Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #553 - Elon Musk Twitter Meeting LEAKED By Veritas w/Viva, Barnes & Rumble CEO

Episode Date: June 17, 2022

Tim, Luke of WeAreChange, and Lydia host Chris Pavlovski of Rumble along with lawyers David "Viva" Frei and Robert Barnes to discuss the Elon Musk Twitter meeting leak, US Today admitting they removed articles for being fabricated, Gavin Newsom's foray onto Truth Social, Brian Stelter's short future at CNN, and Rumble's new transparent terms of service. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk had an all-hands-on meeting with Twitter where he answered a bunch of questions, and it's great. He said he's going to allow some pretty wacky stuff on Twitter. Now, we know this for a couple reasons. One, there were reporters talking about it, but Project Veritas has leaked the entire conversation. It's really fascinating to see a whole bunch of woke Silicon Valley staffers looking at Elon Musk and having to ask these questions, and you know they're probably just fuming. So we'll talk about that. I think that's significant because it looks like Elon Musk is going to be buying questions, and you know they're probably just fuming. So we'll talk about that. I think that's significant because it looks like Elon Musk is going to be buying out Twitter,

and that means a lot. But we also have the CEO of Rumble joining us because we're going to talk about Rumble's rules and the changes that are coming there and a bunch of other really interesting stories around the big tech censorship stuff. Gavin Newsom has joined Truth Social. He wants to hang out with Donald Trump, I guess. He says he's going to call it their lies. So that's particularly fascinating. And then why it's so important to have free speech. USA Today was caught fabricating sources and secretly purged 23 stories. So here's

what we're going to do. We've got a lot to talk about in politics for sure. Over in New Mexico, this one county is refusing to certify the election. We'll see what happens there. What does that mean moving forward for the midterms? Polls about how Democrats want Trump indicted. But we're going to talk about big tech, your right to free speech, why all this is so important. Gavin Newsom certainly thinks free speech is important, I guess. Not really. I don't think that. And

we'll be talking about all of that stuff. Joining us, we've got a bunch of people. We've got Viva Fry. How's it going, Tim? Who are you? Where do I look? At this camera right there? Yes. Viva Frye, Montreal litigator, content creator. Robert and I have an awesome Locals community, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.

Been working with Rumble to actually tinker with some terms of use for free speech that is going to be clear, transparent, and actually change the way people look at what it means to actually have a platform that respects free speech. Right on.

We've got Robert Barnes. Absolutely. Glad to be here. Here to discuss the way that the new Rumble rules will not only revolutionize the way free speech can work on the Internet, but be an open source that people can utilize, create a participatory process so both content creators and consumers can be involved in the process. It's a way that big tech can move forward in a way that promotes and protects the original goal of a free and open internet. Right on. And of course, to really help us understand a lot of this is the CEO of Rumble himself,

Chris Pavlovsky. Thanks for having me on. Looking forward to being on here tonight. This whole change that we've done is actually inspired from the community here at Timcast and RL. So if I wasn't here six months ago, I don't know if this would have happened. This whole change that we've done is actually inspired from the community here at TimCast. Right on. Nice. So, you know, if I wasn't here six months ago, I don't know if this would have happened. But seeing all the feedback and what the community is looking for, I think we're doing the right thing here. And I'm excited to be here to propose what we want to do.

Cool. We got Luke. Super excited about today's conversation. My name is Luke Rudowski of WeAreChange.org. Today I'm wearing one of my Tamer t-shirts that I think the Canucks should definitely understand well here. And it says, you cannot comply

your way out of tyranny. If you like the shirt and you want to get it and support me, you can on thebestpoliticalshirts.com because you do. I'm here. It's going to be a great conversation. No machetes this time, Chris, I promise. And thank you so much for having me and i'm also here in the corner not expecting to talk a lot tonight but very excited to hear what everyone has to say but don't forget to also head over to timcast.com and become a member support our work directly and you'll be supporting

our journalists i also just realized this too i never say my name on this show not once really yeah whenever we whenever everyone does introductions looks like i'm luke radowski and journalists i also just realized this too i never say my name on this show not once really yeah whenever we whenever everyone does introductions looks like i'm luke radowski and ian's like i'm ian crossland i've i never say my name so i'm like you don't need to know my name i guess you know if you watch the show people are like what's this guy's name they know my name is tim i suppose so uh go to timcast.com support our work not only will you get access to exclusive segments from this show monday through thursday at 11.m., which we'll have up for you tonight, you will also be supporting our journalists who work hard to get you true and fact-check information every day. You're also supporting our infrastructure because

we use Rumble for our cloud infrastructure and our video hosting. Why? Because we want to help build a space outside of big tech's grip on everything, be more resilient to censorship. And so we have a lot of other stuff we're working on in the background I often mention, but support companies that are trying their best to help build something differently, build something that's more resilient to the censorship, which is why we have this conversation set up

as we do today. But let's get started with this news about Elon Musk. And don't forget, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Here's the big news from Project Veritas, exclusive Twitter all-hands meeting from June 16th. The amazing thing is this meeting just happened. And then Project Veritas is like, we had the meeting literally the moment it ended. Leaked video of Elon Musk's address to Twitter employees about essential nature of free speech,

voting Republican and evolving Twitter. Quote, I think it's essential to have free speech, Musk said on the call after describing his affinity for Twitter. He added multiple opinions should exist on Twitter to make sure that we are not sort of driving a narrative. On the call, Musk was asked about his political leanings, his plans for layoffs in the direction of the company. He described himself as moderate, noting that he traditionally has voted Democrat by voter Republican this week for the first time in his life.

He also discussed his vision for Twitter, saying that traditional news media is negative and they almost never get it right. He added that bots, spam and multi-account users must be contained. I think an important goal for Twitter would be to try to include as much of the country, as much of the world as possible. He notes that he's not hung up on titles. He reacted to the news of Project Veritas publishing the recorded meeting on Twitter by posting exactly.

In fact, he was responding to Lydia. That's right. He was. I was so excited. The guy from Project Veritas actually called me. I was in Target picking out a birthday card. He's like, what are you doing? I was like, I'm picking out a birthday card.

He's like, oh, so you didn't see that Elon Musk tweeted at you? And I was like, that's so a birthday card he's like oh so you didn't see that elon musk tweeted at you and i was like that's so cool i was freaking out in target so i can only imagine the woke twitter employees who were lamenting libs of tiktok must be particularly irked having to sit there and listen to elon musk be like i think we should have free speech and put wacky stuff on this platform did elon musk not know that it was being recorded because if there's one meeting and given the content of what was leaked, you would say certain things knowing that it might be leaked afterwards. Although this like is a great thing to always just take for granted. Everyone's recording everything you say at all times.

So you don't say anything dumb. Yeah. Shocking. So shocking that you have Gavin Newsom now looking for the other free speech platform because they, they support free speech somewhere just not where they don't want to hear it. That's so weird though. It's like, yeah. So that's so that's another story we'll get into.

But what's the logic behind opposing free speech or being, you know, California has got a lot of skeletons in its closet pertaining to big tech. It's California. And now it's like, I'm going to go on Truth Social. I'm just wondering, you know, it's amazing that they leaked the meeting right after it's done. But those are some good talking points. We think the odds are Elon Musk is the source. I think a very big one, especially from the corporate media's response to this,

because according to their sources and according to the Twitter slack, the employees are very angry and they're very pissed off and they don't know how to deal with this larger acquisition, which they have voiced, you know, that they were disappointed with. So Elon Musk, just a few days ago, even talked about how Twitter is biased against half the country, how they're inactive against death threats against conservatives. He just voted for a conservative for the first time in his life. He also hinted that he's going to be voting for Ron DeSantis in 2024. So obviously what he said wasn't controversial. But for the people working at Twitter, for the people in San Francisco, for the yuppie Starbucks drinking flip-flop wearing yuppies there, holy cow, their minds are probably going crazy.

And they're freaking out because this is the reckoning of a big social media platform that's going to change the game. But this is funny. The Twitter employees are outraged over this. They've been complaining about Elon Musk's takeover. We have the leaked chats where they're talking about banning libs of TikTok. And it's like they don't seem to realize they are the snowflakes in the avalanche of people like Elon Musk voting Republican. It is the actions they have taken with censorship, with their hostility and intolerance that's resulting in Elon Musk being like, I don't think you're fun, so I'm going to vote for this other guy.

I'm going to go read the Babylon Bee. They must be thinking, if only we banned the Babylon Bee, Elon Musk would still vote Democrat. What's encouraging about it is that clearly not everyone within Twitter is so much on board with the nonsense. And it's a vocal minority who purport to represent the majority. And they're going to find out at one point sooner than later it's not going to be cool to do this because people are going to want an actual platform that actually just allows people to talk, not in hurtful, violent ways, openly to share ideas. I got to say, truth social is not bad.

So when I ragged on it because when they first launched, I couldn't even get in it. And I was just like, but what I mean by that is, you know, I don't think I'm deserving of anything special. But I was reached out. Someone reached out to me and they were like, hey, can we get you on? I was like, sure. And then I couldn't get on. I was like, this is dumb. I don't know what's going on. Like, it's just so disorganized.

And then someone had at Timcast and it was like a parody account. And I was like, I didn't care. But then I heard it was like number one in the app store. And so I checked and the engagement is crazy. And I was like, whoa, people are on Truth Social and they're having conversations, like more so than Twitter. So I'm thinking to myself, if people use Twitter because the conversation's happening there, but now it's not and they're just trying to destroy your life because you tweeted a joke or retweeted a joke like Dave Weigel at the Washington Post.

Yo, you might as well just be on Truth Social or somewhere else. I think Elon sees this. It's why he's desperately trying to salvage this. Well, Elon made public statements about this. He said that it's the failures of Twitter that led Donald Trump to create Truth Social, that it's bringing people there. And he also makes the argument that censorship is radicalizing individuals, as, of course, it's pushing people off to further points of the Internet. It's not allowing a real honest discussion.

It's making people's views be double-downed on instead of questioned. And that conversation used to happen on Twitter. It's not anymore. And we're seeing, again, just the politicization, this kind of radicalization of people from both political parties that are going further and further away from each other. And I think that's because of big tech social media. I think Twitter specifically. I think Twitter created this rage cycle where I knew this guy. I'm not going to say his name. He's a reporter. Normal guy. Used to hang out.

One day he replied to Donald Trump. Something like, oh, shut up. And he got like 100 retweets. All of a sudden he went from having a couple hundred followers to having a thousand followers. Oh, the dude destroyed his life and career. He became a Trump reply guy. And then he ended up getting, you know, tens of thousands of followers. And I said, yeah, but who's going to hire you now?

What are those followers good for? But it felt good. It was an addiction. That's it. That's what people did. They drove themselves off a cliff. No, I don't have a truth handle yet. Maybe I'll have to look.

If the engagement and the discussion is there, but I actually, as far as Twitter goes, I enjoy the discussion and the engagement with people with whom I disagree ideologically. It's the amazing thing about sharing ideas and fighting in the political sense. Well, Gavin's there now, so. I still enjoy picking on Gavin on Twitter, but he hasn't yet to recognize me. You know what I really like doing is I like responding to far leftists, but in agreement.

So it's like they'll tweet something that I agree with, and I'll make sure i'm going to respond with an agreement or adding to their point because that's my point i'm like i don't hate them you're like i'm not just going to respond to someone for the sake of being like you're wrong about that one i'm going to respond specifically only when i think they're right about something and then it's funny how their friends react and they're like you know no tim pool should not be agreeing with us and i'm like well you know i do so do something about it i guess it's the super double reverse cancellation if you agree with the people then their friends no, Tim Pool should not be agreeing with us. And I'm like, well, you know, I do. So do something about it, I guess. It's the super double reverse cancellation. If you agree with the people, then their friends have to cancel them.

Oh, yeah. It's the circle of life. And there's something I call Bugs Bunny-ing. You know how Bugs Bunny did the duck season, rabbit season back and forth? You know that bit? You know this one? So you got Daffy Duck and you got Bugs Bunny. And Daffy is saying it's rabbit

season and pulling the sign off the tree and then bug says it's duck season and pulls the sign off the tree and elmer fudd is standing there like who am i gonna shoot because he's a hunter and then bugs the last minute flips it and he goes it's rabbit season and then daffy goes no no no it's duck season and then bugs goes if you say so then Elmer Fudd shoots Daffy instead. So when you agree with them, they have to disagree with you if they're tribalists. So then all of a sudden you'll find these, like, progressives on the side of the fascists or whatever because, you know. Robert, do we know – is Elon going to get the company for a lesser price? Have they resolved the bot issue yet? That has not been resolved.

And so we'll see. I mean, the question is what happens to Truth if Elon Musk takes over Twitter and really returns it to its free speech roots? What do you think, Chris? I think that you have a completely different audience on Truth than you do on Twitter. I think these are completely different, two different audiences

and I don't think there's much overlap in it. So when if Elon ever does get a hold of Twitter, i think that audience is already gone and they were never there they're never coming back i agree i think i think it might be too late i think the segmentation of these platforms is upon us yeah i mean donald trump even said if he gets invited back on twitter he's not going to come back because he has truth social uh but there also have been accusations against Truth Social with censorship against people

posting January 6th information. That's some of the alleged information coming out within the last couple of days. And there is something, as Barnes, as you brought up, to the larger point of if Twitter does take over and allow free speech on their platform, people are saying it's predominantly going to affect Donald Trump and Truth Social the most out of all the other platforms. Well, I think that's where there needs to be. What Rumble is doing is the right way to go, which is to create clear, transparent, open rules.

Honestly, Getter kind of didn't. Well, I won't be critical of anyone else to say no one else has created the rules that Rumble is going about creating, not only creating those rules, but also creating a participatory process whereby consumers and creators can be part of that process. Create rules that can be open source, that can be mimicked and mirrored and copied by Getter, by Truth, by Gab, by anyone else, by Twitter if Elon Musk purchased it. And because these rules are designed to reach a balance between not making it a troll-heavy platform, but at the same time making it as free for speech and expression as possible, that heresy and dissident speech is allowed.

And that's what people wanted in the original free and open Internet, and Rumble's been taking the lead at creating open, transparent rules to make that a reality. Should we talk about the initiatives now? I mean, I'm excited about what you guys got rolling, because last time we had some very interesting conversations with a lot of other social media platforms here on this podcast. We had a very interesting conversation with Chris six months ago. So should we go there or should we wait for later to talk about these developments and updates?

Let's do this. Let me pull up something a bit more political, and then we'll get into why this stuff is so important. This is a story from the New York Times. USA Today to remove 23 articles after investigation into fabricated sources. The articles were removed after investigation identified stories of sources that appeared period of several weeks, began after USA Today received an inquiry related to the veracity of details in an article by Gabriela Miranda, who was a breaking news reporter at USA Today. All right. I'm going to pull up USA Today real quick. So one of the leading fact-check news organizations in the country has been spreading false news and fake news for a little while.

And here's the best part. Interesting. NewsGuard gives them a 100 out of 100. Fascinating. And they've been they've actually been fabricating stories. So my question to NewsGuard is, why did you certify an organization that was fabricating stories

outright? But Tim, they got it. They took them down now. So they fact-checked their own fact-checks and determined they were factually incorrect. So they should get 101. There's no fact-checking. own fact-checks and determined they were factually incorrect. So they should get 101. There's no fact-checking. There was just gulag-ing. 23 articles were deleted.

Here's my point. USA Today publishes fake articles. NewsGuard looks at them and says, those are real. Why? Because USA Today said so. USA is the fact-check. They fact-check a bunch of stuff that we say is bogus fact checking, but you get called a conspiracy theorist for calling out the bogus

fact checkers. I get fact checked for the most ridiculous, stupidest things, especially when it comes to memes by these institutions. And again, another thing to kind of understand here, go on their website. It should be front page news on their website right now. Hey guys, we lied to you. Hey guys, we fabricated

stories. Hey guys, if this was me... It is. It is. The top headline. There it is. Thank goodness. Thank goodness. But it should have been like, so sorry. We goofed up. We messed up. We lied to you. And this is

full transparency and accountability of what actually happened here. But hold on. If you back it up just one second. I still saw January 6th. I saw that too. That's not front page. I mean, they should stop running news. They should stop putting out articles. They should apologize.

Get on their knees to the general public. It's and I'm so sorry. I lied to you, but they don't. That's what anyone with any kind of reputation should be doing right now, because this is so embarrassing. And this is not something that's uncommon. This happens a lot. There's a lot of reporters doing this.

Brian Williams, another person who did this very publicly. This is why free speech is so important. It's obvious. I mean, obviously free speech is important for a million and one reasons that we talk about in terms of your right to go outside and speak your mind or your right to practice the religion you want. I'm speaking more broadly than just the First Amendment. I mean, quite literally, your right to say these things about what you believe and your politics.

But it's also your ability to share the news on these social media platforms. And when the news broke of censorship against conservatives, it was May of 2016, and it was Gizmodo, I believe, who said that Facebook moderators for the trending tab were deleting conservative sources from their trending news section because they believed conservative sources were fake news. That was it.

Now we have NewsGuard, which is one of their big clients, I believe, is Microsoft, Bill Gates. And they like to certify these news outlets. Now, I like it. I like the idea. And so I make sure all of our sources are always going to have that nice green check mark. But I will not hesitate to point out that their system is completely broken and makes no sense. Particularly because

how does USA Today have a 100 out of 100 if they're publishing fake news? How do fact checkers know whether or not a story from USA Today is real or fake? If the New York Times, CNN, or USA Today come out with a story and say,

John Smith told us he sold a boat for $100, they would say it's true because USA Today said so. See, that's not fact checking. They just say, NewsGuard, for instance, totally biased in that we just assumed

USA Today was right. No, they should be downranked completely. And they should be forced to jump through hoops, legal audits, if they want to get their green checkmark back.

They should be fired. They shouldn't have a job. Well, the reporter, I think, is getting fired. The whole institution for allowing it, in my opinion. Well, the problem is there shouldn't be these gatekeepers in the first place.

I mean, platforms shouldn't be gatekeepers. They shouldn't be labelers. And that's where Rumble has taken the right direction. Think about how irresponsible that is. Like, imagine putting a CEO of a tech company to assign other companies or other entities or other people to say what's right or what's wrong. What's true or what's fiction i mean you look at who am i to do that but that's ridiculous it's the it's the circular nature of it is that they they use their own bill gates having any hand in this whatsoever is already super sus

as the children say but they use these to discredit the other independent voices to then raise their own voices to prominence so they can remove who's the journalist it was like a version of russiagate where you where you use your own laundered information over and over again as as sources and citations so you have a bogus source come in and then they leak to the press that the invest the fbi is investigating it and then they use the press to get a fisa warrant and then they use that fact to justify it to congress there's a there's a list that came out today of uh prominent people who have sowed doubt about the election. Now, what does that mean to sow doubt about the election? It means nothing, literally nothing. You could say something like, wow, look at this story about the election. That's dumb.

And they'll say, oh, but by sharing it, you sowed doubt. So I made the list. Yeah, I'm very excited. But here's the reason they do it. There are organizations that fundraise off of this. There are news outlets that publish the lies. They need some kind of legal justification so that I can't sue them. So someone will make an opinion statement. Tim Pool sowed doubt about the election. How did he do it? He reported on a new

story in New Jersey about an election that had to be redone due to them finding a bundle of ballots in a mailbox. True story. Oh, but that means Tim Pool is sowing doubt on the election. So we're going to put you on that list. Now news outlets can all report the more extreme version. They can launder that information and say,

Tim Pool published or pushed lies. Then when I come back and say that's not true, they'll say I was just referencing this study, and that was my interpretation of it. Tim, good luck suing. It's happening on a smaller scale to me in Canada, but CTVW5 runs a story, a hit piece on Rumble, refers to it as a the darling of the right wingers, where you go to post COVID misinformation. They then demonize me on that show to make me look like I'm responsible for one cherry picked, let's call it a bad comment.

The story goes, publishes, Wikipedia, then I notice some people editing over my Wikipedia to say, it's time we get real with Viva's right-wing extremism. W5 showcased him. And then I noticed another article from the Simon Fraser Institute talking about disinformation on the internet that Google doesn't autocomplete. When you look up Alex Jones, it says author and not conspiracy theorist.

And they think that's a problem. And I was in the appendix that when you look up Viva Frye, it doesn't say right wing COVID conspiracy theorist. It just says nothing. It's the wrap up smear on a fake news level. I want to add to that real quick. So I'll put it in that loop. When Google Glass came out, it was very prominent because you could say, you know, OK, Google, tell me this. And it would talk to you. You'd say,

what is the capital of New York? The capital of New York is Albany, and then it would give you some facts. So we get this thing, and so I'm hanging out with Luke, and I go, okay, Google, who is Tim Poole? And it goes, Tim Poole is an award-winning journalist from Chicago, Illinois.

And then I go, okay, Google, who is Luke Rutkowski? And it literally goes, conspiracy theorists. That's it. I was going to make that point. I'm happy you did before me. I was going to say that. Well, I was originally going to say,

I think everyone in this room has been slandered, has been attacked, had the media just make up stories about them. I mean, I had my name run through the mud. They were just making stuff up out of just thin air. But let's think about this story from USA Today. What would happen if one of us did what USA Today did? What would happen if an independent media organization ran 23 fake stories that they just totally made up? We would be hearing about this for years to come.

Can I pause you real quick? Do you really think it was just 23 stories? This is what we know from their own independent audit. This is like the police investigating the police, which is questionable. There's a reason Bill Gates puts hundreds of millions of dollars into media companies. There's a reason that social media algorithms promote these trusted news sources that lie about almost every single thing. And I think even Elon Musk made this point today, saying that predominantly almost everything that the corporate media tries to sell is a lie.

Not all of it, but most of it. And I think it's fair to say that, especially with the way that our society has been abused and used by the special interests, that corporate media is just PR for the ruling establishment, and it's nothing else, and this is a perfect example of how they play by a whole different set of rules when we get criticized, we get slandered, we get lied about,

and we get attacked and vilified for trying to even speak up against this bullcrap. Politico is a really interesting organization. I don't understand how they're NewsGuard certified, which makes me question NewsGuard itself. Politico has, we've showed these stories before, they have numerous stories contradicting their own reporting. One story is from January of 2017 that says something like, you know, Ukraine panics,

assisting Democrats in the 2016 election is backfiring or something to that effect. The story was basically that Ukraine tried helping Clinton to stop Trump. And when Trump won, it was bad news for him. They then wrote a few years later that it was actually Russian disinformation that Ukraine helped the Democrats. And both stories are still live on Politico. How could you say, look, if that was the only thing,

let's say out of the other 500,000 stories or whatever on that website, they're all true and correct, but those two exist, you'd immediately have to say, as a rating agency, you are being stripped of being a credible agency because you have two articles that both say both stories are false. I'm going to ask a stupid question.

Is New York Times NewsGuard certified? Oh, 100%. There's still an article up there that says he dreamed of being a Capitol Police officer I'm going to ask a stupid question. Is New York Times NewsGuard certified? Oh, 100%. Okay. There's still an article up there that says he dreamed of being a Capitol Police officer. Then a group of pro-Trump mobsters killed him. Brian Sicknick. That article is still up. Wow. And one of the books that Robert has recommended on our locals community, The Gray Lady Winked.

You realize it's not a one-off. It's institutionalized. It's been this way for the last 70 years. They got it wrong on the Homolador. They got it wrong on World War II. They got it wrong on Hiroshima. They got it wrong on the Palestinian boy that was killed in the first Intifada. It's a history.

It's a pattern. It's not about consistency. It's about hierarchy. It's not a mistake. It's just the way. That's it. The only thing is we're now able to fact check and call it out real time. And then if we make one mistake, we get not just blacklisted, you'll get deplatformed. If anyone had done one of these stories, they would be deplatformed. Oh, you'd be banned from Google News instantly. They would never show your website again. For the longest time, this show didn't appear on Google Search.

It's the craziest thing. It's like, we're on YouTube. Then, one day, it was funny, I called them out on the show and then people were like, yo, you're back on Google. Someone watching at Google was like, let's put them back in there and loaded us back up. But it's remarkable that Google is the way people find

information. Over 90%. Yeah, you'll go, you'll open the browser bar and you type in a word. I don't even type in web addresses anymore. I'll just type in, you know, like what did I just do? I typed in USA Today and pressed enter and then it went to Google. If Google removed USA Today for being fake news, it wouldn't come up. It was a very good suit against the Biden administration brought by the states of Arizona and Louisiana that goes through and in their motion for preliminary injunction

details the degree of government collusion that's been taking place. Even under Trump's administration, he didn't know his own Department of Homeland Security, his own cyber institute, cybersecurity folks were already manipulating information, including suppressing information hostile to Biden and favorable to Trump. And they've only escalated that. That's why Bobby Kennedy's suit against Facebook is so important before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, currently pending. But this has also been government-created, government-curated censorship for the purposes of controlling the information

in the narrative. And that's why they fear Big Tech and independent to any kind of challenge to Big Tech monopoly is a threat to their gatekeeping control over the institutional narrative. And they are monopolies. You characterize them absolutely very correctly. For those people out there that think monopoly means 100%, it doesn't. It means 75% or more historically in American law, and this is over 80%.

Google, as you were mentioning, over 90% of all search is controlled by Google. Almost all news information that is read or reviewed or heard is dominated by Google. But, Robert, respond to the argument that people are going to say it's a merit-based monopoly, they've gotten it because of a superior product. None of that's true. The antitrust litigation details that. I mean, there is some degree to which this technology naturally inclines itself to monopoly in the way Peter Thiel talks about.

But by no means did they actually obtain this monopoly. Twitter obtained it because they said, we're going to be the free speech wing of the free speech party. They just lied. That's what they did. That's what Google did. That's what YouTube lied. YouTube said, hey, we welcome all content creators. We're never going to censor anybody. And they became one of the biggest censors in the entire globe.

And they keep changing their terms of services as you go along. So you agree to one. You invest all of your time, your energy, your blood, sweat, and tears into a business. And then they say, you know what? We're just going to blacklist you because you challenged the narrative. You questioned the agenda. So we're going to demonetize you, downrank you, and make sure that you can't work on the Internet at all, which is the power that they have, which is absolutely insane and way too much power for one organization to have.

Here's where I think the most important thing is. I think for all of us, we've got platforms or literally run one. And so the problems we face are particularly unique, don't exist in the general population. But for the average person who does choose to get on Twitter and say, I would like to speak my mind and challenge this, they're the ones who get banned first. When learn to code was happening, when they were banning people for saying hashtag learn to code, majority of the people who are getting banned were like small counts, people who are just, you know, posting it. The big channels were less likely to get banned. This is on purpose. They don't want to create a splash.

But there are so many people I've met and spoken with who say, I was on Twitter for two days and I posted a news story and they banned me. I hear it all the time. Now, think about what that means. Twitter will say, if they're on the left, give them some leeway. If they're on the right, don't give them the time of day. So when right-wing people come on, or libertarian, moderate, right, whatever you want to call it, come on the platform and say, here's the real story, with a link to a source debunking something, they're banned instantly.

If you ban 60% of them, but only 40% of the left, if anyone at all, you create this lopsided system where the majority of information coming out will be narrative controlled fake news and the people who know better are unable to counter it. That's why we need Elon Musk. You're right over the target with this one. It's the long tail that got banned that no one's talking about.

The people at the top, they were tougher to ban but the long tail really got banned and shifted the whole system, tilted it everywhere. This is why I think platforms like Truth have a completely different audience. Go ahead, sorry. It skews perception and reality,

especially if you're able to get rid of that tail as you perfectly described here, because there has been a full frontal assault on independent thought, independent media, and critical thinking. If you just go, if you dare to even just go against the establishment and what they want you to believe at that current time, at that current moment, even though it flip-flops

by the interest, whoever's involved in it, you are done with. You are not going to have a way to succeed or live online, but now there's alternatives. Now there's Truth, there's Rumble, there's Getter, there's Hive, there's Steemit. There's so many other different alternative different platforms out there. That's an old one. I'm just going off the train of thinking. That's an old one that I remembered. There's Hive. There's so many different ones out there.

It's also meant to tell you as an independent person that your view doesn't count, that your view is wrong. So that little person, that ordinary person, that everyday person doesn't have lots of followers gets on and has a dissonant information about COVID. Dissonant information about the election fornication that took place in 2020, has dissident information about Ukraine. They're told your view is not only disapproved, not only unsanctioned, but it's wrong and nobody really agrees with you. And that's why you're being censored. That's why you're being sanctioned. That's why you're being disapproved of. And that's why it's critical that there be tech challenges to this, whether it's locals, whether it's rumble, whether it's true. And I'll say, we're going to get into this with the Rumble terms of use discussion. But the learn to code, the rationale at the time, if everyone remembers it, it was deemed

something of a call to violence. It was deemed to be harassment. Learn to code for the journalists who mocked Middle America when they said, well, we're losing our jobs. And they said, learn to code. And when the journalists started losing their job, they said, learn to code. Oh, when we said it to you, it was loving a needle. When you say it to us, it's a call to violence.

It's weaponizing and bastardizing the terms for political purposes. Let's talk about Gavin Newsom real quick. We have this from the Hill. Newsom joins Trump's Truth Social to call out Republican lies. This is actually quite amazing. He says, quote, I just joined Trump's Truth Social to call out Republican lies. This is actually quite amazing. He says, quote, I just joined Trump's Truth Social. Going to be on there calling out Republican lies. This could get interesting.

My first post breaking down America's red state murder problem, he said, adding a link to his Truth Social post. Yeah, I know. Like urban centers are all in blue cities. But here's the funny thing. Twitter bans their way to irrelevance. And now a prominent Democrat is like, I better go over here to engage in this conversation. This is his second self-own in as many months, I think.

He tried to poke fun at DeSantis. But why is it a self-own? Because he's basically admitting that he doesn't support free speech on the one hand on the Twitter platform, but does support it and wants to flock to it on another platform. This is the same guy who tweeted out a mocking photo of DeSantis. He was reading books that DeSantis was banning, not realizing that the same dude in California are banning books. He doesn't understand the cell phone when it happens, but thank goodness that he gives it to the public. Could it be that the Democrats, the leftists of big tech who have banned these conservatives

have created a boring platform and now Democrats are going to want to go to Truth Social? What if it turns out that Twitter ends up dying, Elon buys it and then everyone's like, well, but Twitter is so last election. Truth Social is funny because Trump's on there and we all want to know about it. These journalists are going to have to report on what Trump truths.

Is that what it's called? He's truthing. He's truthing. So when Trump truths, that's an amazing thing to say, by the way. Journalists have to have accounts to see what he's saying, forcing them to sign up and be on the platform. Then what's the point of being on Twitter? It's not going to be newsworthy anymore. The people are going to be on truth,

and Trump's going to control it. Now you're on his platform, baby. Is that where we're going? It's going to be interesting to see if Trump censors Gavin. He's not going to censor him. It would be stupid for him to do, but it wouldn't surprise me. You know what might happen?

Gavin might get his butt handed to him on truth, and he might actually say, holy crap, California is not doing well in a great many respects he might actually see the truth on truth wouldn't that be wouldn't that be ironic this warrants like some kind of sketch where gavin's like i'm joining truth a week later he's wearing a maga hat because i've seen the light you hear the story about these moderate content moderators and feds that when they go on facebook and they join these groups, they end up getting radicalized. And they call it radicalization in the media, but I'm like, perhaps the moderator is seeing real news stories that normally get removed,

and they're not getting the filtered narrative anymore. And so they're going like, whoa. Well, that's the whole point of strategic empathy. It used to be you taught in the State Department, military, you have strategic empathy for your enemy or adversary. But the question is, why don't we teach it anymore in the U.S. State Department? Well, what happens if your strategic empathy leads you to be more empathetic to that perspective? And all of a sudden, you can't hate, say, Russia or Putin or somebody else around the world. You can't despise them anymore because you've learned to understand

them. And so we've taught teaching it so that people don't do it. And what big tech is trying to do is to not even let you have access to it, because once you do, people end up opening their mind to different perspectives. Especially over the last, I mean, basically you look at every Alex Jones conspiracy theory from five years ago, and we've lived them over the last five years in some form. And so all of a sudden people re-perceive Alex Jones in a whole different light. They can't afford that to occur. That's why they need people to never listen or hear that information

in the first place. This censorship is about controlling the audience, not just the listener. And I think that's what people forget about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not only the right to speak, it's the right to listen. It's the right to hear. Testify. That's actually quite beautiful, Robert. It's actually crazy to think

that Silicon Valley executives could determine what you could listen to, what you could be able to think about. And that level of power is godlike. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever watched a video that you thought was like the best video ever and you want to show your friends? And then you're like, watch this. Watch the video. You play it.

And as you're sitting there, they're not reacting to it. And you're like, they don't like it. This is really awkward. They're not laughing at it. Zuckerberg or any one of these tech people could could it's not just about negative it's not it's not about censorship they could be like this message should be put out they could go in and force you to watch these things no absolutely you know the thing that kills me though is i've been in this space for like 20 years and i remember these guys they're all talking about the free and open internet we love like free speech matters

and then all of a sudden in five years what happened to these people like was this just bullshit for the last 20 years like how did they just flip like that I sit in this chair now and I'm like I can't fucking flip like that heck I swear I don't know what it is

we try not to but look when the lizard people came down and implanted the brain slugs and took over their minds, I'm kidding, by the way, but you and I just won't care. That's going to be in USA Today tomorrow. Well, I had this discussion with Twitter's lawyers in 2016

because I was suing for Charles Johnson who has eclectic history, but against Twitter. And Twitter at that point, at least Jack Dorsey, was serious about the very same rules that Rumble's talking about now, putting in those kind of rules. Codify the existing law that will protect. There's no First Amendment protection for stalking or defamation or doxing and these things anyway that they were claiming they were worried about

and ultimately didn't go through. And the impression I got is the investors that invested, I don't think Dorsey was fully gung-ho behind all the censorship that took place. You're seeing that in his alignment with Elon Musk now. But I think for the most part, they went along with Trump. Trump winning wasn't supposed to happen. You have the authority. Like, I can't...

There's no excuse. And I look at them and I'm like... They all capitulated to the pressure of investors. George Soros publicly said he was going to go after Facebook. I mean, this is a guy who helped sink the British pound. Yeah, Saudi Arabia. And also, you've got to understand, Elon Musk buying Twitter has started people like

with the Clintons, the Obamas, and Bill Gates throwing secret money into shadowy funds, attacking Twitter, trying to get advertisers off of the platform in coordinated attacks, particularly when the takeover is going to be complete. So there's a lot of power, a lot of money behind the scenes that are influencing a lot

of things that we don't know about. But again, as you said, I kind of agree with you more. It's on him, but he was facing a lot of pressure. We have that every day, right now. I'm not going to capitulate to that. I'm more empathetic. I don't think they capitulated. I think they genuinely think they are suppressing freedom of speech to guarantee freedom of speech.

I think they've actually convinced themselves they need to do this in order to create a platform that's welcoming for everybody. If you have an open debate about trans sports activities, it's going to make people feel unsafe to talk, and they need to limit the freedom of speech in order to promote the freedom of speech it's Orwellian lunacy but I believe they actually believe it well it's I think one way to put it is they're anti-meritocratic and the conversations that rise to the top

that dominate or the information that does they don't want to so if you say something like two plus two equals four, it's not so much that they're threatened by it because they don't like it. It's not the idea they want. They don't want an individual to rise up through merit and hard work and good arguments. They want to control those arguments. They want to control those narratives. So they need to eliminate that element of it. Yeah, the problem is there's way too many control freaks.

There's way too many Bill Gates types. Just control, control, control. You dig into Gates. Let's go to Politico. 2017, Politico's European Union organization says Bill Gates is getting way too much power and influence in the public health world. These are public health whistleblowers. Then they disown their own peace by 2020 when Alex Jones and others are saying Bill Gates' agenda is going to be reflected in a lot of public health agendas around the world. And we actually saw it happen.

We saw Event 201 become a reality around the globe. It's because ultimately there's too many control freaks in positions of power in big tech and stock and now we have something called the bill chill where a lot of scientists are afraid to even criticize anything associated with bill gates or his money or his investments whether it's fake meat or medical procedures or anything that is tied into his money bill gates is known to have a reputation for punishing people cutting funding getting rid of money because his money's in all of the medical community almost and and punishing people for daring to release data or information that goes against his monetary interest. It's called the Bill Chill, and it should terrify everyone,

especially looking at our modern-day scientific community and how easily it could be manipulated by the millions of dollars that he puts into it. We're living in an age of basically real-life Bond villains, and James Bond is Alex Jones. I'm trying to think of a good rhyme with Fauci because the Bill Gates method is exactly the Fauci method. When you control the purse strings of the funding, you'll get people to say what you want.

And then the doctors that speak out, or whomever else speaks out, they'll get the... Yeah, this is why they're pushing the fake meat. The corporate media is saying, this is great, this is awesome for the environment. Well, that's looking like it's not the truth. It's nutritious.

Well, that's also new data coming out showing it's not the truth. It doesn't taste like meat. Exactly. And again, it's about just trying to reprogram people to acquiesce, to go along with eating soy and bugs and all this other stuff that is not good for you. And people need to really understand the influence that these people have because when the information comes out highlighting how these people were lying, manipulating and marketing their products through science,

when people call it out, we get censored, we get attacked, and then we get downranked in the algorithm, demonetized, and shut off from the Internet. They're trying to plug everybody into the matrix, man. They can't have you handing out red pills, Luke. Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, it's been an uphill battle for a very long time. I mean, you've been there with me.

You took a different route. You were the first to get demonetized on YouTube. Yeah, yeah, one of the first channels. It wasn't even yellow. They just took off the money sign and I was like, what is this? Does anyone know what's happening here? No one knew.

Yellow didn't, so before YouTube had demonetization, right? So for those that aren't familiar, you go on YouTube and in the studio, you upload a video and there will be a green dollar sign. That means you've got ads. If it turns yellow, it means you're limited. If it turns red with a line through it, the ads have been removed or can be grayed out and say not eligible. Before any of that, it was just a green dollar sign saying it hasn't been turned on. I'm sitting and talking to Luke and he's like, what happened? He looks at his video and the dollar sign is gone.

And then he has to go back in the video and turn it on again, and it comes back. Because YouTube didn't actually have a plan for demonetization. So to demonetize Luke, they manually did it. And there was options to not even turn the money on. And they got rid of that option. I was like, wait, what's going on here? I made public posts about this. I made videos about this.

I was like, is this what's going on here? I made public posts about this. I made videos about this. I was like, is this happening to anyone else? No. And this was before the major wave of them just attacking people's livelihoods and trying to also, this is another underhanded thing that they're doing because they're also incentivizing people to talk about particular issues or have stances on particular issues because they know it's going to give them money. They know they're going to be able to monetize content. If they say this, they know if they counter it, they're going to lose money. I just want to point out that from 10 years ago when they were trying to destroy your YouTube channel because you were going up to prominent individuals and questioning them and challenging them, Ben Bernanke several times, was he chair of the Federal Reserve?

Yeah, a whole bunch of them. So 10 years later, your face is on a Times Square billboard. I know. So the way I see it is we keep pushing back. We keep challenging these things, and we're going to keep winning. Well, the other thing is you know that by the subjects that they're targeting, whatever they tinker with the algorithm is the unwelcome discussion of the day. You know that it's not what they're telling you. The January 6th committee hearings, I've been live streaming it in as much as it's been tedious and soul crushing uh the first one i put up got

demonetized you know as i'm five minutes into the stream demonetized fine i ask for remonetization it gets manually uh approved for monetization good i'm all happy i checked just for the fluke of it a day later it's been age restricted and and re-demonetized i was like you guys you just approved it yesterday but you know that this is were you debunking i was commentating but it got manually approved after it got it got remonetized after manual approval and i was like you can't a day later after you said it was good after manual review say it's not good and you just know it's a subject they want to control the narrative on and that's their way of doing it soft censorship they say don't talk about it because you won't get paid for it oh by the way you're not getting

paid for it so we're not gonna we're not gonna promote it because we're not making money on it and that's how they just control the narrative through the soft indirect and hard censorship of demonetization yep and and and it's what I was mentioning earlier about how they'll censor 60% of the right and only a small portion of the left so that it creates a lopsided narrative where the left gets to say more than the right does, hoping that it skews politics in that direction. With demonetization, left-wing channels get demonetized less than the right does. Many people on the right have been banned and booted, sometimes not even warning. Restricting the access to funding does the same thing. You make sure certain ideas can't survive. But I will tell you this.

They are losing. They're losing. That's why I mentioned, you know, Luke, they tried destroying his YouTube channel, and now he's on one of the biggest billboards in Times Square. And that's why I wanted to do it, to make that statement, to make that point, because we can. Because they're not going to win this one. Free speech is going to win. Well, when your gatekeeping is so desperate that you have to gatekeep to protect Amber Heard, and you're just discrediting yourself on a constant, continuous basis,

though it won't be long before YouTube comes after Latu, because they showed independent information, independently streaming trials, people like Nick Riccata, people like Emily Baker, people like LegalBytes, that whole crowd, that, okay, people can come to their own independent conclusions. They don't have to rely on the Washington Post's interpretation of events. And it turns out the Washington Post put a liar and a defamer on their front opinion pages for a fake story.

And to continue to make Amber Heard the symbol of Me Too, if you wanted to destroy Me Too, that's what you would try to do. And yet they continue to do so. And instead, they're going to try to probably go after demonetization. That's their theory. Their theory is, oh, these people must have taken Johnny Depp's side not because the facts were overwhelming his side, but because they got super-taxed.

You see the Taylor Loren story? Yes. I mean, infamous libeler. Nobody libeled. She libeled Arianna Jacobs. Influences. Oh, back a ways. And she's not political at all. She libeled Arianna Jacobs. Influences. A back a ways. And she's not political at all.

She's just somebody that was an economic competitor to certain key people in Hollywood who were aligned with Taylor Lorenz. And just one thing. David Mamet had a great expression or a great saying. Every fear hides a wish. Robert, in that fear might be a wish. Come after LawTube. I don't think they will. Because they might get sued if they try to mess,

you know, try to... We're going after 50 lawyers all at once. Let's see what happens. And there's a community there. But like, Taylor Lorenz, Washington Post, it was Washington Post, right?

Went after Alita, LegalBytes, Emily D. Baker. And their criticism? They're making money. Right. Hey, you know what? They're making money and they're making lots of it,

probably more than you because of their merit. She called them radicalized for commenting on a pop culture civil court case. That is insane. Women. They're two women who took the side of Johnny Depp, and they're calling them misogynists. Johnny Depp who threatened the president. It's not like he's associated with the right. I mean, this is a guy that's been part of the strong left.

But it's just Amber Heard's story was clearly fake from day one. I mean, it was clear the British courts were intimidated by the court of public opinion. That's why they issued that ruling. Anybody who followed that case knew that ruling made no sense. And what is the whole – I mean, that was a Fairfax jury. That was a liberal democratic jury. Right down the street, not that far away. No, it was like the idea that this had anything to do with politics,

but it shows their gatekeeping obsession is that you can never dissent from our viewpoint, and if you do, you have to be crushed. I just want to say what little credibility Taylor Lorenz may have had when out the window when she accused YouTubers of being radicalized for commenting on pop culture. Yeah. What do you – I'm sorry, but like commenting on pop culture is the most generic, normal American thing. It's like TMZ. It's gossip magazines.

People being like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, movie stars. Let me give you my opinions. And people being like, well, I think that's radicalization because – I'm sorry. If you want to talk about like white nationalists and stuff, talk about radicalization, I'm listening. But when you claim that commenting on Johnny Depp was radicalizing, you have been radicalized. I'm just like a female, a female practicing attorney commenting on a on a trial is radicalizing. I mean, it's it is she she lost credibility a long time ago. But again, USA Today, how are they still certified?

Taylor Lorenz, how is she still employed or getting contracts? Can you can you imagine being one of these veteran reporters of the Washington Post? You're there for 20 years, and you're just dreaming of that day that you can be like Woodward and Bernstein, and you're going to get that big story. And over the past 10 years, past eight years, it's been really kind of, oh, it's just getting weird. And then they hire this high-paid millennial who just writes garbage conflict of interest news and nonsense. And you're like, that's it. That's the talent. That's the big money.

How could you? Oh, you've got to quit. Well, or you end up subject, like the one reporter did, to being potentially doxxed by his own fellow workers for making a joke. That's right. The sense of the personal attacks that just escalated. I mean, what we're seeing, you look at the White House. I remember Cernovich when he went there. He was like, these are all kids. These are all 20-year-olds.

They have no clue about the real world. Oh, yeah. We had someone on the show once who said that they weren't familiar with Joe Biden's administration because they were like a young teenager. I was like, oh. That's why you voted for him. I'm 36.

I remember what it was like 10 years ago. I remember what the Obama administration was doing in the Middle East. So when Joe Biden comes around, I'm like, eh, none of that. But you were 12. So you had no idea what happened. But now you're old enough to vote, so you do. Well, you're seeing some of the old left that's coming back up. That's with Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald.

That's actually resurfacing in the Pope Bill Maher in the post-Trump era, now that they're past TDS, who are just discovering, oh, wow, Joe Biden's really a warmonger. He's actually been a warmonger for 30 years, but they're rediscovering this. He's a corrupt corporate hack for 30 years, and finally he's being exposed as such. We had Dennis Prager on the other day, and he was saying that he's not going to, you know, fault Bill Maher for to fault Bill Maher for being a liberal but trying and calling things out. So give him the space. I think it's a fair point. Bill Maher has called out a lot of the woke craziness.

And so as a media personality, I can respect that. I just wish the guy would read the news. Yeah, exactly. He comments on it without reading it, and that's just crazy. A week after Covington happens, he's still wrong about it. And I'm like, and the audience is cheering? Exactly. Let me pull up this story from John Nicosia.

Source, Stelter is down to weeks, if not days, left at CNN. They go on, he is everything that reminds the new owners of the Zucker era

they desperately want to get past. They continue. Management is confident Stelter is the one sharing the internal pushback to fellow media reporters while simultaneously stirring discontent

within the ranks. Looks like we've got some more here. He said at 1.49 p.m. February 2nd, 2022. I'm sorry, February 2nd, 2022. Two sources,

former CNN Zucker's girlfriend Alison Gallust will not be staying on with the network once dust settles. And then he publishes on February 20th, she resigns.

So he's basically saying he was right then. Brian Stelter may be on the way out at CNN. I bring him up along with this Taylor Loren story because, like I mentioned, I'm just going to say it again. There is a big picture of Luke Rutkowski in the middle of Times Square on one of the biggest billboards. How is that for winning and pushing back on the elites and telling them that we are taking these spaces?

To see these people getting the boot, to see their credibility in the gutter? It's a good day. Daily Wire had a story on that article, and I think your tweet response to this was in there. And I noticed mine was as well because I got a Google alert. There's a part of me. I genuinely feel bad for Stelter. Stelter? Stelter.

Stelter. I genuinely feel bad for Stelter. Stelter? Stelter. Stelter. I genuinely feel bad for him to some extent. But he has demonstrated actual malice. He demonstrated malice with that kid who asked him the question recently at... Oh, yeah, the high school kid? The high school kid. I feel terrible. He came on the show for an interview.

I won't remember his name. Puts on a smiley face. Oh, yeah, we really have to work better on this as the media and then gives them the cold shoulder when the cameras aren't running so they're liars but my analogy was that you know it's a natural it comes from real life experience in our country place my parents cottage we had most problem and we put out a bucket of a bucket with some bird seed in it and a way for the mice to get up they got up they fell, they didn't get back out. They were all happy until they ran out of food.

Then they started eating each other. Literally. So this is like mice in a bucket. They'll play with each other when there's enough food to eat. And then when the food starts going short, they literally start eating each other. No honor among scoundrels

and it couldn't happen to a better industry. Yeah, man. I got to say, I agree. We're watching the downward spiral, man. Yeah. Independent media is going to take over. It is taking over. The stuff I see in the background of what's happening, people from these types of organizations coming to us wanting to go the independent route, the world is changing.

And a lot of these organizations don't see it quite yet. But there are some individuals in some of these organizations that do, and they're starting to reach out. And this is something that's going to, I think, accelerate a lot in the next six months to a year, especially over the next two, three years. Independent media will take over. It's inevitable. I definitely agree with you because the more they try to suppress the truth,

the more they promote the truth tellers. But it's even talent at these organizations that are starting to realize this. And they're starting to realize they're restricted. And they want to have a show like Tim's. It's happening. In three years, it's going to be Wednesday. It's going to be Thursday at 9 a.m. And I'm going to be like, hey, Luke, that Thor 6 is coming out.

Do you want to go catch it over at the local AMC? And Luke's going to be like, oh, okay, we'll catch that Thursday preview. And we're going to show up. We're going to walk up to the counter to get some snow caps. And Brian's going to turn around and be like, would you like anything else with that? He'll be fine. He made a lot of money. The one thing is Chris probably had no idea

10 years ago when you started Rumble. You, for the next five years, are going to be number one target because you're starting something which is going to be the platform for the independent voices who are being snuffed out, pushed out, and censored on what had hitherto been the free speech

platforms. Are you up for the battle? I better be. I better be. Well, I love what I do. I love this space, and I really strongly believe in it. So absolutely. Did you guys see that smear piece about Florida?

Like the far right is moving to Florida. Which one? Oh, yeah. I've seen a few of those. They're all similar smear pieces. Like every week there's one, I think. I just typed in Brian Stetler into Brave Search, and one of the articles that comes up is from the New York Post

talking about how his reliable sources... First of all, why would you name a show like that when you're such a propagandist? That's why! But it's titled, Reliable Sources on CNN Draws Lowest Ratings Since 2019. So they're feeling it. I mean, it's not popular.

He got 73,000 viewers in the key demographic. That's how many views I get when I post a video of chickens outside. Tim, you had 40,000 people watching an empty studio for two and a half hours last week. I mean, and generating revenue while it happens. I mean, it's nuts. People want to support quality.

The people who can't succeed on a merit-based system want to suppress that quality. Exactly. The people who can't succeed on a merit-based system want to suppress that quality. Exactly. The people at these big journalist outlets, they have no merit. They have no talent. And so they rely on this gigantic foundation of a 100-year-old institution or institutions so that they can climb – they can be let in the front door, take the elevator to the top, and then scream their garbage opinions at the world. For the rest of us that have built up our own followings and done the hard work over time, it's because we've said things that have been insightful,

we've challenged, we've been brave, or we've just done the hard work, and over a long enough period of time, that results in a following that's merit they could never earn, and they despise us for it. Well, think about it. Collectively, you guys have more members on your own subscription stuff

than CNN Plus put together with $300 million of investment. That was horrifying. Think about that. That's insane. I did a live stream with Nate Brody, another YouTube lawyer of the LawTube, about the Jan 6 hearings.

And I'm pulling up articles, publications, I don't want to get anyone in trouble on this but relating to previous reporting by CNN NPR about issues

with machines leaving it at that CNN had a video from 10 years ago it had 1400 views on it and this is CNN with

they have millions 1400 views and there's stuff now there's a reason why they turn off comments there's a reason why they don't let you see the thumbs up well that was YouTube but it's that's the reason why YouTube did And there's stuff now. There's a reason why they turn off comments. There's a reason why they don't let you see the thumbs up. Well, that was YouTube.

That's the reason why YouTube did that. There's no question. It's to protect the weak and punish the strong. Well, the saying goes that any sufficiently unmoderated platform will become right wing. But the idea is that the right probably has a tendency towards meritocracy because the people who are strong enough to lead end up doing it. Their view of it is the people at Twitter have said this. They need to create the health of the conversation like you were mentioning earlier. So they view themselves as stewards of fairness.

It doesn't work. You can't cut off the tall grass, sacrifice those who do the hard work, and then prop up people who don't. And that's what they've been doing, and it doesn't work. It's creating all of these problems these problems i i i would flip the expression i i appreciate the expression but i wouldn't say anything left to its own or you know free speech tends to turn right wing i would just say that those who tend to fail on their own merits try to restrict the rule so it nothing changes in the essence except for the the the overton's window shifts to the left so what what was center looks like it was right wing.

But no, freedom of speech tends to go right wing not so much. It's that those who don't succeed with their speech try to suppress the speech of those who do. I would say in the last like three, four months, we've seen a lot of people on the left, perceived left, come to Rumble that you wouldn't typically have thought would have came. Like activists, for example,an sarandon tweeting rumble like what that actually happened she's she's on the left i thought right um so you're starting to see like this kind of this free speech thing happen on all

angles now it's not just happening with one defined group but many different groups well gaming whatever it may be any category it's it's happening with one defined group, but many different groups. Gaming, whatever it may be, any category, it's happening across the spectrum and it's getting really aggressive and worse. Well, it's why the Young Turks are now being critical of independent left creators. I mean, they grew up as being the Bernie Sanders, anti-Obama, voice of the progressive left that the institutional media wasn't covering. Then they transition into Trump hatred. And then they transition into being sort of corporate establishment media that they themselves used to be critical of, have to rely on donations from corporate and big, you know, billionaire sugar daddies on the left.

And consequently, their support is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking because they're no longer organic or authentic or independent. There's people on the left that could build a huge independent market spectrum like Tulsi Gabbard, like Glenn Greenwald, like Aaron Monta, like Max Blumenthal, Son of the City Blumenthal, like the Gray Zone, if they continue to do independent information that's reliable and trustworthy, even though it comes from a left perspective. The thirst and the hunger is for independent, honest, authentic information.

Exactly. Yeah, Kyle Kalinske and Crystal Ball, I think, are fantastic. Well, there's the no true Scotsman thing about this, is that left-wing voices who want to succeed, they move to rumble. But the second you do that, you become right-wing. So Tulsi Gabbard goes to rumble, right-wing. Russell Brand goes to rumble, right-wing. Jimmy Dore goes to rumble, right-wing.

And so Jimmy Dore is a socialist, isn't he? He's the guy who spat on Alex Jones in the 2016 convention. We were there. Me and him were in the room as it was happening. That's assault, brother. It technically was. But I mean, Glenn Greenwald, when you call the gay liberal

who's very critical of Bolsonaro in Brazil and the guy who helped break probably more investigative journalistic stories than any individual reporter in the last decade, you call him right wing, it that they they have a fallback position they called joe fast company one article saying you know beware right wing comedy from joe rogan to the babylon beans like what okay i'll take it i guess look it just becomes it becomes a circular definitional veer away your right wing even if you Even if you're as left as Russell Brand and Tulsi Gabbard, you veer your right.

And that's it. Joe Rogan goes on his show and says universal basic income, which is very, very left. And not gay's right wing. I mean, okay, dude. His favorite candidate was between Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, he's been consistently on the left. But I think it's just self-discrediting. When you get to the point where you're calling Johnny Depp supporters supporters right wing you have lost the narrative and you've lost institutional control

you are if you when you're at the point where commenting on a johnny depp civil case means you're radicalized you've lost the plot and that's that's the corporate press at this point there were people on our respective communities robert barnes and i they didn't they didn't care for johnny depp because he because of his anti-Trump statements and call for violence statements. But when it comes to these types of things, the people who are independent thinkers can see beyond their own biases and just come to the conclusions based on the facts. Just anyone who agrees with Johnny Depp, right-wing misogynist, even if they happen to be left-wing women, let that – Let's talk about Rumble. We have this from

corp.rumble.com. Rumble proposes an open-source content moderation policy and process to improve transparency and put creators first. So for those

that might not be familiar, maybe you're new to politics, I'm assuming. It's probably a small percentage of people. Most will probably know this stuff. Tim, one thing.

This is exclusive to you. Released on independent media, not through the typical channels just to add to the previous stuff right on so obviously for those you know youtube youtube has been big but youtube has banned people without warning youtube has censored information they don't like and they've done very shady things if we want to have open and honest conversations, we need to be able to be on platforms that are healthy and robust. So with Rumble, which is, how would you describe it? Video hosting service? The way to describe Rumble? We're a platform that's two different things, both video and cloud now. So we're going to be pushing cloud a lot in 2023, but we're a video platform, an open and free video platform that's going to protect the free and open Internet as much as possible.

Truth Social uses Rumble infrastructure. It does. Yeah. Actually, when they opened up the floodgates, when you're able to come on, it was because they moved over to the Rumble cloud. And TimCast.com uses Rumble's infrastructure for our video player on the members-only section of the show, which is Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. Sign up to become a member. But all of the hosting, the entire website is built on your guys' infrastructure because there's got to be – we have to build something that is an alternative to Silicon Valley's monopoly on the space.

And it has to be resilient to censorship. It has to be competitive. I think you guys are. So let's talk about what this move was, was trying to make the rules more fair better and this helps you compete but it's also better for the people yeah so one this was completely inspired by your show i we we you know we took a lot of flack with our terms and conditions you put it up there six months ago and i was like shit you know this thing hasn't changed for a long time and it went through a time period of eight years when I came on in January where things changed a lot. The way we've kind of built our track record over the last eight years is based on terms and conditions where we didn't move the goalposts and we kept really sturdy.

We didn't change the definitions of certain things. And our track record proved to be really good. We don't ban for things that don't make sense. We're not doing what YouTube's doing. But the term said we could ban you anytime we want for anything we want however we want.

We had this conversation. A lot of the rules were very similar to what we see. With the exception of all the misinformation stuff that YouTube talks about. So Viva and Barnes, you guys, what, you came up with a plan or something? Or what happened? So it's the same plan that I talked about with Twitter five years ago. And with Twitter, it talked about being amenable to and then backed out of the last minute,

which is you can create a space that protects a free and open Internet without being bombarded by trolls and haters and harassers and stalkers and doxers and defamers. You can have something that is a free and open space, free both from censors and free from stalkers. And the rules are right there. The rules are there in American law. The rules are there in jury instructions. The rules are there already laid out.

You're not supposed to have discriminatory misuse or abuse of a platform. Because of Section 230, there hasn't been a lot of U.S. litigation. But there are ways in which you can create rules that are a desirable community that maximizes freedom of speech. Like right now, you can go to Rumble, and if you want to, look, get independent free information, like we did an interview with Dinesh D'Souza on 2,000 Mules, we can only do it on Rumble. But you can create a space that is free for those kind of discussions, that you can have heterodox opinions, that you can have heretical opinions, and be completely free to share

those with your community, and at the same time have rules that are not only consistent with that but are also open and transparent. The other aspect of this was have an appeals process that matters. What frustrates a lot of people is that they get suddenly banned without notice, without knowledge, without means of a meaningful appeal. It happened to Eric Conley, Unstructured Podcast, and all he does is just interview interesting people. So the goal was let's create an appeal process that works and that's manageable. And that's where Viva helped create a lot of those because he's been through that process, knows other people that's been through that process.

Also make it participatory. We mean we've had American democracy for about 300 years. And the goal is to we've learned that an open, transparent participatory process produces the best result and best outcomes. It's not only about the free market of ideas. It's about letting the ordinary person participate, what we were talking about earlier. That's who often gets targeted for suspension and banning on social media. It's the ordinary person.

That's why these rules are just proposed rules. People can actually look at these rules and say, we see a problem here. We think this could be improved. There's actually an email set up that they can actually email in their ideas, their suggestions, their comments, make this process as best as possible, and ultimately have a community and content creator jury that will help adjudicate these processes. So the goal is let's create something that will work for the entire big tech universe. Let's create the model. Chris has been willing to open source these rules

so anybody can borrow them, anybody can copy them, anybody can imitate them. This is about making the free and open internet free and open again. The jury system, I think, is interesting. Mines implemented something similar. Mines.com M-I-N-D-S. It's so hard to say because it sounds like you're saying Mines. It sounds like you're saying Mines. Yeah. M-I-N-E-S. M-I-N-D-S.

They had a system where if someone posts something that is a violation of the rules, they have moderators. If someone posts something that is a violation of the rules they have moderators if you post something that's like illegal content like you know child abuse and stuff it gets nuked if you post something

and it's like maybe that's violence or whatever it gets sent to a jury of users and then they're asked to vote on it and then I'm not exactly sure how it works but then they can vote yeah this breaks the rules if it does break the rules all that happens is they put to vote on it. And then I'm not exactly sure how it works, but then they can vote. Yeah, this breaks the rules. If it does break the rules, all that happens is they put a filter on it that says not safe for work. Anything that would instantly have to be removed for like lawbreaking and stuff is removed no matter what, because that's just lawbreaking content.

But as for the community guidelines, the worst that can happen, I believe, is they just put a filter on it where it blurs the image and then you have to choose to see it. So you don't even get banned for posting hateful stuff or anything like that. Yeah. You run into the issue about people posting their own criminality or things along those lines. So full disclosure, one thing. Robert and I have been working with Rumble for these terms for a little while. But we don't like Rumble because we're working with them. We're working with them because we like them. And I knew Rumble since 2014 when I was just posting cat videos type things.

And they were just a video hosting platform and licensing agency. What they're doing now is amazing and important because people are getting shafted left, right, and center on YouTube. They're getting soft censored into discussing only the things that YouTube will allow them to. We've got to, when we have certain controversial figures on, and those

are, by the way, doctors. I had to do one interview specifically on Rumble with Dr. Francis Christian because YouTube, I knew it was going to happen on YouTube. But other people say, look, I want free speech on the internet. That means running around and saying racial expletives and whatever. And that's not what freedom of speech in the meaningful sense on the Internet means. What it means is that you have objective, clear-cut rules that are not going to be weaponized for political and narrative-driven purposes. So hashtag learn to code is not going to be tolerable when the left says it, but when the right says it, it's a call to violence banning. And so that's what you have to navigate with the Internet. I think we've done it.

Well, yeah, we've created the same rules for public squares that exist all across America. They have rules, right? You can't go to a local public square and do pornography, do obscenity, try to attack somebody. You can't do any of that. So we just took those rules. In some cities these days, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised. Yes, unfortunately, yes.

Have you been to San Francisco? Yeah, I know. Well, hey, there you get it at little kids reading book story time. Surprise, surprise. But the goal is to take what those historic rules have been and apply them to the digital public square and make it as transparent and open as part of the process. But people can continue to partake and participate in this. If they think there's improvements we can make, that Rumble can make, they're invited to do so.

This is the beginning of a participatory process to return the internet to its roots of being open and free. I dig it. It's great. And the sort of, call it board review or community review, it works when the community doesn't get radicalized, when it doesn't get filtered down through its own soft censorship. And so people who love the community want to preserve it.

They're going to preserve it, and they're going to preserve it so that they can all speak freely. This sounds good, but how does it work? How are you going to implement it and put it into action? Who's going to be making the calls about what is allowed and what is not? So it's a threefold process. So one is the actual rules themselves, to make them open, transparent, easily accessible. That's what's being posted, I believe, now already up at Rumble. Yeah, if you scroll up on the –

Because if you break a YouTube rule, YouTube doesn't really tell you which rule you broke or why or what you could do for any possible redemption. And that goes to the second part of the process. So we help first design the rules. There's also going to be posting guidelines of how we're interpreting and applying these rules, just using jury instructions, using things that ordinary jurors use every day in terms of the rules. But the rules are really simple, straightforward, accessible. They use identified legal terms throughout the United States for which we have 200 years plus of history. Now, the second part of the process was what you're talking about. How does it get adjudicated? How do you get notified of it?

Who decides? What role do you have in responding to it? What do you know who the jury pool is consistent of? Is that a publicly disclosed list? That's what Viva took lead on. Bottom line, you have your clear-cut rules. There's automated stuff for copyright trademark. Other than that, if a community member, a user, flags something,

there's going to be a first review by Rumble. And if they determine it's okay, it'll continue. There will be flagging for people to avoid brigading, to avoid what I suspect happens a lot on YouTube. People don't like your stuff, so they just go randomly and with impunity flag it. If people flag too many things that are deemed to be unfair flagging, they'll suffer the consequences. So it'll create a sense of responsibility. Will they be downranked in the algorithm or how will their account be punished for abusing the system?

Ultimately suspended and barred if they continue to do it. If they just continuously flag and wrongly flag content that Rumble and or the community determines is not flag worthy they'll get strikes to the point where they'll get suspended or permanently banned. Although even Chris has a big heart. There will be no permanent bans except for egregious stuff. It'll be a year ban if you violate over and

over and over again to the point where you break the rules. Which are going to be clear. If you don't like them that's going to be the other bottom line. The rules are there. It's not a lawless society. If you don't like them, that's going to be the other bottom line. The rules are there. It's not a lawless society. If you don't like the rules, that'll be your decision. But one thing you can rely on is that they're not going to be politically weaponized to go after one side of the ideological spectrum and immunize the other. And you'll be given specific notice on which rule is being alleged to be violated.

You'll be given an opportunity to respond, an opportunity to respond to Rumble. After that, if you don't like it, you can appeal it to the community board. The community board is going to be fully publicly disclosed. There will be content creators and members that are invested in the idea of Rumble as a free speech platform. They will make a review, and you give an opportunity to oppose them. And even then, if it's a first offense, that only leads to the content being taken off. What about sentencing? After you're convicted of breaking the rules in the court. And then there's a first offense that only leads to the content being taken off. What about sentencing? After you're convicted of breaking the rules in court.

And then there's a structured process. You have to violate it, I think, four times within six months before you face any kind of deletion of a channel. And even then, it's only for a weird time period. So four strikes because you were talking about a strike system. It's a suspension of a channel. There's two different processes. So one that we're really changing here that I really like is the copyright thing. We're going to give everybody an opportunity to take down the video if there's a copyright

or challenge it before an actual strike is applied to the channel. Unlike on YouTube, you can get like three or four strikes and your channel is gone. So we're going to give the creator an opportunity to appeal it right away without applying any strikes, give them a 12 to 24-hour period to figure that out. That's on the copyright side. On the policy takedown side, if you look at the policies, they're all related to unlawful conduct. But let's say you do a bunch of things that are wrong.

If it's egregious, then obviously there's going to be no forgiveness. But if there's nuance to something, then you're going to be able to come back within a year. What does no forgiveness mean? Permanent ban? Yeah. Well, when we first went through it, it was permanent bans for people that break the rules four times within a six-month period. But then I said I was talking to both of you, and I really felt like there has to be a way and a path to forgiveness. Everyone gets forgiven.

Well, even murderers. You can get 25 years after killing someone and still get let back out and join society. That is only based on whether or not you believe in reform for the ones you want to reform. But other ones, it's immediately permanent banning and being kicked out of society. Right. I suppose there would be a life sentence. You know what i mean and i think posting child abuse photos is should be like a certain yeah and that's what we're and that's what we've come to right so like but we're like i said these are these are just proposed we we don't want to make these changes to the community until we feel

the community is fully on board with it and this is our first step towards going towards that um because it is moving it's the first time we're going to move the goalposts, but I think we're going to move the goalposts in the opposite direction. And really they're trying to take their rules and comply with what they've been doing for the last eight years. Yeah. It goes very in line with our track record. The big question I hear from a lot of people is UI update update when, uh, yes, that's well, it's, it's on the iOS app now. So you can see the new UI on the iOS app. And the website,

that'll be coming in the coming months. Cool. So it's looking good, I guess. It sounds like something that we used to have in the U.S. legal system called the due process. Exactly. We don't really have that anymore. We have a lot of political prosecution. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of press,

due process of law, jury trial rights, all these ideas we've borrowed from to incorporate in the big tech space to restore the public square to the internet. So these are the proposed rules. Who's going to decide that these rules and content moderation is going to be moving forward? And are you guys specifically saying,

you can't say this, this political ideology is not allowed, this is okay, this is not? Is this the process? So what we have posted up there is pretty much what we're proposing right now. And we're gathering feedback. You can email us. There's an email posted there where you can send us feedback in what you like and what you don't like so we can take that back but one of the things i really want to do is you know i've founded rumble i i've run

rumble but i'm not i'm not a i'm not a creator that focuses on law i'm not i don't have a law degree like who am i to to really put this together that and the best thing i could think of is coming to creators that have law degrees and understand this they understand free free speech better than anyone else to suggest something is there a political ideology that's off limits like if like a group signed up you'd be like like no i mean it's designed if you're making illicit content so like the clan and the antifa tends to make illegal content, but there's no ban on the Klan, there's no ban on Antifa, there's no ban on anybody.

I mean, like one of, I still think the best measurement for whether a platform is consistent about freedom of speech is is Alex Jones on that platform. Alex Jones has had zero problems on Rumble. That's shown there. And even when Senator Scott from Florida came after him because they allowed RT to be on Rumble, Rumble didn't change their position. So even when the United States senator from the state that Rumble is partially located in came after him, they stayed with it. So I was only willing to invest my time if Chris was sincere, and Chris was clearly sincere, because I've been passionate about this for more than half a decade.

I've got to say, I think sincerity is great, but the reality is, this is the market opportunity. If you're trying to grow a business, this is how you do it. Take YouTube as a specific example, where they have, as a rule for content, we will deem misinformation, remove, strike, and penalize channels for suggesting anything that runs afoul

of what the WHO is saying right now. And bear in mind that the WHO, the World Health Organization, has, depending on the year, said both A and not A, or both A and B. And so you don't even know what the rule is going to be on the going forward basis. Let me tell you, I had a meeting with Google not that long ago, and I said, I advise all young people to start on Rumble because while the audience size certainly is much smaller, your opportunity for growth is much larger. You're more likely to find an audience. You're going to find an audience faster, and you're less likely to have your business destroyed due to arbitrary rules.

And I said, I've got to be honest with you. I don't know what the rules are, and I read them every day. It's remarkable because I have seen people get banned for one thing and not something else. I have seen a prominent left wing podcaster call for an act of terror and he got a strike. Is that it? I know another guy who had his entire channel deleted because he did black comedy. That's it.

He broke no rules. He was monetized and they and they just delete his channel outright with no warning, with no strikes, purge. This was my own... I've been on YouTube before I was really focusing on Rumble, but since 2014, this was my initial experience with what I call YouTube chicanery. It was the Alex Jones deposition video. All I did as a lawyer, total cringe, stood on the roof of my house with sunglasses, breaking down an Alex Jones deposition.. All I did as a lawyer, total cringe, stood on the roof of my house with sunglasses, breaking down an Alex Jones deposition. I didn't know that AJ was persona non grata on YouTube. I do it. The video gets like close to a quarter of a million views. Then they pull it,

or they demonetize it. Then they pull it. And then I noticed I got a term of community guidelines violation for hate speech. So the video's gone. All that's left is when you click on it, community guidelines violation for hate speech. And then it comes back on two weeks later and it gets re-monetized. Senator Rand Paul was speaking on the Senate floor.

C-SPAN published the video and YouTube took it down. Unbelievable. YouTube, you are psychopaths. And then let's also be honest here. If there's a big brand, a big business, or the corporate media, they get the front door at YouTube. They get walked right in. They get pushed in the algorithm. The trending videos, that's the videos that, of course, are connected to

the biggest businesses that are connected to their Google advertisement businesses and revenue. So there's already a clear bias. If you're an independent media creator, and I wanted to bring this up with you guys, when you're on YouTube, there's no way the algorithm is going to be playing you any favors unless you have big money. That's why Rumble is such a good alternative as well as the other alternatives out there. But who decides what's going to be in the algorithm? Last time we talked about let people see what they want to see. If they're subscribed to something, let them see it. How is the algorithm going to be shaped to what Rumble is going to be showing people?

How will independent creators fare in that kind of ranking system? So the way it is right now, it's just chronological. So as far as an algorithm goes, it's chronological by time. I think the important thing to do, and I think Ian mentioned this last time is have have these algorithms open sourced yeah um if we do employ an algorithm right now because it's chronological there's really nothing to open source other than time isn't there a challenge though that if they know how the algorithm works they'll game it there there is um so like the way you can game a chronological algorithm is just keep putting content out constantly and flooding the feed.

So that's one way to do it. But isn't that on the viewer? If you're flooding the feed, don't follow them. So you cut back on who you follow. This is how we were running social media 10, 15 years ago. But we all went towards these engagement-based algorithms that amplify content based on engagement. And that changed everything and changed the games. They figured out they can skew things.

They figured out they could do things. I think if you keep it chronological, it's helpful, but that doesn't solve the problem for discovery. So in order to have discovery of independent creators, you're going to need to provide some kind of algorithm and some kind of mechanism. And what we want to do is have that discovery kind of like in a TikTok format

where you can kind of go through and scroll through content and open source that algorithm where that algorithm will be based basically on how much you like a video, how much you dislike a video, and whether or not you have a preference for that video. So we're working on something like that right now because discovery is super important, um, to, to help find creators. And, uh, we should have something hopefully by the

end of the year. That's it's already launched right now, but it doesn't have an algorithm in it. The algorithm is very basic. It's based on likes and the ratio of likes. That's it. Um, and then the other way is through, is just making sure your search is, we would like to open source that as well, and making sure that when you find something, you understand how you're placed in search. You're placed in search right now based on time, the velocity of views, and the context of the video,

so the characters, the titles, the descriptions. It's very simplistic right now. And if it does become something more complicated, then open sourcing that is, I think, critical. But the discovery portion is the part that we all want to solve for because once you nail that and you give viewership to small creators,

then you really have something special. What about your Rumble's API? Are there going to be an option for people to, I don't know, develop on top of the software, embedding it, incorporating it? So we already have that. So Rumble Player, which is going to be part of this Rumble Cloud business that we're building, has open APIs that you can use to search, find, and embed into other platforms.

Cool. Sounds like everything's there, huh? Yeah embed into other platforms. Cool. Sounds like everything's there, huh? Yeah. Not yet. Not yet. Still lots of work. There's a lot of work. Nope, we're done.

We won. We're gone. I never understood what algorithm is more relevant than like and retention rate. No, people watching a video and liking it. I can see from a monetary perspective engagement even if it's negative. YouTube had the problem where every video started with a guy screaming smash the like button for 30 seconds

and they turned it into a game and then all of a sudden all the top videos were just videos of people saying smash the like button. But that'll self-correct when people start downvoting that crap because it's no longer fun to watch.

People wouldn't even click it. So there were people like literally just videos where a guy for a minute is like smash the like button and the camera's like zooming in and out fun to watch people wouldn't even click it so there were there were people like they're literally just videos where a guy for a minute's like smash the like button the camera's like zooming in and out and it would get 500 000 likes and people who don't like it just don't click it the issue it dominates the issue with that as well is like it will self-correct from what we're seeing in the data but the problem with it is is that you know you're gonna have a platform that has a genre of

videos that that everyone likes and then a new person comes on and it's a completely different genre they're looking for and how do you figure that out I will say one thing the fact that YouTube I said it before Robert will pontificate on this one day when YouTube takes down videos from doctors on the basis of medical misinformation, I consider that to be practicing medicine without a license that YouTube is doing, arguably unlawful, in my humble opinion. Hashtag no defamation.

Yep. I mean, for me, coming from a political space, the Rand Paul video removal was just mind-boggling. And they're giving out wrong medical advice that is leading people to be hurt. Their assault on one particular medicine and labeling it an animal medicine has hurt a tremendous amount of human beings who rely on that medicine for other things. Remember when with the Roe v. Wade leak, Vice put out an article about how you can take animal medication and use it to induce abortion? Yep. And then someone created a meme. Let me see if I posted it. Maybe it's on my Instagram.

People might not be appreciating the story. The same agency which said, you're not a horse, yada yada. At some point later on, they're talking about what's the word? Not even homeopathic. Alternative remedies. It's bizarro, upside down. To induce abortion through uh horse

medicine so yeah that's that's the level where we're at and they're promoted in the algorithm they're shown to everyone you search a topic they talked about it they're going to be shown to everyone in the general public yeah it's it's called horse pill theory and uh so it's from the political compass on instagram and like horseshoe theory the left so it's from the political compass on Instagram. And like horseshoe theory, the left, it shows the Motherboard article talking about taking veterinary medicine to induce abortion. And then it goes to the right, and it's the horse paste. And then in the middle, it's Bojack Horseman. I just thought it was a brilliant meme. It's like, this is what you get in the modern era, I guess.

But they didn't ban Motherboard for recommending people eat horse medicine. Please don't eat horse medicine. I wonder if the FDA, did they put out a warning on that? Well, I mean, the FDA is being sued because of their tweet about ivermectin. So they deservedly so. But I mean, when you have people like Dr. Peter McCullough, you're talking about some of the most well-respected medical doctors

in the world that are now being censored. Like, we're going to do an interview with them. We're going to have to do it on Rumble. We cannot do it on YouTube. We're going to gleefully do it on Rumble so that I can actually ask the questions I want to ask. Same thing with Dr. Francis Christian. We talked about this in the Twitter story, that these Twitter employees are listening to Elon Musk talk,

and they're oblivious to the fact that he's there because of them, because of their political bias, because of their incessant need to silence people they don't like, they have created Republican Elon Musk. YouTube is doing the exact same thing. They are taking people. There may be someone who says, like you, Viva, you're like, I'm going to do a video on Alex Jones and his deposition. They ban you. Imagine a new creator who's not political and they say, oh, I'm in law school. I really want to talk about this. They get banned.

They go, I guess I'll go to Rumble. Now, what are they doing at Rumble? They're saying nothing but all these big, prominent political creators who have been censored. Everything YouTube was trying to silence, now front and center for those people to see. They are pushing people into the information they claim they want to suppress. It's remarkable how insane they are. Well, they've done that to Alex Jones. All the efforts to deplatform him have just led more people to be curious

about what is he saying that everybody's so scared of him and has led to more people going to InfoWars, more people going to InfoWars store, more people being engaged than almost ever before. Their efforts to sign... And the irony is, I mean, Alex was seriously considering about retirement after 2016. He'd achieved an extraordinary number of things over a quarter century,

and then they decided to wage lawfare against him and decided to try to take him, deplatform him, and he's the kind of guy who doesn't go gently into that good night. And so he is here today louder and stronger than ever before because of their efforts to destroy him. And not just that. I will say, having spent some time on the interwebs, a lot of people are now realizing that alex jones was right more often

than usa today and when he says things hyperbolically he's still i don't want to throw my wife under the bus but when uh one of the stories the conspiracy one of the theories uh was that 5g towers are gonna mind control you and i was like oh that's that's garb when when you i when you understand that by that term it just means interfere with sleep patterns. It could interfere with a form of your cognitive abilities. It's not control in a sense, but when you realize that he's hyperbolic, but relatively accurate on some things. He would often take the story and then just take this little dot and stretch it out.

He would dramatize it in order to get attention in the rest but people pay but people would ignore the underlying i mean turned out they were trying to turn some of the frogs gay you know i mean i mean it's that well that was so so that's that i i love this story because uh the frogs gay thing was was alex talking about atrazine i believe was a pesticide right was it a pesticide and they said that it was interfering with the endocrine systems of frogs all that meant was the frogs were becoming deformed or malformed and then alex in his rant it says they're turning the freaking frogs gay and people people literally believe that he was he was being literal when he said that it's just no he was just doing an entertaining rant exactly it's much like trump that the uh his audience doesn't take him literally they understand

the proverbial reference to it. But his deeper truth that you can't trust institutional people in power, the people who seek power, like Michael Malice's theory, are disproportionately going to be dangerous people. And we have to be constantly on the alert for them. But, I mean, it turned out everything he warned about, you know, that they're going to use a pandemic to help lock down and strip us of our civil liberties. Well, we've experienced that. That unique things might happen with elections. We've experienced that. That the mass censorship was coming through big tech Well, we've experienced that. That unique things might happen with elections, we've experienced that.

That the mass censorship was coming through big tech control, we've experienced that. I think there was also something about medical microchipping. A YouTube moderator is watching this video and is like, oh, I'm going to ban this video right now. Can I do it?

Can I do it now? Can I do it now? Barnes, keep going. Keep going, Barnes. Well, it's just legal. You know, that's the beauty of reporting information in lawsuits, going back to Rand Paul. This is public-sourced information. So if you are saying something in Congress, if something is said in court, it cannot be the subject of a libel lawsuit or anything else if you're fairly and accurately reporting what was in there.

And so there's all this information, and yet now we can't even talk about things that are happening in Congress or happening in courts on YouTube. That's a level of insanity we've never dealt with. When the Rand Paul thing happened, I posted a video. It got taken down. And the weird thing about it is the video was still there. Someone messaged me and they're like, hey, your video is gone, Tim. And I go into my studio on YouTube and I look and I'm like, it's right there. And then I hover the mouse over it and the mouse doesn't change.

You know, like when you hover over a link, it turns into the finger pointing. It didn't change. I couldn't click on anything. It was like an image. And I was like, what? And then I found the Urox. I tweeted or something and the video had been removed. And I was like, they tried making me think that it was still there.

Something like that happened. It was weird. And there's a lot of dirty tricks that we don't even know. A lot of things happening behind the scenes that we're not even privy to that they're implementing right now that we don't even know about. There's medical doctors. There's medical studies that are being censored and banned on big tech social media platforms. That's

when you know they jumped the shark. We're going to change all that, my friends, and I think we're winning. That's why I keep pointing out that Luke's on a billboard in Times Square. So is Ian. So is Michael Malice because I was just like, we got to put people up on this to give a big middle finger to the establishment.

But let's go to Super Chats and talk to you guys. If you have not already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel and become a member at timcast.com

because we're going to have a members only exclusive episode coming up at about 11 p.m. on the website and share the show with your friends. If you really like it,

let's see what we got here. John Shaw says, why not genetically engineer dog-sized ants, chip their brains, and use them to build infrastructure like bridges, canals, and underground highways? Maybe I'm crazy. That is a particularly crazy super chat. Thank you very much for that. That was okay. They're turning the ants into construction machines.

They're turning the ants into dogs. They're stealing your dogs and building bridges underground Alright Jason Lindholm says damn Viva that hair Yes it has gotten very long The freedom fro will continue To grow The freedom fro will continue to grow

My wife said it would stop She said it would stop growing at one point in time And I said that sounds like a bet Conspiracy theory J-Mac says, buy coffee brand coffee so the quartering has to shave his beard.

He actually did. He did shave his beard this evening. Rikita, he said, groomed him. That was what they were doing like a joint stream.

So he shaved it live on stream. I was like, I have to shave it. Down to the skin or just a trim? Down to the skin. He looks really effing weird. I love it.

Yeah. I don't want to say what he looks like. Shut up, I love it. Yeah. I don't want to say what he looks like. Shut up, Luke. No insults. All right. What do we got? Dano says, hey, Tim and crew, love the show and all you do.

With the CEO of Rumble on, I would like to ask why this show isn't streamed live on Rumble. Also, Rumble experience is better than YouTube. It's an interesting question. I suppose we don't have a real answer as of right now, but stay tuned. That's all I can really say. Dennis Gregerson says, heck yeah, Viva and Barnes, love your shows on Rumble.

Viva, I watched every Trucker Rally live stream. You are the best, Viva. Are you going to do that reporter? What? Please explain this. I'm not going to sue that reporter. They? Please explain this. I'm going to sue that person. They wrote do.

D-U-E or D-O? D-U-E. Okay, fine, fine. That was definitely a sue. I was going to ask which reporter. I'm a married man, but I'm getting a quote right now. Nobody should jump into litigation even if they're convinced they are right, but at some point enough is enough.

Even in their correction of the story, they then referred to the video that was allegedly removed from YouTube as a COVID video to persist in their... We'll be making a statement as well shortly. To persist in their smear against Rumble,

they have to pretend that the video that I had removed from YouTube but wasn't removed from Rumble was COVID. It was the Alex Jones deposition, which shows you how idiotic things are on youtube all right mm126 is obviously elon is a watcher of the show nothing is coincidental i guess you better get on here he posted a meme of me he did yeah you see that one no which was the meme of me talking to vajayagade at twitter going in a circle yeah that's a great he tweeted at uh lydia and then i immediately tweeted at Lydia. And then I immediately tweeted at him, and I said he should come on IRL

and discuss this with us. He's sitting back, and he's like, I'm not going on your show. I understand. He probably just likes to watch. I get it. Does he know that there's Pappy's in the back? I mean, yeah. He doesn't drink, does he? Oh, no, he does. Well, it depends on the day. Tell him it's apple juice. No, no, he drinks.

He was drinking White Claw that one. Oh. He drinks White Claw. We can smoke and talk about the synchronicity. There you go. I got a feeling, you know, being the richest guy on the planet, he's not too concerned about the fancy whiskey that we have. He's going to be like, oh, you have Pepe?

I have 300 bottles in my backyard. Oh, yeah. I play bowling with him. Then you have to get him something that he's never had before or can't get because of where he is. My brother-in-law makes a nice gin. He doesn't seem like a big money guy. I will have my mom bake

her secret recipe chocolate chip cookies. Oh, yeah. That berry juice we have. Wineberry wine. We've got wineberries out here. They're Chinese raspberries and they grow all over the Appalachia.

Pawpaw is the October fruit. Hillbilly banana. So we'll make some hillbilly food for Elon when he comes. It's a plan. All right. What do we got? Ultramaga. Marty Smith Van says, I'm a Viva Barnes Locals member and TimCast member.

Thank you very much. Question for Chris. Can we have a rewind feature for Rumble Lives? It's my biggest complaint. And for Robert, can you pitch to TimCast to have Rich Barris on, please? He's the best. Yes. We actually launched our live streaming with that feature.

It was just a little buggy. We're going back to fixing that and should have that shortly and you know what else you should do speak give rewind what YouTube used to do at the end of the year to celebrate creators was the YouTube rewind have the rumble rewind celebrate it was beautiful and when YouTube stopped it for one year I forget what the reason was we said that I'll tell you the reason it was because if they actually went after what was popular on the platform they would have been making hate speech or offending the corporate press so they started it was really funny like one of the last youtube

rewinds they did had a bunch of creators who hadn't made videos in like years yeah and people were pointing out like that person didn't make a video all year and you put them in your thing and they're like but they're a youtube celebrity it's like dude this they didn't like they had will smith on the platform they're like yeah like that's the most embarrassing craziest they should do a rewind with will smith this year just open it with it he's laughing the clips back and forth oh that's a good idea everyone on youtube that's let's do a rumble satirical funny version of a YouTube corporate rewind and make fun of them. Let's put it on Rumble. Let's do it.

I'm in. Will Smith is going to be in there. All right. Let's try and grab some super chits. What do we got? Camel of the mojave says if it's a mainstream platform it's probably already shoulder deep and being uh shoulder deep and being puppet puppeted around by alphabet people or having their finances threatened but who does that refer to i think that's the general concern

about any platform and i think it's the concern about rumble as they say it's already it's so big it's already controlled opposition or whatever. Look, if I ever felt that way, I would not be here now. Rumble is walking the walk and Chris is talking the talk and taking the flack for it. People were saying about Donald Trump before he got elected that he was controlled opposition, that he was friends with the Clintons. And then look what happened when he actually got in. Well, I was not friends with anybody. I didn't know a single person two years ago. I come from a little town outside of Toronto.

That sounds sketchy. Which town? Brampton. Brampton? Okay. Yeah. So outside of Toronto, I didn't know a single political person my whole life. And I think it's people who believe that the system has so much control that even if they see something successful, they assume that too must be

part of some secret control. And that's not the case. You can fight back and win. I like to say that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he did not exist. The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing people they cannot resist. The reality is that's the key.

That's a good one. I like that. Brennan the American says, Thanks for all you do. I'm a 27-year-old who has a garden, food storage, and now chickens. My wife and I feel slightly more ready for the storm to come. You know, the former CEO of Home Depot

came out today and said with the Fed hiking the rates, you better stock up on some cash. You better get some cash reserves and you better get some non-perishables because it is going to get bad. And seeing that and seeing reports of the constant stories about food shortages due to Ukraine, fertilizer, and all that stuff, plus the supply chain disruption i mean my assumption is hope

you're ready for august and september it's gonna get but but then and then you see you see biden putting out these tweets it's the strongest economy like lie after lie after lie and it's one thing for the lie to be there the response is in the comment section you talk about an ideological silo of absolute political ignorance. Everyone's like, oh yeah, greatest economic recovery ever. And then you get this distraction of the January 6th hearing where it is... It's derangement.

It's derangement. All this was also predictable. I mean, Jacob Drazen, who's actually nearby, put out the report six months ago that this was going to happen if we went into Ukraine, that there was going to be a fertilizer and food crisis. Credit to him. Credit to the people at the duran who cover him you can find him on uh youtube and richard barris going back to the chat people's pundit was talking about this three months ago so yeah barris is great all these guys independent

information you would have got you would have known this ahead of time it's only the biden administration that appears ukraine ukraine is known as the breadbasket of europe and i've been talking about that for years. You know the history of the flag? The reason of the flag? Yellow and blue? It's the fields of wheat and the sky. It's in their flag. At the end of the world. I thought it was because they were big fans

of West Virginia. I bought, I've got some vans for skating and they're blue and yellow. And I've had people be like, oh, is that like And I've had people be like, oh, is that like Ukraine? And other people would be like, oh, West Virginia?

Yeah. The funny thing is I have an avatar on the channel which is a tie-dye multicolored avatar and then people who are new to the channel think it's for Pride Month. Pride Month. Oh, are you guys celebrating MAGA Month? What is MAGA Month?

MAGA Month. It's July. Every corporation has to change their icon to an American flag, and then we grill burgers on the weekends. I guess the Trump supporters told me that I was being a cuck and that we have to grill every day. Okay.

I can tell you one thing. We're not celebrating Mega Month in Canada. We're hopefully at the very least just trying to celebrate. Going outside. Going outside. Having some fresh air. The absence of curfew is freedom. Yeah, you Canadians.

My goodness. Can I show everybody how I'm celebrating? Yes. With Russian candy? With Russian slash French candy. Yes. And vegetable oils. Shut up, Luke.

I'm Sour Patch Lids, so I brought in an industrial-sized bag of patriotic Sour Patch Kids for Magamonth. That's how I'm doing it. I'm wondering, that's going to fit into a lot of jokes in Canada. It's like, nothing can be more American than a bag of red, white, and blue gummy bears. That's right. Yeah. High fructose, cortisol, vegetable oil.

Everyone loves them, but my goodness, I would be unconscious in a diabetic shot. For the whole office. It's not just mine. Tim is reading Super Chat. I am. He looks through his computer. I am, that's right.

We call them. What do we got here? Chris PA says, I think Canada wants to be like Norway where it's illegal to defend yourself. If you hurt someone in self-defense, you will be punished the same as if you initiated the attack.

I'm not sure about the second part of that, but one thing I can definitively tell you, you cannot own anything that is to be used specifically for self-defense. You're not allowed owning a firearm if the purpose of that is for self-defense unless you get a specific license. Walk around with a baseball bat, no glove and a ball, and use it for self-defense, you'll probably get charged. What if you have a sporting rifle of some sort? Maybe you've got a rifle for sport shooting and someone breaks in your house and you defend yourself with it. So my understanding is that it will be bona fide self-defense,

but you probably will face other unrelated gun charges. It'll be like... In New York City, people are charged like that for defending themselves. Fine, you're off on murder, but it'll be reckless discharge

of a firearm or pointing it at a human. It'll be like what happened with the lady in Sweden or Switzerland. I think it was Sweden who used either pepper spray or a taser to fend off an actual physical assaulter. She got fined for unlawful possession of a taser. I think it was a taser.

It's crazy. But leave it to Justin Trudeau to revive a debate that had hitherto been relatively quiet when he comes out a week ago and says, in Canada, we have a different culture. You can't own a gun for self-defense. I like excuse me viva he doesn't talk like that he talks like a cult leader in canada we have a different culture like a weird you can't have a gun i hear him talking i'm like ah we have a charter of rights that says you have the right to life liberty and security of the person but you cannot guarantee for yourself your right to life liberty or the security of the person people are going cannot guarantee for yourself your right to life, liberty, or the security of the person,

people are going to start asking questions. If a man breaks into your home, just get on your knees and beg him not to harm you. He's got a lot more uhs. Uh, uh. But he talks like that. Like, what is, what are you doing? And the creepiest thing is when he starts talking to your kids.

Children, you've been very good. It's time for you to go. I won't say I don't want to get you in trouble on YouTube. All right, all right, all right. Let's grab some more. Andrus T. Berzin says, Barnes, please tell the group why you got suspended from Twitter. Oh, I mean, it's still not clear why I got suspended from Twitter. So I didn't even get officially suspended from Twitter.

My account just disappeared for about like a week. And then they reinstated. Enough people created enough storm that they accidentally... Well, I got hacked. I got hacked and doxxed once. No reference to that. And then the second one was they just removed my

account for a period of time and then said it was a mistake. Weird. That was the official explanation. All right. Efren Rios says, Luke, I moved to new hampshire thanks to your mention of the free state project family is loving it yeah it's a great family friendly place and a lot of great people there fighting for freedom fighting for personal responsibility and working on a lot of really cool things if you want to if you want to live in a place with community and uh you know strong familial bonds and the right to teach your child

he's a flamethrower and new hampshire is the place to teach your child to use a flamethrower. New Hampshire is the place to be. Absolutely. I don't know. Florida has some – I've seen some flamethrowing in Florida. Really? And it's a little – They ban a bunch of stuff.

They ban binary triggers in Florida. You can't have that. Yeah, there's a lot of strange rules in Florida, especially when it comes to red flag laws. There's some weird jurisdictions that are very troubling. So New Hampshire definitely takes the cake in some instances. I like New Hampshire. I think it's still second to Tennessee.

Tennessee is pretty freaking great. Yes, it is. There wouldn't be a Texas without Tennessee, by the way. There you go. Buttweasel says, when is Rumble going to do Super Chats? You do, don't you? Yeah, we do, Rance. But I think the question question is why don't we

do it in the app and oh i see and and that's that that's the interesting answer is that if you do it in the app when on ios or android they take 30 points from you we charge 20 so imagine 30 plus 20 doesn't look so good so right now it's web only um you can do it on mobile web supported on web desktop that's another monopoly problem. This is why Netflix, Tinder, and all these other platforms don't let you buy things on the app stores because the app stores take a big percentage of money away. And only Android and Apple are allowing the app stores to be there, and they take a huge cut out of the profit. There has been some good victories in the court that are leading to...

That game. Yeah, when there's a big class action that was just recently – So I don't think this is going to last for too long, but we can't wait to put that in when we can. But, like, how can you be competitive if YouTube's charging 30% and they own Android? They don't have to give a shit. Right. Howard says, anyone buying Bitcoin right now? FYI on Tesla, read the 10Ks.

Anyone buying Bitcoin? What do you think, Luke? It's crazy out there. Well, it depends on why you buy it. If you're buying it for short-term speculative purposes, that's high risk. But if you're buying it as an alternative currency to have to fight the Fed and to fight the central banks, then it's a good idea, I still think. I'm not selling. It's funny because someone tweeted at me.

They're like, not talking about Bitcoin now, are you? And I'm like, I've about bitcoin like basically every day because the crash happened i mean it's just it's talking about the same as i normally do i'm not selling any of it i just i it crashes i've seen this i've seen worse i mean george gammon who's really good in the economic space has been saying forever it's going to go up and down but buy it for long-term value if you're looking at it from a speculative value but really buy it because it gives you an alternative security i call it sort of plan b you know you know it from a speculative value, but really buy it because it gives you an alternative security. I call it sort of plan B. It's heat. Have something in your life that you can walk out on in 15 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner from the

movie Heat. You should be prepared if the system comes knocking on your door that you can exit when and where and how you want. And part of that is going to be Bitcoin. You can't be completely dependent on the US banking system if you want to be secure. David C. Kronk Sr. says a red-pilled Gavin Newsom might actually have a chance in 2024. By the way, that may be why he's doing what he's doing. It's not to be red-pilled, but he's wanting to replace Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. That's why. He's trying to seem more of like a moderate.

Yeah, and he's doing anything to get attention to himself. He survived it. And it was real smart. Getting on Truth Social, we talked about it. Everybody knows Biden's going to be replaced everybody knows harris is hated he thinks of himself as the next president he imagines himself as a kennedy which is a disgrace yeah all right mass jenna mass jenna okay her name is jenna but it's jenna side very clever says there was a weeping and gnashing of teeth as I sent off my self-employed quarterly payment. I couldn't help but think of Luke Rudkowski. Taxes are theft.

Yep. Inflation is theft too. Yep. Combine the two and you're really hit. Come to Canada. You get the 50% tax and you still get the same inflation you got here. All right. What do you think you'll escape?

All that I know is I've been paying a lot of tax. And it's a fortunate thing to be able to pay tax. But my goodness, you didn't realize

you were working for the government 50% of the time. That's crazy. 50%. It's like... 53. Yeah, well,

it's 40-some-odd percent. Then you got your property tax. Then you got your sales tax. Then you got your license. Then you got

all these incidentals. You're paying, for every dollar you make, you're paying more than 50 cents to the government if you make over a certain amount. The mafia wants their money. It's a legalized mafia. And you got to pay in advance also. You got to pay before you even make the money.

I can't wait till... Serenity, serenity. I can't wait till Rumble merges and becomes American. Oh, yeah. When starting a company and then figuring out how corporate taxes are paid, I was just like, but I don't have that. You've got to pay in advance. You've got to pay based on what they think you might have. But you made the last year quarterly payments in advance.

And if you're doing worse, too bad. Well, they'll give you a credit at the end of the year. I'm still waiting. It doesn't matter. Well, if you have a really good tax law, you don't have to pay much of it at all, but that's another story. If you have a good accountant. We should talk, Barnes. I know a few people.

All right. Sweet Lou says, we say channels on the right, but that includes all of the middle of the road truth seekers that get bundled in his right wing because they don't toe the line of leftists. Love the hair, Viva. That's exactly it. Like, we had Dennis Prager on, and he's talking about how he's a liberal, but he's a conservative because he talks about facts and reason and logic and things like that, and morality. Well, I mean, Viva was a YouTube Video Award winner before he became a... I got the Shorty Social Good Award back in the day.

It'll never happen again. day. It'll never happen again. It'll never happen. I'm the Shorty Award winner for the best journalist in social media, I believe, 2012. Not that there's anything less good about the Shorty Social Good Awards, but it was the new version of their Shorty Awards. That's big-time stuff. I think I got kicked out of the Shorty Awards for confronting somebody there, but I forgot to. So I have that.

Alright. It was in the New York Times building. I remember that. The party was good. I went down. Yeah, I got kicked out of that. Dylan Sharps is on the topic of censorship and having two Canadians in the house. Can we get their thoughts on Bill C-11 and how it'll change media

and how it could be a template for blue states to follow? It's a template to turn Canada into a China or North Korea. The Bill C-11, in the absolute nuttiest of nutshells, is regulating the internet the way the government already regulates television and radio.

So they want to subject they said initially streaming and big platforms online to be governed by the Canada Broadcast Act, which imposes Canadian content requirements, fines if you don't comply with it. They want to impose that on the internet to force YouTube and social media to suppress or promote content based on its Canadian content criteria. It is nothing other than a disguised attempt to reestablish a flailing legacy media on a platform where they are getting crushed by others based on their merit. That's all that it is. It's crazy when you have like big tech fighting the Canadian government against this bill and you have Washington Post fighting Canada on this bill.

It just shows you how horrible it really is. You've got YouTube is fighting, is complaining about it. Everyone is. But then you get Bell Canada coming and testifying for the Liberals. Oh, we need this. We've got to protect Canadian culture. From the guy who says we don't have culture, we don't have a Canadian culture. Justin Trudeau said there is no Canadian culture. That's crazy.

Because you've got, what is it, Tim Hortons? Is that what it's called? We've got maple syrup, man. 70% of syrup, man. That's right. 70% of the global exports. That's right. We got fishing. We got hunting. We have sorry.

We got sorry. We got a boot. We got a boot. We've got a Canadian culture, but they only care about it when they can taxi for it. But I mean, in all seriousness,

you know, Suri and a boot are literally Canadian culture. It's a cultural phenomenon. Poutine. It's called Tim Hortons, right? Tim Hortons was the famous hockey player who died in a drunk driving car accident.

Most people don't know that. But it became a chain. And the Tim Hortons, no apostrophe on it, also another part of Canadian heritage because French laws in Quebec don't allow or didn't allow at the time the apostrophe. And so Tim Hortons didn't want to have

to have two brandings, so they just eliminated the apostrophe. Oh, wow. You have language police. We most certainly do. Office de la langue française, the OLF, the language police. They come and make sure if you have an apostrophe, you better have a registered trademark.

Wasn't a parent arrested for misgendering their child? The parent arrested for misgendering the child? It was more complicated than that, British Columbia, but their human rights trib their human rights tribunal was like a father who refused to call his daughter he had disclosed information that was gagged in the trial it's a it's a it's a very absurd uh case but it's bad case that will make for bad law british columbia quebec was on the map for finding a stand-up comedian for making a joke at the expense of a handicapped child celebrity. Mike Ward made a joke about this kid named Jeremy Gabriel who suffers from Treacher Collins Syndrome. He had a stand-up bit about him.

The kid sued him in human rights court. Wow. Government takes up the case when they decide it's legitimate. And the court fined the comedian $43,000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. Five to four decision. They said, no, it's not a human rights violation. So he ended up winning.

He ended up winning years later, stress later, all this other stuff. Yeah, Canada. All right. Brad Burns says, will Rumble make money though? Google can just let YouTube run at a loss, but hosting is expensive. How will this

not just be gone in a few years like any other youtube alts that came and went that's a great question um so one of the things that we're we're really focused on right now is obviously the the growth of the users um and in the future revenue but uh i can definitely say the the audience that's on rumble converts for advertisers at a pace that I have never seen before. Prior to this conservative audience coming onto Rumble, like pre-2020, our CPMs with advertisers were significantly lower. And now the audience that we're having right now, we have sponsors coming to us that are saying that we're converting at a rate that is so significantly higher than what they're seeing on other platforms, um, that they are renewing and spending at a rate that,

uh, you know, we haven't, we haven't seen before. So I don't believe that to be true. Actually, I know that not to be true is that the revenue model on rumble is actually going to far exceed.

I think what people are anticipating because the audience there buys, it's a, it's a parallel economy. It is. And not only is it just a parallel economy, but the purchase power of the audience on Rumble is you see it. You see it with creators on Rumble. Salty Cracker will generate tons of super chats. These people have wallets and they can spend money.

It's happening. And you just need to go on Rumble and take a look and you'll see it for your own self. It's there. The economy is there. And it's mind-blowing. This week alone, the orders that we're seeing on the ad side was just mind-blowing of how happy the advertisers are and how much it's converting on an ROI basis. This is not brand advertisers. These are companies looking for ROI, and they're getting immediate ROI when buying on Rumble. When we launch Rumble ads, both on display, the video, and sponsorships on our platform, which is in beta right now, we've actually started letting people in in the last week for the first time. I think we're going to see some – I already can see that we're seeing some incredible results.

Well, I can see places like YouTube struggling because, I mean, they put Tyson food ads on our stuff. And I have a Tennessee blood oath against Tyson food. So there's nobody that's watching us that's buying Tyson foods. But because I mention it frequently, they're frequently the advertising on YouTube. And now that you mention it, I've been noticing Coalition Avenir de Quebec advertising, which is the government in Quebec that I have been calling supreme leader, Francois Legault, for the last two years, running ads on my videos as if anybody – I tell everyone, let the ad run, make them pay premium, YouTube, whatever,

and then go vote against them. I was going to say, CPM, just for anyone who doesn't know, cost per mil, which is the amount per thousand views, and ROI, return on investment. When Bloomberg was dumping money into YouTube ads, I kept getting comments from people being like, hey, I got a Bloomberg ad. And I was like, that's great. He's paying me to rag on him. Fantastic. But let's be real. It really doesn't make sense. Bloomberg wants to put

ads on videos critical of him so that he can get his message in front of it. I end up getting money knowing my audience would never vote for the guy. So thanks for the money, I guess. And I think it's because there's aspects to which this system, because going back to your original point that what Rumble is doing

by becoming the free space on the internet is ultimately a money winner is what counters all of this. And it's because YouTube's decision is a money loser over time. So suppressing and censoring speech is not a desirable outcome for its audience. I totally agree. And we're seeing it. They've given away their incredibly high value audience. And it's growing. And the purchase power is there. It's US-based. I don't think they realize what they've lost. I really don't.

I can see it from my side. They lost something very, very important. Yeah, man. Well, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and head over to TimCast.com. We're going to have that after hours, uncensored, not-so-family-friendly version of the show coming up at about 11 p.m., so you'll definitely want to check that out. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL. Follow us on Instagram. We post clips.

Follow me at TimCast. Viva, you want to shout anything out? Viva Fry on YouTube and Rumble. Viva Fry on Twitter and? VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Did you want to shout anything else out, Robert? No, other than the locals thing, just a shout out to the people that they ask questions about.

You can follow Jacob Drazen, the Duran on YouTube, all the great independent sources on Ukraine and world news, Richard Barris, People's Pundit, the only accurate pollster in the last half decade. All those are great guys to follow. Right on. You can find me on Truth at Chris, and you can follow Rumble on Truth at Rumble. Barnes, when I'm in jail, I'm calling you.

Just a heads up. I think I said this last time to you, but every time you come on, I'm like, I need him. I need your number. He said when I'm in jail, not if. It's only a matter of time until we're all in the gulag, so just wait for it. And if you want to find out more about me and what I'm doing, you can check out my platform, LukeUncensored.com. I've been doing it for a number of years now. I got a lot of crazy stuff up there. We also use Rumble

now. And thank you, Chris, for coming on. Thank you for listening to the audience. Thank you for taking the tough questions. I think it's really important for people to be transparent and open, and I think you've done that in a good way. So thank you so much for coming on, and thank you for having

me a part of the conversation. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you guys all so much for coming on. And thank you for having me a part of the conversation. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you guys all so much for coming. Elon Musk made this tweet go viral. You guys should go watch what he has to say because it does seem like he kind of wanted this to be like,

he's saying a lot of really good things about free speech, a lot of really encouraging stuff. Anyway, I will not be shamed for loving Sour Patch Kids. I don't care what's in them. It's candy. You eat it because it's fun,

not because it's good for you. And you guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Kids. I don't care what's in them. It's candy. You eat it because it's fun, not because it's good for you. And you guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids as well as Sour Patch Lids. Stop me. It's poison. Shut up. A couple things you can check out. You can check out the song Will of the People that I made. We put it out just before the election in 2020.

And we got a big billboard for it in Times Square. We're going to be putting out an album probably in the next couple of months so stay tuned for that you can check out youtube.com slash castcastle we've brought on Jamie Kilstein to help take the vlog to the next level and we're doing comedy bits and the goal is to make it very much like a weird

vlog hybrid comedy skit show so it's a fictionalized version of the studio we've done a few bits over the past year or so but now we're going to start cranking it up and getting in full swing. And other than that, thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com for that members-only show. Bye, guys.