Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 12, 2022 - The Ben Shapiro Show

50:21

Elon Exposes Twitter, And It’s Ugly As Hell | Ep. 1628

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	More Twitter files emerge and they show an organization run by political hacks with peculiarly disturbing perspectives.
	Anthony Fauci writes his own valedictory and a Washington Post columnist tells religious people to bake the cake.
	You bigots.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Protect your data online with the VPN I trust.
	Visit expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Well, Elon Musk's quest to unmask what happened at Twitter before he took over continues apace and it is fascinating.
	Over the weekend, he revealed two more tranches of Twitter files.
	One via Matt Taibbi, the former Rolling Stone journalist.
	The other via Michael Schellenberger, the former Democrat who has been disillusioned with a lot of the sort of extremist global warming talk.
	The thread from Matt Taibbi really sets the stage for the thread from Schellenberger.
	And I have to say the rollout of this stuff, just from a PR angle, is very, very smart.
	They're rolling it out on Twitter, which is where most of the coverage is going to be.
	Not only are they doing it that way, they're also doing it serially, which means that people are really keeping an eye as more headlines emerge about how Twitter was run.
	So, the first thread from Matt Taibbi is about the removal of Donald Trump, circa October 2020 to January 6.
	The idea is that the preconditions for removing Trump were set from October 2020 to January 6, and what they show is ad hoc decision-making at the highest level of Twitter.
	Outside of Jack Dorsey.
	Jack Dorsey was off doing what he does, like hanging out with malaria-ridden mosquitoes in a Malaysian cave or something.
	And the rest of the Twitter infrastructure was basically playing while Dorsey was gone.
	They were deciding who should stay, who should go.
	They were using their own political predilections to decide what sort of material was worthy of being seen.
	When they set all these preconditions, in spite of the fact that they knew that there was no actual hardcore policy that was being defined By Twitter.
	They knew that there was no actual standard that was being set by Twitter.
	Instead, they just basically decided, here's the thing I don't like.
	How do I cram this square peg into the round hole of Twitter policy?
	So here is what Matt Taibbi says.
	Again, this is covering the period October 2020 to January 6th, just before Donald Trump was banned from Twitter.
	And all this is really important, not just because of what Twitter was during the election of 2020, although that's important, obviously.
	But because this is how big tech is run.
	And for so many of us who get our information via the outlets that big tech provides, you have to understand that there is a thumb on the scale in nearly all of these cases.
	This is not just a Twitter problem.
	This is a Facebook problem.
	This is a YouTube problem.
	This is something that we've been experiencing as a company daily where really since we began is the vagaries of how these big tech platforms work.
	You'll be running a company and suddenly you'll see a 40% drop in traffic in like a week.
	Because Facebook has quote-unquote changed its algorithm.
	And the question you have to ask yourself is, are they changing the algorithm broadly and is it affecting everyone?
	Or are they just targeting me?
	And because they're not transparent about how these platforms are run, there is really no way to tell until you just, through trial and error, try to rebuild your business.
	Well, meanwhile, over at the New York Times, it doesn't seem like they're experiencing anything remotely like the same problems in terms of having to navigate these wilds.
	Instead, it seems like they're doing a pretty good job of having the inside track on exactly how this information is being distributed.
	Big tech companies work in tandem with legacy media and the Democratic Party, as well as, it turns out, sometimes members of the FBI, in order to quash particular stories, in order to reduce the amount of information that is spread that they don't like you to see.
	So here's what Matt Taibbi writes.
	This came out December 9th, so it would have been Friday night.
	Quote, the world knows much of the story of what happened between riots at the Capitol on January 6th and the removal of President Donald Trump from Twitter on January 8th.
	We'll show you what hasn't been released.
	The erosion of standards within the company in the months before January 6th.
	Decisions by high-ranking executives to violate their own policies and more against the backdrop of ongoing documented interaction with federal agencies.
	So, there are several of these threads that went out.
	There was the Taibbi thread and then there was the Schellenberger thread.
	And then, A Barry Weiss thread is set to emerge in short order.
	Taibbi says, He says, as they finished banning Trump, Twitter executives started processing new power.
	They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses, perhaps even Joe Biden.
	The new administration said one executive will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.
	Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the quote-unquote context surrounding.
	Actions by Trump and his supporters over the course of the election, and frankly, the last four plus years.
	In the end, they looked at a broad picture, but that approach can cut both ways.
	In other words, there was no actual standard that was being applied.
	They just didn't like what Trump had done over the past four years.
	And they didn't like the result on January 6th.
	And therefore, they decided that even though Trump had not actually violated a policy, Trump had to be banned.
	Tayibi says the bulk of the internal debate leading to Trump's ban took place in those three January days, January 6th to January 8th.
	However, the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots.
	Before January 6th, Twitter was a unique mix of automated rules-based enforcement and more subjective moderation by senior executives.
	As the election approached, senior executives, perhaps under pressure from federal agencies with whom they met more as time progressed, increasingly struggled with rules.
	They began speaking of VIOs as pretexts to do what they'd likely have done anyway.
	After January 6th, internal slacks showed Twitter executives getting a kick out of the intensified relations with federal agencies.
	Trust and safety head Yoel Roth, who's emerging in all of this as a real villain, lamented a lack of generic enough calendar descriptions to conceal his very interesting meeting partners.
	Again, this is all in the internal slack channels.
	that have now been revealed by Elon Musk via Matt Taibbi.
	So for example, Yul Roth wrote after January 6th that he's a big believer in calendar transparency but he's taking so many meetings with high-level government officials that now he doesn't have calendar transparency that is that is opaque enough and so he's just taking stuff off the calendar. He says that he's He's meaning about Trump, pretty obviously.
	And then he says, definitely not meeting with the FBI, I swear.
	Which, of course, is him being sarcastic.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, when you use the bathroom, you always close the door behind you, right?
	Right?
	If you didn't, it would be super weird.
	Also, it would be not particularly smart.
	You don't want strangers gazing upon you while you are upon the golden throne.
	Instead, You make sure that you close the door.
	Well, you should do the same thing when you use your internet data.
	I mean, when you expose your internet data to everybody else, that's a very bad idea.
	This is why you need ExpressVPN.
	Your ISP knows every single website you visit.
	They can sell that information to ad companies and tech giants.
	ExpressVPN puts a stop to this by creating a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet, so your online activity can't be seen by anyone.
	I use ExpressVPN on all my devices.
	We're talking phone, laptop, even my router.
	Using ExpressVPN, it's as easy as closing that bathroom door.
	It's like one button to download it and one button to activate it.
	ExpressVPN is the world's number one rated VPN by Mashable, The Verge, and countless others.
	If, like me, you believe your online activity is your business, secure yourself by visiting expressvpn.com slash ben today.
	Use my link, e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash ben.
	Get an extra three months free on a one-year package that's ExpressVPN.
	VPN.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	Also, with everything going on in the world right now, you know, we have the holidays coming up, we have new economic reports coming up, and you may be finding it hard to get some sleep.
	Well, I am because, frankly, there's a lot going on at the Shapiro household, but My Helix Sleep Mattress solves the problem for me.
	I've had Helix for years.
	I absolutely love it.
	I sleep like a baby even in the midst of my busiest season.
	I love my Helix Sleep Mattress because it was made just for me.
	Took a two-minute sleep quiz and it decided for me what is the best kind of mattress for me.
	Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	I took that quiz.
	I was matched with a firm but breathable model because if it's not firm, then I get back pain.
	If it's not breathable, then I heat up too much at night.
	Go to helixsleep.com slash ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	Find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
	Your mattress will come right to your door shipped for free.
	Helix has a 10-year warranty.
	You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix has over 12,000 five-star reviews.
	Their financing options, flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away.
	For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 350 bucks off all mattress orders plus two free pillows for our listeners.
	It's an amazing offer.
	Take advantage of it at helixsleep.com slash ben with Helix.
	Better sleep starts right now.
	These initial reports are based on searches for docs linked to prominent executives whose names are already public.
	They include Yoel Roth, former trust and policy chief at Vijayagadi, who you'll remember went on Joe Rogan and said shadow banning was not occurring, and recently plank walked a deputy general counsel and former top FBI lawyer Jim Baker.
	One particular Slack channel offers a unique window into an evolving thinking of top officials in late 2020 and early 2021, says Tayibi.
	On October 8, 2020, executives opened a channel Through January 6th, this particular channel was the home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved high-profile accounts they called very important tweeters, BITs.
	They released some tension between safety operations, which is a larger department whose staffers were using rules in order to ban, for example, porn or scams or threats, and a smaller, More powerful cadre of senior policy executives like Roth and Gaddy.
	The latter group were a high-speed Supreme Court of Moderation issuing content rulings on the fly, often in minutes, and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in cases involving the president.
	During this time, executives were also clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content.
	Over at the start of reviewing the Twitter files, we'll be finding more about these interactions every day.
	Policy Director Nick Pickles was asked if they should say Twitter detects misinformation through ML, human review, and partnerships with outside experts.
	The employee asks, I know that's been a slippery process.
	Not sure if you want our public explanation to hang on that.
	Pickle says, can we say partnerships?
	After a pause, he says, not sure we'd describe the FBI or Department of Homeland Security as experts.
	They're partnering with all these places to crack down on quote-unquote election misinformation.
	Apparently, one post about the Hunter Biden laptop story showed that Yoel Roth not only met with the FBI and the DHS, but also with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
	Roth's report to the FBI and DHS and DNI is almost farcical in its self-flagellating tone, quote, Some of Roth's later slacks indicate his weekly confabs with federal law enforcement involved separate meetings.
	Again, there's all sorts of material here showing that Yoel Roth was essentially working with the FBI to determine what should be banned and what should not be banned, which looks a lot like violation of First Amendment issues, at the very least.
	Examining the entire enforcement slack, says Matt Taibbi, we didn't see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally.
	We looked.
	They may exist.
	We were told they do.
	However, they were absent here.
	In other words, it was just coming from the Democrats, and it was coming from members of the FBI.
	Okay, so that was part one that was sort of released over the weekend.
	Part two that was released over the weekend was the Michael Schellenberger portion.
	This is Twitter files total part four, because there was originally a Taibbi thread, then a Barry Weiss thread, then another Taibbi thread, and now a Michael Schellenberger thread.
	And this one gets really juicy.
	So, now we get to the actual removal of Donald Trump on January 7th.
	Shellenberger says, as the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban.
	On January 7th, senior Twitter executives created justifications to ban Trump, sought a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders.
	You know, what we would call sort of ex post facto laws, right?
	Bills of attainder, where you just decide, this guy needs to go, let's create a rule that allows us to go after this individual human being.
	And says Michael Schellenberger, the senior Twitter executives express no concern for free speech or democracy implications of a ban.
	So here's what he says.
	He says, For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump.
	Blocking a world leader from Twitter, it wrote in 2018, would hide important information and hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
	But after the events of January 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey grew.
	Former First Lady Michelle Obama, tech journalist Kara Swisher, the ADL, high-tech VC Chris Sacca, and many others publicly called on Twitter to permanently ban Trump.
	Dorsey was on vacation in French Polynesia the week of January 4th to 8th, 2021.
	He phoned into meetings, but also delegated much of the handling of the situation to Joel Roth, Twitter's global head of trust and safety, and Vijay Gowdy, the head of legal policy and trust.
	So again, these are kind of the two leading villains in the Twitter saga.
	Jack Dorsey was an absentee landlord.
	He basically created the company, and then he decided he didn't like running the company, and he would run off on vacation, and he would leave Joel Roth, who was a partisan hack, in charge, and Vijay Gowdy, another partisan hack, in charge.
	As context, it's important to understand Twitter's staff and senior executives were overwhelmingly progressive.
	In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, 99% of Twitter's staff's political donations went to Democrats.
	In 2017, Yoel Roth tweeted there were actual Nazis in the White House.
	In April 2022, Roth told a colleague his goal is to quote, drive change in the world, which is why he decided not to become an academic.
	On January 7th, Jack Dorsey emailed his employees saying Twitter needed to remain consistent in its policies, including the right of users to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension.
	After, Roth reassured an employee that, quote, people who care about this aren't happy with where we are.
	Around 11.30pm Pacific Time, Roth DM'd his colleagues with news that he is excited to share, quote, guess what, he says, Jack just approved repeat offender for civic integrity.
	The new approach would create a system where five violation strikes would result in permanent suspension.
	Progress exclaimed a member of Roth's trust and safety team.
	The exchange between Roth and his colleagues makes clear they'd been pushing Dorsey for greater restrictions on the speech Twitter allows around election.
	The colleague wanted to know if the decision meant that Trump could finally be banned.
	Roth said it didn't, since Trump continues to just have his one strike.
	Again, this is on January 7th.
	He was banned on January 8th.
	Roth's colleague's query about incitement to violence heavily foreshadowed what would happen the following day.
	On January 8th, Twitter announced a permanent ban on Trump due to a, quote, risk of further incitement of violence.
	On January 8th, Twitter said its ban is specifically based on how Trump's tweets are being received and interpreted.
	But in 2019, Twitter said it did not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of content or its intent.
	Again, that is a very, very loose standard.
	Literally any tweet can be taken by some crazy person as impetus to do something bad.
	This is one of the things about public speech.
	There are lots of people who are listening to public speech and many of them do crazy things.
	So of course you can't hold people accountable for what somebody takes into their brain and then spits back out in the form of garbled nonsense.
	Schellenberger says the only serious concern we found expressed within Twitter over the implications for free speech and democracy banning Trump came from a junior person in the organization who was tucked away in a lower-level Slack channel known as the Site Integrity Auto.
	This person wrote, It might be an unpopular opinion, but one-off, ad hoc decisions like this that don't appear rooted in policy are a slippery slope.
	This now appears to be a fiat by an online CEO with a global presence that can gatekeep search, gatekeep speech for the entire world.
	Twitter employees use the term one-off frequently in their Slack discussions.
	Its frequent use reveals significant employee discretion over when and whether to apply warnings on tweets and strikes on users.
	Again, it's pretty obvious that Twitter has been doing this for years, that they control visibility or they issue suspensions based on sort of an ad hoc decision-making process where progressive Democrats with blue hair decide whether you get to speak or not, or whether you get to see somebody else's speech.
	Twitter's employees recognize the difference, says Schellenberger, between their own politics and Twitter's terms of service.
	But they also engage in complex interpretations of content in order to stamp out prohibited tweets as a series of exchanges over the hashtag StopTheSteal hashtag reveals.
	So if something started to trend, right, a hashtag they didn't like, they'd just quash the hashtag.
	Or they'd start hiding tweets to prevent the algorithm from elevating that particular hashtag.
	You can see this all the time, by the way.
	The manipulation of the Twitter trending items.
	Roth immediately DM'd a colleague to add that they add Stop the Steal and Kraken to a blacklist of terms to be de-amplified.
	Roth's colleague subjected that blacklisting Stop the Steal risks de-amplifying counter-speech that validates the election.
	Indeed, notes Roth's colleague, a quick search of Stop the Steal tweets is counter-speech, like it is against the Stop the Speech movement, but it didn't matter.
	They ended up trying to block it anyway.
	Their solution was, quote, de-amplify accounts with Stop the Steal in the name or profile since, quote, those are not affiliated with counter-speech.
	It turns out that even blacklisting Kraken was not particularly straightforward because it turns out that it's not just a QAnon kind of word that was used during the Stop the Steal time.
	It also happens to be the name of a cryptocurrency exchange, and so it was allow listed.
	So that means that on one hand, they were saying you have to allow that term because it's a cryptocurrency exchange.
	On the other hand, they were saying you have to block the term because the same term is used by QAnon people.
	Employees struggled with whether to punish users who shared screenshots of Trump's deleted January 6th tweets.
	What if a user disliked Trump and objected to Twitter's censorship?
	The tweet still got deleted.
	But since the intention is not to deny the election result, there was no strike applied.
	Again, it's all ad hockery.
	So Schellenberger says what happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump.
	A sales executive wrote, are we dropping the public interest policy now?
	And Roth says, quote, in this specific case, we're changing our public policy interest approach for his account.
	The ad exec is referring to Twitter's policy of public interest exceptions, which allow the content of elected officials, even if they are a violator of Twitter rules, quotes, if it directly contributes to understanding or discussing a matter of public concern.
	Roth then pushed for a permanent suspension of Matt Gaetz, even though it doesn't quite fit anywhere.
	That was kind of a test case for the rationale for banning Trump.
	Around 2.30, Comms Executive DMed Roth to say they didn't want to make a big deal of the QAnon ban to the media because they feared, if we push this, it looks as though we're trying to offer up something in place of the Trump ban.
	So they're gonna ban QAnon, but they're gonna do it quietly because they know that people like Kara Swisher are gonna say it's not enough, you actually have to ban Trump.
	And so, again, this is all top-level manipulation.
	And once Twitter did this, then this meant that pretty much all of Big Tech was going to do this.
	There's wild inconsistency here.
	And once Twitter did this, then this meant that pretty much all of big tech was going to do this.
	It's really amazing.
	Now, Facebook ended up banning Trump and then Twitter was sort of left out on the branch since they banned Trump too.
	They made up a policy to do this.
	What does all this show?
	What it shows is that, again, you had a group of people in control of speech and they were pretending not to be in control of speech over and over and over.
	So Jack Dorsey, for example, actually testified in front of Congress that Twitter does not consider political viewpoints in determining what information can and cannot be disseminated.
	This is not true.
	Here was Jack Dorsey saying this a few years back.
	If it's okay with all of you, I'd like to read you something I personally wrote as I thought about these issues.
	I'm also going to tweet it out right now.
	I want to start by making something very clear.
	We don't consider political viewpoints, perspectives, or party affiliation in any of our policies or enforcement decisions.
	Oh, really?
	You don't?
	Weird, cuz, um, you do.
	Isn't that strange?
	Pretty much amazing stuff there from Jack Dorsey.
	He kept doubling down on this, by the way.
	He said publicly that Twitter does not shadowban conservatives.
	Now, again, they were playing a semantic game here.
	They say that shadowbanning means that you tweet out and no one actually sees your tweet except for you.
	But that's not what shadowbanning means.
	Everybody understood that what shadowbanning was is a reduction in the reach of your tweets so that people couldn't actually see what you were tweeting as much as they normally would have.
	What Twitter would call deamplification.
	Here's Jack Dorsey denying that they did this.
	The president called you out for shadow banning.
	What is the truth around that idea?
	If someone puts out a tweet, hiding that tweet from everyone without that person who tweeted it knowing about it.
	But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?
	And we are not.
	Period.
	We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology.
	We look at behavior.
	Okay, that is an amazing, amazing thing, because it's not true.
	It's just not true.
	And they knew it wasn't true.
	Now, Dorsey, again, had a hands-off approach, so he wasn't the one who was personally implementing this stuff.
	But it doesn't matter.
	He didn't have to personally implement this stuff.
	He knew how his company was run.
	And one of the things that Elon Musk found in the closet after taking over Twitter, he literally went into a closet at Twitter, and what he found was a giant stack of black t-shirts that said, hashtag, stay woke.
	And when your entire employee base is left-wing, and when they are given extraordinary amounts of discretion in order to determine what can and cannot be seen, what you end up with is what Twitter had.
	And so then it becomes a matter of real public concern who staffs companies like Twitter.
	And Twitter basically looked like a government bureaucracy, is the truth.
	Because all the incentive structures for the Twitter middle-level executives were not to maximize share price on behalf of the company and create a successful site.
	The entire basis of Twitter's management was please the people who matter.
	Who are the people who matter?
	The people at the FBI, the people in the Democratic Party, the people in the press, right?
	Those are all the people who spend all their days on Twitter.
	The truth is that Twitter makes a lot of money off of the fact that there are a few giant accounts that are followed by a lot of people.
	And those accounts tend to be high-profile journalistic accounts that are blue in nature.
	I mean, not like dirty, blue as in Democrat.
	And so it is a place for journalists to gather.
	And the Biden administration, by the way, knows this.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, do you sit flat on your butt at your desk every single day?
	Well, the more you do this, the worse it is for your health.
	Studies show that prolonged sitting is associated with increased risk for obesity, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic illnesses.
	This holiday season, get yourself or a loved one the gift of good health and start the new year off right.
	Protecting your health and wellness, it can be as simple as pushing a button on an E7 Pro Plus standing desk from Flexispot.
	Compared to a regular desk, the E7 from Flexispot is made to meet your individual needs, adjusting to your height whether standing or seated.
	Alternating between sitting and standing helps to relieve stiffness and pain, ultimately making you feel better throughout the day.
	The E7 Pro Plus standing desk is super sturdy, it's crafted from automotive grade carbon steel, it can support up to 355 pounds.
	Flexispot is so confident in their premium materials and craftsmanship, they offer an industry-leading 15-year warranty on the E7.
	I've been using it, it makes me feel healthier already.
	Right now, Flexispot is offering a huge holiday savings on the E7 Pro Plus Standing Desk, up to $80 off right now.
	Go to Flexispot.com today, use code SHAPIRO, get $80 off their E7 Pro Plus Standing Desk.
	That's F-L-E-X-I-S-P-O-T.com, Flexispot.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
	Also, if you're a small business owner, You might be shipping off a lot of packages this holiday season.
	This is the hot season for that sort of thing.
	Well, if you're not using Stamps.com, you're losing time, you're losing money, it's a dumb thing to do.
	Here at Daily Wire, we've been using Stamps.com since 2017 because we like saving our time and saving our money.
	Stamps.com is a one-stop shop for all your shipping and mailing needs.
	It's a 24-7 post office you can access from anywhere.
	No lines, no traffic, no hassle.
	For 20 years, Stamps.com has been indispensable for over 1 million businesses.
	Get access to the USPS and UPS services you need to run your business right from your computer.
	Even save up to 86% on USPS and UPS shipping rates.
	Use Stamps.com to print postage wherever you do business.
	All you need is a computer and a printer.
	If you need a package picked up, you can easily schedule it through your Stamps.com dashboard.
	Rates are constantly changing.
	With Stamps.com's switch and save feature, you can easily compare carriers and rates so you know you're getting the best deal every single time.
	Get ahead of all the holiday chaos this year with Stamps.com.
	Sign up with promo code Shapiro for a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a free digital scale.
	No long-term commitments, no contracts.
	Just go to Stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page, enter code Shapiro.
	There was a report just today that the Biden administration sees Twitter essentially as an echo chamber for its political dispensations.
	That it goes on Twitter and uses it as a propaganda outlet and creates these echo chambers with people like Kara Swisher, and that that is essentially what it is for.
	And so, middle management decided that they were going to cater to these people.
	They weren't catering to the consumer base.
	The consumer base didn't matter at all, particularly the right-wing consumer base, because where else were they going to go, guys?
	And as it turns out, in the aftermath of January 6th, there was no place else where they could go, because when people on the right said, okay, well, if we can't be on Twitter, we'll go to Parler, Amazon Web Services shut down Parler.
	So they essentially created a quasi-monopoly in favor of Twitter.
	And so what that means is that middle management's incentive structure at Twitter was not to please the users.
	It was not to increase revenue.
	It was to make sure that it was a safe place for everybody.
	And this is what happens when you swim in the warm baths of wokeness.
	The advertisers are afraid of the woke attacking them.
	Twitter's middle management is responsive to both the woke and the advertisers.
	The Democratic Party is ginning both the woke and the middle management of Twitter up.
	And what you get is ad hoc policymaking by people who are very politically active.
	Because Twitter theoretically should be an engineering company.
	You have to have an organizational culture determined what exactly your company is going to be.
	This is a point that James Q. Wilson makes in his book, Bureaucracy.
	He's talking about both private bureaucracies, as in like major companies, as well as public bureaucracies.
	In his book, Bureaucracy, he talks about the idea of organizational culture.
	Organizational culture can be defined in a number of ways.
	So one of the ways it can be defined, you could theoretically have a political organizing culture.
	So for example, we here at The Daily Wire, we're a political company.
	We were founded by me, right?
	I'm very political.
	My business partner, Jeremy Boring, very political.
	We're very ideological.
	And that means that everything that we do, is geared toward two purposes.
	One, yes, serving our customer base, but there are limits to that.
	And if forced to choose between our quote-unquote customer base and following the dictates of our conscience, when it comes to politics, we're very obvious that we're going to follow the dictates of our conscience.
	We are political conservatives with a religious bent, obviously, and that means that our company is shaped around those preferences.
	And our employees know that, right?
	Everybody who works here knows this walking through the door.
	When Twitter came around, The basic idea of Twitter is that it was a value-neutral space, which means it was not predominantly a political space, it was an engineering space.
	The organizational culture was not to quote-unquote do good, it was that by providing a platform, that was the good.
	So theoretically, a bunch of engineers could just sit there, they could tweak the algorithms without much political preference, and what you'd end up with is something that looked like a town square.
	And this is how Twitter was originally pitched.
	Over time, because the incentive structure changed, because the leaders of Twitter, this also happened to Facebook, the middle management level at Twitter was highly political because they were located in San Francisco and because they don't like free speech all that much, the organizational culture changed and now they were serving a different set of priorities.
	It was not create the best engineering solutions to the problem of how do you create a digital town square.
	Now it was, how do we ensure that certain messages are increased and certain messages are decreased?
	And the engineering, by the way, went completely by the wayside.
	It was political, not engineering.
	And this is shown by the fact that there's an entire other arena of Twitter failure here that has been public for a couple of months, and no one has touched it.
	No one cares about it, but really is about the security failures of the Twitter infrastructure.
	If it was an engineering company, these are the things it would have had to solve first and foremost.
	But they were too distracted with, do we ban Donald Trump?
	Do we downgrade Republicans?
	Do we ban Charlie Kerr?
	These are the things that they were spending their time on.
	When it came to a conflict between engineering And trust and safety.
	Trust and safety won pretty much every time.
	It was a conflict between, for example, the whistleblower, the former Twitter security chief, Peter Mudge Zatko, and Yoel Roth.
	Zatko was the security guy.
	Roth was the political head of safety and policy.
	And it was Roth who would win.
	Now, in an engineering company, that guy would lose.
	In an engineering company, it wouldn't be up to Roth what gets banned and what doesn't get banned.
	It would be an engineering issue.
	And this is what Musk is really going back to, because Musk is at root an engineer.
	He's a person who likes to make things work.
	This is why he's the head of Tesla.
	This is why he's the head of SpaceX.
	He's an engineer.
	And so he's bringing an engineering approach to Twitter, which is why he came in and he wiped out 80% of the employee base.
	And the place is running just fine.
	In fact, it has higher engagement than ever because he saw Twitter as a real engineering problem that he could unlock by applying engineering solutions.
	But the heads of Twitter did not see Twitter as an engineering place.
	They did not see Twitter as a value neutral place for free speech.
	They saw it as a weapon on behalf of their own political persuasions.
	And so they ignored a lot of the serious questions about engineering at the company.
	So as I say, there was a whistleblower complaint obtained by the Washington Post from the former Twitter security chief, Peter Mudge Zatko.
	And the Washington Post printed this in August of 2022, and it went very little noticed, but there's some real revelations in there.
	Like for example, Twitter did not monitor employee computers at all.
	Employees were installing spyware on their work devices, which means that all of your material that you were putting in was now available to spyware.
	A lot of this is summed up by a Twitter account He did a good job of going through some of the stuff in the Whistleblower account.
	Twitter does not have a separate development, test, staging, and production environment.
	At least 5,000 employees had privileged access to all the production systems.
	In 2020, Twitter had security incidents serious enough they had to be reported to the federal government on an almost weekly basis.
	Meanwhile, Parag Agrawal, who was the CEO of Twitter at the time, or the COO of Twitter at the time, was actually lying publicly about how secure Twitter was, according to the Whistleblower.
	On January 6th, Mudge, the whistleblower, wanted to take action to prevent possible sabotage by a rogue employee.
	And that's when he learned it was not possible for Twitter to actually secure its production environment.
	In fact, he predicted that there could be a catastrophic failure in engineering, causing Twitter to lose all of its data.
	He told the higher-ups, they ignored him, and then it almost came true.
	It also happens to be that Twitter was making itself subject to foreign governments.
	According to the Whistleblower, these are all engineering issues.
	Agrawal, the CEO, is ignoring all of that because the stuff that he was most interested in was telling his board that he was quote-unquote doing good in the world.
	And this goes back to the entire debate that we've had over Sam Bankman Freed, over at FTX, or that we had over BlackRock, this idea that corporate bosses should be interested in quote-unquote doing good for the world as opposed to serving their shareholders.
	What that does is it leads political hacks to be in charge of extraordinary levels of market power.
	And this leads to people like Yulroth being in charge.
	So Yulroth is a disaster area, obviously.
	Yulroth, the head of, um, the former head of trust and safety over at Twitter, who was fired by Elon Musk.
	Well, it turns out that this is a person without peculiar views on the world.
	So, for example, Yulroth tweeted out November 20th, 2010, He tweeted, quote, This was the person in charge of Twitter's safety policy?
	Strange.
	Yol Roth also happens to be the person who wrote a PhD thesis on gay hookup culture on Grindr for minors.
	And here's one of the things that Yol Roth wrote, quote, Even with the service's extensive content management, Grindr, which, for those who don't know, is a place where gay men go to... to...
	Schedule sexual encounters with one another, chiefly.
	Even with these services' extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hookup-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers.
	But the fact that people under 18 are on those services already indicates we can't readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture.
	Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility, or worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr, including possibly their role in safely connecting queer young adults.
	So he was recommending that Grindr make itself available to 16, 17-year-old kids so that they can hook up with each other, quote-unquote, safely.
	This person was in charge of content management.
	This is not wonderful, but this is what happens when, again, the culture of a company shifts from being about engineering problems to being about shutting down of free speech and promoting a particular political point of view.
	So, you know, Twitter was a disaster.
	Musk is fixing Twitter.
	And this is freaking people out.
	People on the left cannot handle this.
	They can't handle this because, again, they do not want the free dissemination of information.
	They're more freaked out about what Musk is doing now than they are about how Twitter was run for years on end.
	And by the way, the way Twitter was run for years on end did lead to the suppression of actual useful and valuable information.
	I'm not talking here just about the Hunter Biden story.
	I'm talking chiefly about the fact that authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, I was a big proponent of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	Essentially, it suggested the Great Barrington Declaration that vaccinations should be targeted mostly, they should be focused on getting people 65 and up to vaccinate, and then we should get everybody back to work.
	And the younger and healthier you are, the more you should get back to work.
	And this is the shield and protect strategy, is what the Great Barrington Declaration suggested.
	And Anthony Fauci had declared himself in opposition to the Great Barrington Declaration.
	He said they were a bunch of kooks.
	Well, that Great Barrington Declaration, that group, was headed by a doctor named Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University.
	Twitter actively suppressed the dissemination of information that he was putting out there about vaccine efficacy, about the risks of the disease, about vax transmission rates.
	Right, transmission after vaccination.
	So Bhattacharya yesterday, he quite properly came out, he said, listen, Twitter suppressed information and it harmed the public.
	Here was Jay Bhattacharya.
	Dr. Bhattacharya, your reaction tonight.
	This is blockbuster after learning that you were secretly placed on this trends blacklist.
	It's ridiculous and it really hurt public health.
	If we'd had an open discussion, Laura, the schools would not have closed in the fall of 2020.
	If we had an open discussion, the lockdowns would have been lifted much earlier because the data and evidence behind them was so bad.
	Twitter, by suppressing scientific discussion, harms science, harms children, and harms the American public.
	He's right about that.
	How information is distributed makes an enormous difference in American public life.
	And this is why an almost parallel ecosystem of informational dissemination has come about in the first place.
	It used to be that at least when Twitter was an open platform, at least when Facebook was an open platform, In the very beginnings, we're talking like 2009, 2010, 2011, people were speaking to one another because they knew that there wasn't a hand in the other room that was turning up or down the dial, depending on what you were saying.
	But as it became clear that that was the case, people started to act reactively.
	And so the idea was, if it comes from this outlet, I just won't trust it ever.
	And if it comes from this outlet, I will trust it.
	And so you end up with people on the left who refuse to listen to Jay Bhattacharya.
	That's exactly what ends up happening here.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, it can be very difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle if you're a busy human being.
	Like, I'm on the road right now.
	So how do I get the helpings of fruits and veggies that I need?
	Well, this is why I use Balance of Nature.
	Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are the best way to make sure you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
	Their products are 100% whole food.
	Balance of Nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural phytonutrients in whole fruits and vegetables and encapsulates them for easy consumption.
	Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their product down to the office, and we are all more energetic and healthier today for it.
	When you're disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all kinds of benefits.
	We're talking more energy, less fatigue, better focus.
	Consuming the right balance of fruits and veggies every day is an important first step.
	Head on over to balanceofnature.com.
	Use promo code SHAPIRO for $25 off your first order as a preferred customer, plus a free fiber and spice.
	That's balanceofnature.com.
	Promo code SHAPIRO.
	Get $25 off your first preferred order.
	The amount of fruits and veggies they want you to eat on a daily basis, that's a lot of food.
	And Balance of Nature makes it a lot easier to take care of that nutrient need.
	So, head on over to balanceofnature.com, promo code SHAPIRO, get $25 off your first preferred order.
	Also, folks, I'm going to cut to the chase here and let you know, this holiday season, you can save 30% on new DailyWire Plus annual memberships and gift membership when you use code HOLIDAY at checkout.
	That is a fantastic deal.
	2022 was a banner year for us here at Daily Wire.
	We launched a Daily Wire Plus.
	We surpassed a million subscribers.
	We became the sixth largest podcast publisher, overtaking Disney.
	We launched what is one most important documentary of the last 10 years.
	My good friend Jordan Peterson joined forces with us too, releasing a ton of exclusive content In an extraordinarily short period of time, like literally more than 24 hours worth of content behind our paywall.
	As great as that is, it's nothing compared to what is coming next year.
	If you're already a member, thank you.
	If you're not yet a member, now would be the time to join.
	Both for ideological reasons and also because it's a great bargain.
	Go to dailywire.com slash ben.
	Use code HOLIDAY at checkout.
	Get 30% off your new Daily Wire Plus annual membership.
	That's dailywire.com slash ben today.
	Okay, so, as you mentioned, the Twitter destruction.
	The destruction wrought by Twitter in terms of public discourse, which led to the suppression of actual useful information.
	This is one of the things that really ticked off Elon Musk.
	Over the weekend, Elon Musk tweeted out, my pronouns are prosecute, hash, prosecute slash Fauci, which is really funny.
	And people got very, very angry at him because, number one, how dare you mock pronouns?
	And number two, how dare you mock Fauci?
	And somebody wrote back to him criticizing him over this, saying, Elon, please don't mock and promote hate toward already marginalized and at risk of violence members of the LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign community.
	They are real people with real feelings.
	Furthermore, Dr. Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives.
	And Elon Musk wrote back, I strongly disagree.
	Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn't ask and implicitly ostracizing those who don't is neither good nor kind to anyone.
	Slow clap for Elon Musk on that one.
	As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people.
	Not awesome, in my opinion.
	But all of this stuff was suppressed by Twitter until Musk took over.
	And finally, Musk got so ticked that he dropped $44 billion on Twitter in order to free up the mechanisms of distribution.
	And this is why you see an utter disconnect because for a lot of people who live inside that Twitter bubble, Anthony Fauci is the greatest person who ever lived, and Jay Bhattacharya is a crazy person.
	And you can create the narrative that somebody is crazy by just not magnifying them, by shutting them down.
	You marginalize them.
	Like, you literally marginalize them by putting them on the margins of services like Twitter, and the mere fact that they have been marginalized now allows you to call their opinion marginalized as well.
	This is exactly what Twitter was doing.
	And this is why so many of us are irritated and irked by the endless goodbye of Anthony Fauci.
	He just will not leave.
	And here's Dr. Anthony Fauci just saying things that are not backed by the data or the science.
	Since we've been vaccinated, how dangerous is it to be near our grandchildren?
	They have not been vaccinated beyond what's required in the schools.
	Right.
	Well, vaccination again is the answer.
	So if you want to protect your grandchildren and vice versa, even though the grandchildren are not required to get vaccinated, if they are within the age which is now six months or older, I would encourage their family.
	Based on what?
	Based on what?
	Again, the data on the vaccinations preventing transmission do not exist.
	Okay, Omicron basically ran right through that.
	But Anthony Fauci is still being treated as though he is a master of science bringing us the great flame like Prometheus here.
	And it's just in there.
	But you can craft this narrative when you shut down all opposition.
	Anthony Fauci does have a goodbye column in the New York Times championing himself.
	The goodbye column contains multiple pictures of Anthony Fauci.
	Which is typical for this rather self-aggrandizing human being.
	He wrote a piece in the New York Times that is titled, A Message to the Next Generation of Scientists.
	And it's all about how wonderful he is and what an amazing job he did.
	He concludes his self-written valedictory by saying this.
	As I think of the 27-year-old who arrived on the NIH campus in 1968, I'm humbled by the enormous privilege and honor I had serving the American and global public.
	I've experienced enormous joy and benefit from training and learning from the hundreds of brilliant and dedicated physician scientists and support staff members working in my laboratory, in the NIH clinics, and in the NIAID research divisions, and from domestic and international research collaborators.
	Looking ahead, I am confident the next generation of young physicians, scientists, and public health practitioners will experience the same excitement and sense of fulfillment I have felt as they meet the immense need for their expertise to maintain, restore, and protect the health of people around the world and rise to continual unexpected challenges and all the rest.
	The key citation in this particular Anthony Fauci self-backpatting is this.
	He says the reason we failed on COVID-19 is because it was, quote-unquote, hindered by the profound political divisiveness in our society.
	In a way that we have never seen before, decisions about public health measures such as wearing masks and being vaccinated with highly effective and safe vaccines have been influenced by disinformation and political ideology.
	That's the key line.
	Because that's Anthony Fauci clearly calling for Twitter and and YouTube and Facebook and Instagram and all the rest to shut down information that Anthony Fauci does not like.
	Meanwhile, distributing information that is not particularly true.
	We can all make our decisions about the vaccine.
	I never was in favor of Vax mandates because I felt that everybody should be able to make the decisions about vaccines for themselves.
	But Fauci was promoting information that suggests that there should have been a mandate.
	In fact, the Biden administration is still out there suggesting that military members, the youngest, healthiest cohort of Americans, should be fired from the military if they are on Vax.
	This is still the perspective of the Biden administration.
	This would only be part of the conversation at all by suppressing information that ran counter to what Anthony Fauci was preaching.
	Here is Corinne Jean-Pierre, world's worst press secretary, making the case that we should continue to fire unvaxxed military members.
	Should the Senate expect to know what the position of the President is on the bill before they vote on it?
	I mean, we've been very clear when I've been asked about the vaccine mandate.
	We thought that that was a mistake, you know, and it wasn't just from the President.
	It was also from the Senate, and Congress received a letter from Secretary Austin saying how important, he believed how important the vaccine mandate was.
	They're promoting this information, which is in fact misinformation, because they know that they have been able to stranglehold the dissemination of information for a really long time.
	Well, there is a danger to them in this.
	There's a danger to them in this.
	is that if you continue to promote bad ideas into an echo chamber, you think the only people out there who matter are the people in the echo chamber.
	There are a lot of other people outside the echo chamber, and the blowback is going to be severe.
	And this is true not just with regard to COVID.
	It's also going to be true with regard to social issues.
	So, for example, EJ Dionne has a piece over in the Washington Post today.
	It's called, A Question to Conservative Christians on Gay Marriage.
	Why draw the line here?
	And basically what he says is, Religious conservatives should bake the cake.
	It's very important that religious conservatives bake the cake.
	He admits that for thousands of years marriage has meant man and woman, but he says religious people are bigots.
	Now, this is a perspective that has developed inside a very specific precinct of American life.
	The vast majority of religious people are not using religion as a cover for their bigotry.
	They believe that same-sex marriage is wrong for both natural law and religious reasons.
	But according to E.J.
	Dionne, because this is the kind of stuff that he says to his friends, if you are a religious person and you oppose same-sex marriage, it is because you're a bigot.
	He says, many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful.
	I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge this is a long-held view.
	Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin.
	Jesus was tough on divorce.
	What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder, he says in Matthew's Gospel.
	But unless I'm missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages.
	Well, I mean, first of all, this has been a pretty solid debate among Christians for a very long time as far as how to view divorce.
	Divorce is acceptable inside Judaism.
	It's acceptable inside Protestantism.
	Catholicism does not accept divorce.
	But presumably, divorce is still a very live issue for Catholics.
	You can see a world in which a Catholic baker says, I'm not going to bake a cake celebrating your divorce, and there'd be nothing wrong with that.
	But, says E.J.
	Dionne, we do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships.
	Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer.
	Why the selective forgiveness?
	Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?
	But it's not selective.
	Because Donald Trump, also by the way, was in favor of same-sex marriage.
	Last I checked.
	So what he's really saying is that because he lives in this ivory tower where all the people agree with him, any religious person who disagrees with him is actually a bigot.
	He says what we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions.
	American attitudes toward homosexuality have certainly changed radically, but so have our attitudes toward racial and gender equality.
	Are not these moves toward greater openness all expressions of the equal God-given dignity of every person?
	So now he's preaching.
	So he says before, I totally understand what exactly it is that you are... I totally understand that you have a religious tradition that says that this is wrong, but I don't believe you.
	I don't believe you.
	You are a bigot.
	And really, you should accept my gospel, the gospel of E.J.
	Dionne.
	Because he's in the acceptable, Conversation.
	He says stuff like this, which is just bigotry against religious people, and he doesn't even think twice about it.
	He says, we hear from our conservative friends about the importance of family values, and I heartily agree.
	Healthy families are good for society, for children, and for social justice.
	But we straight people have done a heck of a job wrecking the family all by ourselves, and in any event, supporting same-sex marriage is to stand for, not against, stable, loving, lifetime relationships.
	Um, not all stable relationships are blessed by God or produce children.
	I mean, you presumably could have a stable, loving, lifetime relationship between four people.
	I don't know that E.J.
	Dionne is up for that.
	He says, I hold religious freedom as a high value and see religion as, on balance, a positive social force.
	I support well-crafted legal exemptions to protect the autonomy of religious institutions and the free exercise of religion.
	But these cannot become a defense of discrimination in the marketplace or in our legal system.
	So, he finally says, and this is where he gets to the punchline, I have a respectful suggestion for traditionalist Christians who run businesses that cater weddings.
	Joyfully do the work same-sex couples hire you to do and witness your faith by giving them a copy of the New Testament.
	It teaches us that God is love and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him.
	Well, I mean, it turns out that if you're a Christian, you should take the gospel of Jesus and you should throw that one out.
	E.J.
	Dionne has his own, and that one trumps it.
	You should bake the cake, you bigots.
	Now, the reason that this is important, this kind of stuff, is because this echo chamber that has been created, and it's a strong, a super strong echo chamber, disconnects the left from millions, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of Americans.
	And so they are shocked, always, when there is blowback against this sort of stuff.
	They continue to push cultural transgressivism.
	And then when people notice the transgressivism, they get very upset.
	They get very, very angry.
	It is amazing that it never occurs to them that maybe they are out of touch.
	Right?
	It never occurs to them.
	Like, there's an entire article in the New York Times today titled, Highbrow Films Aimed at Winning Oscars Are Losing Audiences.
	So, they don't understand.
	Why are these highbrow films not winning audiences?
	Well, maybe it's because many of the films that you consider highbrow run directly against the values of the vast majority of Americans.
	Maybe that would be the problem.
	Maybe it's not just that people like to go to theater to watch things blow up.
	Maybe it's also because films that do not slap them in the face politically are films they are more likely to see.
	Maybe Top Gun Maverick did unbelievable business, not just because it's great to watch and great to look at and the special effects are really cool and all of that, but also because Top Gun Maverick is a very traditionalist story.
	It is traditionally patriotic.
	It is traditional about relationships.
	Maybe it's because of that.
	Maybe it's because I could take my wife to the theater and not have to worry about my values being mocked.
	But the New York Times doesn't understand that.
	There's an entire piece by Brooks Barnes, and he says, A year ago, Hollywood watched in despair as Oscar-oriented films like Licorice Pizza and Nightmare Alley flatlined at the box office.
	The day seemed to have finally arrived when prestige films were no longer viable in theaters and streaming had forever altered cinema.
	But studios held out hope, deciding that in November 2022, they would have a more accurate reading of the marketplace.
	By then, the coronavirus would not be such a complicating factor.
	This fall would be a last stand, as some put it, a chance to show that more than superheroes and sequels could succeed.
	It has been carnage.
	One after another, films for grown-ups have failed to find an audience big enough to justify their cost.
	Armageddon Time cost $30 million to make and market.
	It collected $1.9 million at the North American box office.
	Now, why do you think that is?
	Number one, the budget is completely out of whack.
	I mean, there's no economics to this.
	But also, Armageddon Time is an attack on the Reagan administration.
	That's what it is, according to all the reviews.
	Tar cost at least $35 million, including marketing.
	Ticket sales total $5.3 million.
	Well, maybe that's because it's about a sexually abusive lesbian.
	Like, is that what you want to go see on a Friday night with your girlfriend?
	Or with your boyfriend?
	Like, is that what... Universal spent $55 million to make and market She Said, which took in $5.3 million.
	Well, maybe that's because She Said is an ode to journalists uncovering the Harvey Weinstein scandal, which had, like, no controversy attached to it.
	Everybody acknowledged it was good, and then it morphs quickly into every single human being who has ever had sexual relations with another human being may be a sexual abuser.
	And the reason that these movies are failing is because these movies run directly counter to many of the values of the American people.
	That would be at least one major reason.
	So, you know, the disconnect has cultural effects, but it's not just the disconnect has cultural effects.
	Obviously, the disconnect also has serious political effects.
	And the serious political effects have yet to be felt.
	Joe Biden escaped censure from the American public in 2022 because Republicans decided to raid the local homeless shelter for candidates.
	But if that had not happened, Joe Biden would have gotten clocked.
	So he's just going to continue doing what he's doing.
	Democrats are going to continue doing what they're doing because they've created this bubble for themselves.
	Elon Musk has pierced that bubble and this is why they're so angry.
	Elon Musk did a comedy show with Dave Chappelle the other night where he came up on stage and Chappelle praised him and he got booed by the audience, Musk.
	And Chappelle immediately said that you basically have a bunch of unemployed Twitter people up in the upper deck, the Wokies.
	That's correct.
	You know, Musk uncovering what's happening at Twitter, is vital stuff, not just for technology, but for us to come back together over some sort of at least shared space where we can discuss ideas openly.
	And that has been largely lost.
	And that's been lost because the left does not want to share ideas openly.
	They don't want to have these conversations at all.
	They must not be shared openly.
	If you share ideas openly, it threatens them.
	Well, the problem is if those ideas are not shared openly and rebutted or discussed, they end up metastasizing in the worst situations.
	And in the not-worst situations, they end up being suppressed.
	Good ideas end up being suppressed.
	Jay Bhattacharya ideas.
	Those end up being suppressed.
	And then, when the American public take their revenge on the people who have suppressed the dissemination of information, when they take revenge on the people in control of the cultural levers, the left is going to be absolutely stunned and they're going to be absolutely shocked.
	And it is coming.
	It didn't come for them in 2022 because of external factors, including bad candidate selection and fear of Donald Trump by the Republican Party, but it is going to materialize.
	It is going to happen.
	And when it does, The left is gonna have no clue what hit it.
	Alrighty, we've reached the end of today's show.
	Make sure to come back at 4 p.m.
	Eastern Time, catch more of The Ben Shapiro Show, guest hosted by Michael Noltz.

▲