mean, yeah, that's just, that's not even a blockchain. That's just. Right, no, it's like. It's like an in-app purchase in a video game. Yeah, and it's like having gems in Zelda, you know, but you can use them on Facebook. Yeah. It's my understanding Diablo 2 gold was actually, like like a usable currency in some countries for a while.

Oh, yeah. World of Warcraft gold also. That actually had value because people wanted it, so they were farming it and selling it. But now World of Warcraft allows you to just buy gold. You buy a token that gives someone a month of gameplay, and then they spend 20,000 gold on it. So then the economy is totally manipulated. You know, I just want to say this. Guys, if you like,

if you're not a fan of communism, if you want to explain inflation to somebody, just introduce them to World of Warcraft, or if you know any socialists who play, just ask them, have they ever noticed why it makes no sense that linen costs like 30 gold.

So let me simplify this for you guys. You don't need to be a fan of video games or anything like that to understand why this is important or how it's a good reference for people. In the early days of World of Warcraft, there's a game mechanic called Professions. So when you go out and you're fighting bandits and then they die, you take their clothes. You get linen cloth. You can then use that cloth to make armor or you can do leather

working. You kill a boar and then you skin it, take it to leather. It used to be worthless because the value of the item you got was comparable to the level you were. If you just started the game and it's easy to kill these things, it's not very valuable now, is it? But then they rolled out the mass printing of currency by allowing you to buy money. So if you start the game, you can be like, I want to buy the best item. So I'm going to give hard US cash to just have all the gold I want without doing any work for it. Well, what ends up happening is now the lowest level items cost obscene amounts of money if you start the game off you'll have no way of making that money i guess you it's hyperinflation

you get the land and then you sell it for a bunch of money and then the economy makes literally no sense anymore that's what the mass printing of money does makes everything costs more and world of warcraft is the easiest way to make these young gen z or millennial socialists understand it let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and head over to TimCast.com. We're going to have a members-only show coming up at 11pm

tonight, and let's hear what y'all got to say. Mr. Swaggerwagon says, Is it possible for you to get Elon on the podcast? I would trade the entirety of my wealth for that episode. Gotta have Ian also. Those two dudes having a talk would be priceless.

Your name is Iran. Yes. It's not Elon. No. But do you know him? I do not know him. All right. Well, you tried.

Yeah, I want to talk to him about terraforming Mars. I've got some ideas about magnetic transportation between orbital platforms talk about like regrowing the uh the coral in the ocean by with micro fragmentation and stuff i think it'll be a great conversation you know you know what would be a really interesting conversation if you're serious is why we haven't got starlink yet oh yeah um apparently it's not quite working if you're like on the road yet but that's what they're aiming for? No, they just announced it. Starlink for RVs they announced. So I'm subscribed to residential business and RV, and I'm like, where's that at? Come on. They said that it works best if the RV's parked.

If you're driving, that it cuts in and out. Still, but that's not the intention. But I'm just saying, you know, we'll get Elon on the show, and I'll just be like, where's my Starlink? No, I tweeted at him. Come on the show. Bring Starlink. Okay, good. I'd love to see it, too. I don't know, man. Come on the show. Bring Starlink. Okay, good. Yeah. He's not going to do it.

I'd love to see it, too. Yeah, yeah. I don't know, man. Maybe whenever it's up to Elon. Yeah, we're going to terraform Mars, dude. We're going to melt all that ice underneath the iron-rich dust that's going to then fertilize the ocean and regrow plankton. There's no atmosphere. Not yet.

All of that water will just drift off into space. I wonder. Yes, it will. I wonder how much ice there is there. It'll all go off in outer space. I don't know. Yes. Yeah, I think it got hit and slowed down, Mars. You need a certain amount of gravity to hold an atmosphere in. So

if... I could be completely wrong about this, but I was reading about why we can't colonize Mars. Yeah, I'm actually more bullish on what they call the O'Neill cylinder, which is like, you know, the hollowed out asteroid that's rotating. And you could do that in low Earth orbit and you won't have deaths

when people have problems on Mars because they can just get to Earth pretty quickly. But you do have a habitat that's exterior from the Earth ecosystem. We just need fast and light travel. We need to figure out how to rip holes in the fabric of space-time.

I think that's the Alcubierre drive. It's a warp drive technology. Yeah. I mean, look, we need more people like Elon who are like trying to get stuff done. Yeah. Because like if we're just going to wait for faster than light travel is probably not going to be something we get. Star Trek tech is probably not going to be something we get. So but I definitely would love to get off this planet.

Like I was always a big fan of Star Trek. Yeah. But we should just do what we can with what we know now. Space elevators, yeah. If we do colonize Mars, it's going to be underground or it's going to be big domes. You won't go outside. It's going to have to be controlled environments inside. Yeah, if we do seed bombing, you retrofit C-60 bomber planes or drones,

and you can drop a billion seeds per day of trees. They don't catch if you're doing it by hand, but so many of them land. If we can start growing trees on Mars. There's no atmosphere. Yeah, but there's carbon dioxide coming out of the water. There's not enough gravity to hold the atmosphere in. Get it? Yeah, I'm wondering if—

So it just goes off into space. The dust, the the soil or whatever you want to call it the substrate is also drier i think than any any desert on earth by a factor of like you know three times or something that needs to be heated up so that ice melts now venus that's what i'm talking about yeah uh yeah like cloud city and empire strikes back exactly yeah yeah they talk about how because there's very dense gases, you can actually build easily floating cities. Oh, yeah. I shouldn't say easily, but like theoretically.

It's a cinch. You hollow out large structures, and then you vacuum it out so they float like boats above the dense atmosphere. Right, and you have one atmosphere of pressure, and you have actually one gravity, close to one gravity. So it's much more hospitable than Mars, I think, will ever be. All right, let's read some more. We got Ian Hawley said, he said, Civil War drink. That's right. I'll say it 10 more times if you're really going to take shots.

Civil War. Texas Ranger says, Tim, should we bring back asylums to lock up those with mental illness who are a threat to themselves and others? I mean, we still lock up people who are a threat to themselves and others called the 5150. My parents met at a mental institution. That explains it. They worked there. They worked. And now this is called the 5150. My parents met at a mental institution. That explains it. They worked there. They worked there. They got married in the chapel there.

It sounded so much different the first way he said it. Everyone's like, now we understand. All right. Andy Staheli says, what is your opinion on teachers conceal carrying? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Lids is the reason Timcast works. Shouts. Oh, thanks.

I think everybody has a right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter if you're a teacher or not. Janitor or whatever. Even the kids. I don't own guns, but I like that my neighbors own guns. I'd much... Does the Constitution set an age limit for any of the amendments?

Do 12-year-olds not have a First Amendment right? Serious question. I think they do. They do some places, and they don't other. There's a case about the First Amendment rights of students in schools. What about Fourth Amendment? At least in the context of school, their Fourth Amendment rights are somewhat different. There are cases – I mean they still have a Fourth Amendment right, but it is reasonable to search them in a wider variety of circumstances than, say, a man on the street.

I mean cops can basically just search you. I mean like we have a Fourth Amendment right, but they can detain you and they can frisk you. Yeah, there's the – shoot shoot i'm forgetting the case somebody versus ohio that yes they can frisk you for for weapons and that and that people have said that that's been you know abused and all that but you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy as walking down the street that is a relatively uh relatively broad broader than a student's in a school is that terry versus terry versus ohio that's it i'm sorry i don't know about school but uh i think kids have a right to keep their arms same as adults i just think the parents have to be responsible for them and i'm not saying it's the way it should be i'm saying if if if you

look back at how history was kids were handed weapons you know kids would go out there's a you know in the field you gotta you gotta stop it's destroying. So they'd give the kid a weapon. And they would call up very young people to fight and defend their property from threats both foreign and domestic. If these things are to be changed, then they'd have a convention of states and change them. But I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's precedent saying children do not qualify as the people because they fall under the jurisdiction of their parents or something like that until they enter the age of majority all right but uh as for teachers yeah good they should teachers janitors principal they should all all of them the teacher could have an ar-15

on their back i think they should i think they should have a holstered weapon i mean the thing is if the kids can't shouldn't be able to go grab it but if if it's locked in a safe, maybe, then you're going to see a lot less attacks, I would think. Kids are not going to grab it if it's holstered properly or whatever. I mean, I guess if you have a rifle. Was the teacher in this situation allowed to have a weapon or not? In Texas? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know anything about it.

I mean, it's Texas. They have constitutional carry. Even for teachers in schools? I don't know. Constitutional carry, are there gun-free zones still when they've passed that? they have constitutional carry even for teachers and schools i don't know constitutional carry does that are there are there you know gun-free zones still when they have when they've passed that that's interesting uh there there are in texas there are certain um establishments that make more than 51 percent of their uh 50 plus one percent of their revenue from alcohol is still

you can't carry in and there's a few others really interesting Robert Muir says if we watch and do nothing they will win yes Boof says Aaron and Ian what's the biggest cyber vulnerability people face in 2022 that the average person isn't aware of

well I mean I would just 2020 things can get worse like we never thought the political censorship would happen five years ago and it wound up happening um it might not happen in 2022 but the things we should watch out for are things like they want to make it so that it's impossible to connect to the internet anonymously like we should make sure that that's all it's always allowed to connect to the internet anonymously things like like that. What do you think, Ian? able to do. You know, what I'm worried about is the executive branch of this country being able to say, we would like so-and-so deplatformed, we would like so-and-so removed from public discourse,

and Silicon Valley, a company there, having the ability to do so and obliging them, just knowing that they'll get a favor from the government in return or whatever, you know, because the government could not do that on their own. All right. Dang Lin Wang says, Ian, look into the government could not do that on their own. All right. Dang Lin Wang says, Ian, look into the eye of Sahara Atlantis theory. Critics who say it's false also say Atlantis was never real to begin with. Right up your alley. Yeah, it's the Rakat structure.

It's in Mauritania, Africa. Everyone should look this up on like Google Map or some sort of map, satellite map imagery. If you look up the Rakat structure, it is the ringed city of Atlantis. I mean, there is, with almost undeniable proof, it's about the same size, I think, that Plato said it was. And it's got, like, water flow areas where... It looks like they dug out, like, a canal to the water. I mean, it looks human, that humans were involved. You can see ancient rivers and stuff all around there that are all dried out now.

All right, Sam Whitehurst says, Anytime I have a philosophical dilemma dilemma i end up imagining tim and ian having one of their classic arguments representing the two sides of my brain love you guys and all your work ian if you're ever in florida let's start a circle man oh i like a drum circle i'm a drum circle i'm sure imagining it's not like an angel or a devil it's me and ian yeah for sure you're wearing all black we should we should do a bit where it's like star trek where seamus is trying to make a hard decision yes and you're giving him like a strong emotional argument i'm giving a strong logical argument yes that'd be funny all right

danibus x says as a longtime member as a longtime member is of patriots.win the successor to the donald we referred to editing comments as spez since that incident as a tribute to the head of Reddit. That was his username. But let me just stress that point for those that don't know. The CEO of Reddit was so angry that he was being made fun of. He went into the database and changed what users had said about him. Nice. Yo, that's crazy.

It's so dangerous. He should have been. He should like the board should have removed him. He should have been fired. I mean – That's what I'm – I guess he is the board, right? Like, yeah, that's part of the problem.

Like I wonder if these companies, these tech companies should even have a board or a leader. Like I know you guys with – right now we're starting up like it's a C Corp, the Fudo. So you're in charge. Yeah. But like at what point do you, well, it's not a social media network, first of all. Well, it was kind of what I was talking about with trust. I would hope that over time, FUTO, if we're successful,

we'll have enough of a track record that individuals can decide that the things that we kind of give a stamp of approval have been vetted and are doing the right thing. In terms of like the situation with Reddit, I mean, absolutely all these companies need to totally open up their moderation process. Like, um, legal legends did a very interesting thing when they launched where their moderation for their chat and legal legends had a, had a Legends had an open process for deciding who would get, how to have their chat privileges removed. There's no reason why every tech company

can't open up their moderation process. So we see exactly how these decisions are made. And the Reddit guy would have been, we would have seen what he did. All right. Memotype says if only we'd all listened if only we'd have all listened to richard stallman from the beginning we wouldn't be here you know problem with stallman and this is one of the most interesting i think of him as yoda the yoda of the tech he's of if the force is real he's yoda but he's like a troll like he

likes trolling people and he called it free software even though it makes it sound like it doesn't cost anything it it just means that the software code can be shared freely free as in speech not free as in beer yeah yeah and he's like ha ha ha you know he he likes that it's confusing that's the problem with that guy i think i love i mean i i have much love for the man but that's that's my criticism of why people aren't listening to him yeah he also never really thought about how to like incentivize programmers like like you should be able to write software and ask people to pay pay you for it like maybe it can still be open source but you could say like hey give me 10 bucks give me a box of cookies or whatever if you're using this software and if you don't like you should delete it yeah all right let's read some more michael guinness says i was looking at who is running in

my district in new york and i didn't see any republicans running i was thinking of registering republican and applying to run just for the lulz you say just for the lulz but this is how you win like there how many stories it's like the guy didn't really think it was gonna be funny and then all of a sudden you find out you win if there's if there's no republican running your district and the gop is at record turnout people are going to be like don't know don't care not democrat rubber stamp you'll end up winning so you know hey go for it christopher knowles says children fail to self-regulate regularly i think parental limitations of children is for the sake of

their own future self-regulation is parental limitation censorship. I think one of the challenges is at what point does the government act as the parent because the parents, you know, the government doesn't like what the parents are doing like truancy laws or curfew laws and things like that. Yeah. If you, if you give a little,

they're going to take a lot. I think for sure parents are censoring their children. They're deciding what they can and can't eat, what they can and can't watch where they can and can't go. That's your job. That's your job as a parent. That's one of your main jobs. In Chicago, if you're under 18, I think under 17, actually, you can't go

outside after a certain time. 6 p.m. Well, that's new. I mean, it's always been, I think, 10.30 or something like that. I just remember at 11.15, just when I was 16, I believe I was 26 days from turning 17, but I got my,

my curfew violation in high school in Chicago, in Chicago. Right. So the cops pull up and they're like, get in the car and they take you home. And then your parents have to sign off on it. That is insane to me that there are hours where you are not allowed to be outside because you're under 17 or 18 or whatever.

It's 17, I think, right? In Chicago at the time, it was 17. When I was 16, it was 17. I don't know what it's currently, you know, right now, but think about back in the day when it's like you were working on a farm. You'd go outside when you had to go outside. It didn't matter how late it was.

You know, you had to be responsible. Now it's like the government is just, it's a nanny state, you know? Yeah, darkness is a little freakyaky or can be, things can hide. All right. Bootless Regent says, I don't know why I'm doing this, but it's my birthday today and I would like to get a shout out for tomorrow when I am listening to this. Love your work. Shout out, Bootless Regent.

Happy birthday. Happy birthday, bro. Happy birthday. Happy birthday. Poor girl. The Man the Legend says, Bill Gates made his first billion selling dos yeah i think he bought it for 50 grand he he did a deal so my understanding is he did a deal with ibm saying i can get an operating system for your your home computers and they were like okay and then negotiated a deal like a dollar per

machine or some some something like that and then probably more actually and then he a deal like a dollar per machine or something like that. And then probably more, actually. And then he didn't actually have an operating system. He just said he did, and then he went and found one and then brought it to them and got the licensing deal on it. Good businessman. There you go. I saw they did He-Man, too. You guys ever see that documentary about He-Man, the making of He-Man? No.

It's epic. It makes sense. Yeah. Oh, we were talking about the original cartoon? The original cartoon. They went in there like, we have a character and a comic and a cartoon. And they're like, we want it. So then they were like, we've got to build it.

I always thought it was like repurposed Conan the Barbarian toys. That like they couldn't get the license or something. So they made it their own IP to sell the same toys that were going to be Conan or something like that. That's one way to do it, huh? There's also like an epic saga behind the Dolph Lundgren movie. Like it was just like uh you know from the beginning a total total uh mess um not sure all right rilo 704 says please create uniform linux software suites apps that people actually want that isn't a repackaged 20

year old program package them as flat packs i will pay you handsomely for your work okay well there you go. Great. We want to do that. We want to encourage people to do that, exactly what he just said. All right. Brian Buck says, would you be interested in hearing opinions about DEC and its founder and CEO for years that did not fit the mold of the controlling narcissist type, a tech CEO that maintained a modest lifestyle and salary and had one hell of a product. Interesting. There's also

that president from Uruguay. Remember that guy? Yeah, he was a farmer. What was his name? Jose Mojica or something? Maybe. And he had a crappy little car and he was super chill. He was like, I don't care, whatever. People really liked him. Yeah. Was he a farmer? Probably smoked a lot of pot.

Yeah. Louis Lechnatzatz the new president louis steve beard and says tim shadow please i am a disabled vet with a special needs family trying to move to our homestead property in alaska from washington state we need help with our moving costs thanks so much give send go mystical wolf acres. Mystical Wolf Acres. Good luck, man. Alaska. We need to occupy Alaska. We need to go there and start building. I don't know what you'd eat.

Why is there no bridge to Russia? Is that the most xenophobic thing ever? Like, come on. I don't think there's really a lot of commerce up there. Bering Strait Bridge. How far is the Bering Strait? Like 50 miles? If I recall correctly, it's like 100 miles to an uninhabited island and then another 100 miles across.

That's a very long bridge. It's inhabit the island. I mean, it's possible, but I don't think there's enough commerce for it to make. I think the island is inhabited. Oh, okay. Maybe. By like a very small amount of people. Very small the island is inhabited. Oh, okay, maybe. By like a very small amount of people. Very small, yeah.

Yeah. It's like a field of dreams if you build it. Bro, have you guys ever looked at the Aleutians, part of Alaska? No. They go far,

far across the Pacific. Oh, cool. Yeah, so it's cool. I don't know. I guess they have, on Alaska, I think it's called, it's one of the cities,

they do, that's where that show about crabbing or whatever it was. What was that show? Dangerous Catch. Deadliest Catch. Deadliest Catch, is that what it was?

Like, I'm going to risk my life to sell crab. Good stuff, though, man. Out here, yo, crab soup. Crab's everywhere. It's so amazing. Crazy. Cream of crab, man. It's so good.

We went to the restaurant. I got some. Crab's the best. I got a name on that Uruguayan president. Jose Mujica? Yeah. Mujica? Yeah We went to the restaurant. I got some. It's the best. I got a name on that Uruguayan president. Jose Mujica? Yeah. Mujica? Yeah, he was a farmer.

Dude was awesome. All right. SpyroFloropolis says, I can code your queued word system. I've submitted my resume two times before. I haven't heard anything. 20 years experience. Well, this project is kind of like a community project. So just code it and put it up, and then we'll shout it out.

Right? Someone said, call it Sources Say. That's actually a really fun idea for a website. is kind of like a community project. So just code it and put it up and then we'll shout it out, right? Someone said, call it Sources Say. That's actually a really fun idea for a website. Or, you know, if he really wants to get paid, he can apply to be a FUTO fellow and we'll consider it. How do people apply? So go to FUTO.org slash grants.

You'll see two things up there. We've got the FUTO Fellows Program is listed right there. Got the details. There's also the FUTO Legendary Grants, which is for people who have already done great work. We've made grants. We were talking about Larry Sanger's Knowledge Standards Foundation. There's more to come

on that. So you'll fund the Sources Say project if he applies for a grant? We will consider it. I might just do it because it's funny. Oh, actually, right here. Yeah, Duder76 has called the site Sources Say and that's the beginning to every post. Oh, that's brilliant, actually.

Yeah, that's pretty smart. Sources Say. And then what do we do? We'll create like 10 posts, and we'll name them, and then let the community go in. You ever see the thing where they draw, where they'll get like a million pixels, and then every user can just draw on it all in real time. Oh, that sounds cool. Yeah, that's a really, really cool project that they've done periodically.

And you can watch someone will draw the American flag. There'll be like 50 people all trying to draw the American flag, and then someone will try to turn it into the Canadian flag or whatever, and they'll be competing, and then one side wins. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I forgot what it's called. That's awesome. It's F-U-T-O, right?

Futo? F-U-T-O dot org. Yeah. And then you can check out the grants tab or slash grants, and it's written there. Apply by June 15th. We're getting towards there. All right. So Nine-Tailed Fox says,

Ka-fee-fee, not ka-fee-fee, ka-fee-fee. All right. That's wrong, but I appreciate it. J.S. Feller says, A better Wikipedia would allow users to fork pages and let everyone see all the forks, just like GitHub. The most popular forks will win out in the end. Interesting.

Yes, yes. What license is there? I think we need to look at Wikipedia as just a source of diffs. They're called diffs, which is the difference from one page to the next. If we just look at it as a source of diffs. They're called diffs, which is the difference from one page to the next. If we just look at it as a source of diffs, you could actually just fork it very easily by saying this editor wins and this editor loses,

even though the Wikipedia Foundation says the opposite. It's pretty complicated software to build that, but it's something we're thinking about a lot, and obviously Larry Sanger's looking at this too. Captain Tanker Joe says, Tim, I need you to do something for me. Stop calling diesel gas when referring to what trucks consume. It's either called diesel or fuel. You'll get persecuted out

here if you say that. I don't know if I have said that. It was an accident because I typically refer to gas as gasoline and diesel as diesel because I have diesel vehicles and gas vehicles and electric vehicle, singular. So when I say gas, I'm referring to gasoline. When I'm saying diesel, I'm referring to diesel. Anyway.

Funny to me they have solid, liquid, and gas, and then gas is a liquid. I don't get it, man. Humans are so weird. Gasoline. Yeah. It's shortened for gasoline. Right. Why do they call it liquid-a-lean? It's not gaseous.

It's just a word, dude. Nice job, Rockefeller. What's that? It evaporates pretty quickly. That's true. We don't call water a vapor. It's just the word they use. It's water vapor, not evaporate, evapor.

No, it's vapor. It's gasoline. It's just the word they use. It's water vapor, not evaporate, evapor. No, it's vapor. It's gasoline. It's a word. It's like when people say woman is derivative of men, and it's sexist or whatever, when quite literally they have different origins. Yeah, female. Yeah, male and female have completely different linguistic origins, I'm pretty sure. That's so weird.

Yeah. In Britain, it's petrol. In Britain, they think it's really funny we call it gas too yeah it's not a gas petrol joseph says not true tim i used to be a liberal when i had my epiphany it hurt i still remember my psyche being shattered when i realized what's going on crazy logan rolden says i am part of a youth program that betters the community, 501C4. That is in need of every dollar we can get. If we ask for a donation that is tax deductible, would you give us a grant? 501C4 is not deductible, I'm pretty sure, right? Yeah, that's a political organization, I believe, which makes it harder.

I don't know if C4 means overt. I don't think it means overt. Oh, yeah, it engages in politics. Yeah, I think that's the difference between a C3 and a C4. It doesn't mean that it is a political organization, but that because they will advocate for policy or a politician, it's a C4. That's why a lot of nonprofits that do political work will have a C3 and a C4. Veritas is a good example.

They have Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action. One is able to do operations on politicians and one is not. Confirmed it is not tax deductible, 501c4. It is not tax deductible. Plus, we got to put funding into our getting this news rating agency and fact-checking thing up and running. Steve Moliterno says,

create the Ianpedia app app which surfaces the wikipedia definition accompanied by a tim fact check label wait for them to take you to court there you go all right we'll grab some more what we got sherman panzer if a civil war truly comes to be i would have to wonder who would be our real friends and foes upon the world stage china would be just be they'd be like yeah yeah we're going to give you money you know this faction and then they're going to go to the other faction we're going to we're going to give you money and just fund both make them fight all right let's see where we're at Dorktanian says Cali Prime Aries are oh Cali Prime Aries

it's split into two words Prime Aries probably using voice California Primaries are June 7th I'm putting all my savings into my own business and not above

asking for help at givesendgo.com slash Cajun are you running? well good luck Refugee CA says why aren't police departments located where schools are? Cajun, are you running? Well, good luck. RefugeeCA says, why aren't police departments located where schools are?

Kids could better see examples of what happens when you make bad choices plus better security. That's an interesting question. Maybe it's because criminals are brought there and they don't want any kids. They'd be releasing people. Probably. Yeah. I mean, probably just the parents would complain yeah

all right uh diver 867 says for the love of god please someone tell me that there is no wuhan institute of monkey pox virology i can't even tell you that. Here's one from TheRealHydro. Oh, must be a first-time super chatter. The gravity on Mars, 3.721 meters per second. Is it squared? It's hard to see the little tiny thing. Tim, how da fa is water going to fly away? Please stop being a know-it-all.

My good sir, it's because water evaporates, and then water vapor leaves the atmosphere. Okay? I could be wrong about that on Mars, but I'm pretty sure I was reading something about that. Like low pressure. It would evaporate at a lower temperature. Water evaporates on Earth. I mean, I think it keeps its atmosphere

for much less than Earth does. I mean, I think they think it had an atmosphere in the past, but it just went away because the gravity wasn't strong. It's that scar, that huge scar along Mars. It looks like something rammed it and ripped it open and all the magma came out and covered the entire planet. So you've got all this iron oxide dust now. Okay.

Four billion years ago or something. It was the Great War. Yeah. Wiped out human civilization, and then the survivors was a small band of about six people crashed on Earth and had to rebuild, and that's it. They wrote a book trying to tell us everything we needed to do and understand to survive. They called it The Book. Yeah, it's the Valles Marineris.

It's this, I don't know how long it is, but 4,000-kilometer trench. That's the book. Let's call it. No, I was making a joke about religion all right let's see rando bunderson says mars has an atmosphere albeit a very thin one otherwise the helicopter drone ingenuity on on it right now wouldn't function ah yes well there you go i stand corrected i think you know i was just reading that uh it's difficult to maintain or something they said that it's a very thin atmosphere yeah that, that's there. It's like I was surprised that that thing worked, but it did.

Wow. Like because it is like something like one percent or one like compared to Earth's atmosphere. That's crazy. Wow. Good for them. All right, my friends, if you have not already smashed that like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends and head over to Timcast dot com. Become a member.

We're going to have a member's show coming up at about 11 p.m. And we've got some major updates coming and there's going to have a members show coming up at about 11 p.m and we've got some major updates coming and there's going to be something really fun happening in a few days i hope you're really excited for a funny announcement we got cool stuff in the works and it's all thanks to you as members so we're gonna um let's just say we plan on asserting ourselves in uh in the culture and dominating spaces typically held by the establishment and we have plans coming up the next few months to continually do culture jamming as marketing. So the first run is not really all that crazy,

but you'll see some interesting stuff, and we'll talk about it. There's going to be some updates on the website, some infrastructure updates, because we are working towards being more resilient to tech censorship. So follow the show at TimCastIRL. You can follow me at TimCast. Aaron, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, I mean, you've heard it a few times already, but, yeah, trying to make FUTO successful.

We need everybody's help to do that. We want to beat big tech. And that's FUTO.org. F-U-T-O? Yes, F-U-T-O.org. Check out the grants program, FUTO Fellows. $20,000 per team members, up to five of you. If you're working on something, a cool technology that you want to get started, let us help you.

Fudo dot org slash donation. Slash grants. Slash grants. Fudo dot org slash grants. You guys, I wanted to shout out the official launch of the Mines Festival of Ideas. Mines is doing a show in New York City on June 25th. I will be speaking. Also confirmed as Tim Pool.

Oh, wow. I got to see that. It turns out he's good. He's great, dude. He's really good. Cornell West. We got Zuby. We got Majid Nawaz.

The list goes on. You can go to, and I have the link here for you. It is festival.minds.com. Get your tickets early because this thing is going to sell out. And we'll see you there. I think James O'Keefe is going to be there too, right?

I believe so. Let's check it out. O'Keefe. Yeah, he's on the list. I think I'm speaking with him. Oh, good. Good. That's going to be a good show.

I think we're going to rag on the media together and then high five. We're going to be like, the media sucks. And he'll be like, yes. Boom. Yeah, big lineup. Seth Dillon will be there. Just check it out. Festival.Minds.com.

Sweet. Awesome. Very cool. I'm excited for that. Thank you guys very much for tuning in this evening. I was correct. I was completely inundated with tech talk. We'll put it that way.

But I appreciate it. I hope you guys learned as much as I did. You guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids as well as SourPatchLids.me. We will see you all over at TimCast.com for that member segment. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.