Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Jason Fyk @JasonFyk (X) Libby Emmons @LibbyEmmons (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| It seems to have fallen off a bit, but several years ago Section 230 was one of the biggest topics of conversation, particularly around censorship and how these companies operate online in terms of what is a publisher, what is a, you know, like if you're a private platform, if you're broadcasting individuals, if you're publishing what they say, or if you're just a platform. | ||
| And I think everybody gets this one wrong, and there's an interesting conversation to be had about it. | ||
| However, we could be looking at, with a new lawsuit, the end of Section 230. | ||
| And I do kind of feel like many people on the right have sort of abandoned the cause. | ||
| They don't really focus on it all that much. | ||
| But the conversation here is about more than just censorship. | ||
| It's about big tech. | ||
| It's about artificial intelligence. | ||
| It's about how algorithms are shaping our culture inadvertently, and what the machine state is trying to do to re-control everything that's happening. | ||
| And it seems like they're having their successes. | ||
| There's a lot to talk about. | ||
| We can go back to the early days of file sharing, Napster, what that meant. | ||
| We can talk about mega upload and ultimately how the machine regained control of this environment and what they're trying to do. | ||
| Before we get started, my friends, we got a new song coming out. | ||
| So head over to buycominghome.com. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| Buycominghome.com featuring Phil Labonte. | ||
| We've got this here on Timcast Music on YouTube. | ||
| I think it's a great song. | ||
| I'm very excited for it. | ||
| You can check out the preview on YouTube, but if you want to support our work, you can pre-order the song now. | ||
| It will be up in one week. | ||
| Buycominghome.com. | ||
| Smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends. | ||
| Of course, you can follow me on Axe. | ||
| Joining us tonight, not tonight, this morning. | ||
| Man, you see, I'm so used to doing IRL. | ||
| Joining us this morning, To talk about what exactly is going on is Jason Fick. | ||
| Thank you for having me, Tim. | ||
| Who are you? | ||
| What do you do? | ||
| Well, I'm the guy that's going after Section 230. | ||
| I used to be in social media on a pretty big scale, you know, way back in the day. | ||
| I think it was like 2010 I got in, and I was mainly focused, you know, because Facebook was a big thing back then. | ||
| And I got, you know, focused in Facebook, and I built an audience that was gigantic. | ||
| I mean, at one point, I think we had estimates around 38 million fans on Facebook. | ||
| And, you know, somewhere along the way, you know, we became a nuisance to Facebook. | ||
| And before this real, you know, political or medical or whatever censorship, they first, you know, started censoring people that were competing with them. | ||
| And that was me. | ||
| So they hit me a long time ago. | ||
| You know and we went to war, you know, we decided to sue them. | ||
| I caught them red-handed in 2016 and 2018 we sued and we have been to the Supreme Court now twice We were asking the correct questions Supreme Court didn't take our petition had they taken it a lot of this censorship nonsense wouldn't have happened You know? | ||
| So it's been a grind, you know, these past couple years. | ||
| I founded a 501c3, the Social Media Freedom Foundation, because I'm a big proponent for the First Amendment, you know? | ||
| You know, no matter what we do, no matter what all the problems we face, and all the things that we talk about on all these shows, all of them stem back to we got to be able to talk about them. | ||
| That's absolutely true. | ||
| And your story is very crazy, too. | ||
| So we'll get into all this. | ||
| And we also have Libby hanging out. | ||
| I'm hanging out this morning, glad to be here. | ||
| I'm fascinated to hear your story and how you're going to get this all sorted out. | ||
| Yeah, so tell us what exactly is going on. | ||
| I mean, does this start with you getting arrested and charged, or were you an activist online with a big following beforehand? | ||
| What happened? | ||
| Yeah, so a lot of people don't know this, because it's actually something I don't really talk about on too many shows, but, you know, since we got along for them, I can really go into how this all started for me. | ||
| So it goes back to the 2008 real estate reception. | ||
| I got, you know, my butt handed to me. | ||
| And I had to reinvent myself. | ||
| So I started a magazine called WTF magazine, which was called, uh, where's the fun magazine. | ||
| Now everybody, of course, you know, thought it was a bad, you know, bad content, but no, it was, we were just doing social funny stuff. | ||
| And of course, you know how most businesses start. | ||
| Fake it till you make it. | ||
| I had no idea what I was doing. | ||
| Never worked in media in any capacity. | ||
| And I got an offer to do an interview of the Adrenaline Crew. | ||
| They were a motorcycle stunt group that was big on YouTube back in the day. | ||
| And they said, hey, you want to come down to Baltimore and do an interview? | ||
| And I thought, wow, this is the closest I had seen to a celebrity, you know, like they were well known. | ||
| So I said, sure. | ||
| And you know, I live in Pennsylvania. | ||
| It was like an hour and a half drive down to Baltimore. | ||
| So I drove down there and I met up with a guy by the name of, what was his name? | ||
| Steve Pullman. | ||
| That was his name. | ||
| And, you know, I show up at Power Plant Live in Baltimore and he greets me and he's got this big mohawk. | ||
| Crazy, crazy looking thing, right? | ||
| And me and these guys do some crazy stunts. | ||
| I mean, they're not bad, you know, worst case scenario, they break traffic laws. | ||
| But I start doing this interview with them. | ||
| And the music comes on, interview's cut short. | ||
| I'm like, okay. | ||
| So I took pictures the whole night, but I was working, you know? | ||
| To me, that was a job. | ||
| And at the end of the night, they said, hey, you know, do you want to crash at our place and drive us home? | ||
| Of course, I hadn't been drinking, so I was like, sure, why not? | ||
| I thought it might be fun, figure out a personal life of these guys and so forth. | ||
| So we go to my car, which is in the parking garage, and as we're coming up the ramp, now I thought it was just gonna be Steve, but it turned out it was Steve, two other guys, and another girl, and we're fitting in this little M3 BMW that I had. | ||
| As we're coming up the ramp, some other people come out of the stairwell, and it was two girls and a guy, a boy, They had been at the same club, and of course, everybody's been drinking, and you know how that goes. | ||
| And here it is, two something in the morning, and they start arguing with one another. | ||
| Well, what do I do? | ||
| Hold out my cell phone. | ||
| I, you know, what do you do? | ||
| Now that, anybody understands, that's a First Amendment protected right, right? | ||
| It's just like speaking, you're allowed to take video, and it doesn't mean anything. | ||
| Well, this fight ensues, Couple fists thrown here and there. | ||
| It's a little scuffle. | ||
| It's like two minutes long. | ||
| And then everybody gets up and goes on their own way. | ||
| I wasn't even in the fight. | ||
| I had nothing to do with it. | ||
| You can hear me on my own camera sitting there saying, the girl says, I don't want to get involved. | ||
| I said, neither do I. I don't have time for that nonsense. | ||
| I'm too old for that, right? | ||
| Well, little did we know that the people on the other side of the fight, the two girls and the guy, they all had found they were cops, Baltimore cops. | ||
| Kind of know how Baltimore goes. | ||
| So next thing I know, I've got cops showing up at my house, uh, seizing the vehicle as evidence in a crime. | ||
| And I'm like, okay, this is getting ridiculous. | ||
| I would have given you the car or whatever. | ||
| And a couple months goes by, and I was actually at Wing Bowl, standing there with Ron Jeremy, of all people. | ||
| And I got a call from my wife. | ||
| The police are at our house raiding our house. | ||
| And I'm like, what the hell? | ||
| So I race home, and the Baltimore cops had come over and got the Pennsylvania State Police. | ||
| And they took all my electronics, and they basically shut my business down right there on the stop. | ||
| I mean, a lot of, a lot of people on the right are now having this, like where feds are showing up and, and destroying our lives. | ||
| Well, they did. | ||
| And I thought to myself, okay, I mean, like, guys, I would have helped you. | ||
| I mean, all I was was a witness. | ||
| No, see, the family being cops meant that they went after me. | ||
| Next thing I know, I get a call from the, from the cop down in Baltimore. | ||
| And he says, uh, we, we got paper tree to sign. | ||
| You got to come down to Baltimore. | ||
| I'm like, What do you mean papers? | ||
| This is how they get you. | ||
| Like what do you mean papers? | ||
| I'm like, I'm not driving to Baltimore to sign a paper, email it to me. | ||
| And it was like, no, no, you need to come down here. | ||
| Finally. | ||
| He admits we've got a warrant for your arrest. | ||
| I'm like, what? | ||
| So we go through this whole, you know, crazy rigmarole. | ||
| Cause I'm like, I can't leave right that fast. | ||
| Cause I mean, my, my entire life's going to get blown up. | ||
| And I said to him, I said, I like, look, I'm not coming to Baltimore unless you tell me what the charges are. | ||
| Do you know what the charges were? | ||
| Now remember, I took a cell phone video. | ||
| Wasn't involved in the fight. | ||
| No one was seriously hurt. | ||
| Nobody even went to the hospital that night. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Conspiracy to commit first-degree attempted murder. | ||
| They tacked on all sorts of felony assault charges. | ||
| I mean, they brought a war at me. | ||
| I mean, it was two life sentences in 275 years I was looking at for taking a cell phone video which is protected. | ||
| Sounds like the government weaponized, right? | ||
| Well, I got a taste of it very, very early on. | ||
| And my First Amendment, you know, was trampled on. | ||
| So a couple days later, I surrendered myself, and BCDC, if anybody knows anything about BCDC, which is Baltimore City Detention Center, it was rated the second worst jail in the nation. | ||
| I mean, it was horrible. | ||
| Like, there was a scandal in there where, like, Five or ten of the female police officers were pregnant by the same inmate. | ||
| I mean, it was just insane stuff that was going on in that place. | ||
| I could buy a gun in jail, not even kidding you. | ||
| And here I am, I'm privately school-educated, never had, you know, anything happen in my entire life, and I've gone straight to attempted murder. | ||
| And I'm in, like, hardcore jail, right? | ||
| It's funny, they used to call me Jay Money in jail, right? | ||
| And the funny thing is, the way I survived in that jail is because I was educated and because I sort of understood what was going on. | ||
| I acted as the liaison between their attorney, because most of them couldn't read. | ||
| So I was actually helping them figure out these legal issues to get them out. | ||
| So of course, all the gang members that wanted to get out, they didn't let anybody touch me. | ||
| So ultimately, I spent like two months in jail, finally get a bail. | ||
| Like they denied me bail because I was in jail and then then I got a bail hearing because one of the other guys had finally gotten out that was actually in the fight and I Got out on bail which changed the entire dynamic. | ||
| I would have taken a charge in jail. | ||
| I was terrified like I Like legitimately I watched people get stabbed I watched guy had his head beat against the toilet like it was horrible in there like as bad as it gets and But as soon as I got out, I realized I could take a stance against this thing and it put me on this path to take down corrupt cops and corrupt government and fight for free speech. | ||
| It changed who I was. | ||
| So why did they charge you with attempted murder for filming? | ||
| Because they were family members of the cops. | ||
| It's malicious prosecution. | ||
| They just used the system. | ||
| So the people in the video were family members of the cops? | ||
| What beef do they have with you? | ||
| You're just some guy who filmed it and be like, who are you? | ||
| We don't care. | ||
| Because they were family members of cops, they said that I was a kingpin. | ||
| Imagine yourself, right? | ||
| As high profile as you are. | ||
| Imagine you take out a cell phone video. | ||
| It's not because you do anything wrong. | ||
| It's just because of who you are. | ||
| They're going to go after you. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't understand the motive. | ||
| Well, if you think about it, the two girls and the guy, the other side of this fight, their family members are cops, Baltimore cops. | ||
| Those cops were involved in the What do you call it? | ||
| The deposition thing that they take. | ||
| And we noticed their names are like, whoa. | ||
| So what they did was they basically said go after them. | ||
| They did it like I was a kingpin. | ||
| I set this up like a bum fight. | ||
| But what do you think their motive is? | ||
| What are they trying to gain from this? | ||
| Just smash me, I guess. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| But just they're bored, so they're going after some random guy who happened to be nearby? | ||
| Well, no. | ||
| No, because I was taking them home. | ||
| So I was there with them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The summer is all sunshine, smiles, and road trips. | |
| That is, until the hot weather wreaks havoc on your engine, and before you know it, you're waiting for roadside assistance and paying for costly repairs. | ||
| With CarShield, the heat doesn't have to rob you of your summer fun. | ||
| Broken A.C. | ||
| and electrical problems are common in high heat, and expensive summer car issues. | ||
| Now is the time to put your faith in America's most trusted vehicle protection company, CarShield, and shield yourself from pricey summer breakdowns. | ||
| CarShield's expert representatives are available to help you find the best options for your vehicle and the most affordable and flexible plans to fit your budget. | ||
| Now, CarShield is offering 20% off your plan. | ||
| Just visit carshield.com slash carlson. | ||
| Don't sweat it this summer. | ||
| Choose CarShield. | ||
| Get your free quote. | ||
| Visit CarShield.com slash Carlson. | ||
| That's CarShield.com slash Carlson. | ||
| CarShield.com slash Carlson. | ||
| Coverage varies by plan. | ||
| View contracts and exclusions at CarShield.com. | ||
| With the people who were in the fight. | ||
| With the people that were in the fight, but they wanted to take them all down for murder, which was insane. | ||
| Nobody murdered. | ||
| Nobody was, like, the worst injury that was actually listed was a, quote, possible broken nose. | ||
| Possible. | ||
| Anybody who was there in that group, they're gonna go after. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And they took me for something that is constitutionally protected. | ||
| Which is just filming what happened in public. | ||
| I had no involvement, but you know you get blamed for things that are just ridiculous because people get a vendetta, and you know we're seeing that these days, that they're weaponizing the The whole government, everything, the cops, the, you know, it's getting crazy and a lot of people, you know, they sit at home and they don't think about this and they go, you know, because they're not affected until they come for you. | ||
| Then what? | ||
| And that's just it is somebody's got to fight back because if we don't we're just We're gonna get—there's so many of us now that have basically poked the beehive, you know, so to speak. | ||
| And gotten in trouble just for social media stuff. | ||
| Yeah, and if they get too much power, they're gonna come for us. | ||
| That's how it's gonna go down. | ||
| So it is a do-or-die fight at this point. | ||
| It's obviously progressed from You know, what happened in Baltimore, that's just started me on the road. | ||
| It's, you know, just changed who I was. | ||
| But then, you know, I started growing in social media to tell this whole story, to tell this whole, what happened to me, because it was so wrong. | ||
| Like, why am I going to jail? | ||
| I mean, worst case, maybe accessory to a misdemeanor assault, which is really not even a charge. | ||
| But is it still ongoing? | ||
| No. | ||
| In fact, actually what happened, about eight or nine months later, I finally get to court, first court hearing. | ||
| The one guy has pled out. | ||
| He pled to a misdemeanor, right? | ||
| That can't even be an accessory to a misdemeanor. | ||
| It has to be a felony. | ||
| The other guy was still dealing with it, but he goes in. | ||
| His attorneys were there. | ||
| My attorneys couldn't be there because they were in a capital murder trial. | ||
| And so I was just going to get continuous because my counsel couldn't be there. | ||
| And, but I had to be there. | ||
| So I show up and the other guy's attorney stand up there and they're doing their thing and so forth. | ||
| And then the judge says, Mr. Fick, and I stand up and I'm like, I'm here. | ||
| He said, um, she, he, she, it was a, it was a woman. | ||
| She goes, uh, Mr. Fick, uh, she turns to the prosecutors and he says, okay, so what did he do wrong? | ||
| That is, that sticks in my head to this day. | ||
| You got a judge literally looking at this going, so what did he do wrong? | ||
| She knew it. | ||
| She knew it was a First Amendment protected activity. | ||
| And I stood there and she turned, you know, and then she, she, uh, you know, brought him up to the podium and so forth. | ||
| And the other one said, my attorney's not there. | ||
| And they said, you're going to null process. | ||
| I could hear her. | ||
| You're going to null process, right? | ||
| Which means to drop it. | ||
| And the prosecutors, cause it actually was a state prosecutor. | ||
| They had gone up. | ||
| They wasn't even the city anymore. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| They threw everything at us and right there on the spot they dropped it with a court apology. | ||
| The procedure is the punishment. | ||
| Yeah, you lose no matter what. | ||
| Well, you got two months in jail. | ||
| I had two months in jail. | ||
| Yeah, that's a lot of time in jail for not doing anything. | ||
| $60,000 in lawyers fees, which you don't recover. | ||
| So, you know, I, of course, tried to sue because of malicious prosecution, but see, they've insulated it there, too, because you go to a law firm, the Murphy firm is the biggest one that goes after the city, and they basically said, If anything has probable cause, anything, like if you get jaywalking and they add on attempted murder, they can do that. | ||
| Because if the jaywalking has probable cause, everything else gets dumped. | ||
| If you were black, you'd have made a million dollars. | ||
| Black Lives Matter would have rallied in two seconds. | ||
| Ben Crump would have come out and said, here's the video of what he did. | ||
| Why is this happening? | ||
| You know, but here we are. | ||
| You know, it's a shame because, you know, the racism thing, it exists in a way, but it's not the way that everybody expects. | ||
| And you're right in that. | ||
| I'll tell you a funny story with that. | ||
| With my bail hearing, You know, here I am in a freaking jumpsuit. | ||
| I am the only white guy in the room, except for, you know, the prosecutor and judge and everybody else. | ||
| But all of these people were chained all around me, probably 30 plus, all black. | ||
| And they get to my case and the judge says, Oh, I remember this case. | ||
| What do you mean you remember this case? | ||
| And next thing I know I get denied bail. | ||
| I have surrendered myself. | ||
| I have no criminal history. | ||
| I got nothing going on that's wrong. | ||
| And I got denied bail. | ||
| The next guy that stood up, black guy, right? | ||
| He was there on his eighth felony assault. | ||
| He hit a guy in the head with a baseball bat and he got a quarter million dollar bail. | ||
| I'm a bigger threat. | ||
| So you got no bail and the judge said they remembered the case without you ever having stood before the judge before. | ||
| You got it. | ||
| And so that this, yeah, that's a problem. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| They'd never, they hadn't seen your case in person before and they remember it for some reason. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I think she was involved with the other people and she just lumped me in with the whole situation. | ||
| And it, what it means is that there's a bias. | ||
| There's clearly something that she's got going on in her head, no matter how you slice it. | ||
| We, no matter what it is, there's something there. | ||
| She was remembering something. | ||
| I think our society is collapsing, and the ability of individuals to recognize things greater than themselves is dramatically diminished. | ||
| So you end up with politicians who just say, I don't care, I need to win, I want my money. | ||
| And they will burn this country down, they'll open up the borders, they'll sacrifice the economy so long as they get their paycheck. | ||
| You know the way I describe it is the Titanic has hit the iceberg and they're stealing the China and rushing to the life raft before anybody else can. | ||
| And so in this regard, I bring that up because this judge doesn't know, doesn't care. | ||
| Literally, it's all meaningless. | ||
| And this is what we see so often in the courts of today. | ||
| I mean, despite the fact that we still have a pretty good system, it really is all about your jurisdiction. | ||
| So, in issues of, say, civil matters especially, which you're also familiar with, it's all about your judge. | ||
| And you're going to go to your lawyer and you're going to say, This person did this thing wrong, civilly. | ||
| They've damaged me and I want money. | ||
| And the first thing the lawyer is going to say is, where can we file this? | ||
| Where do we have standing? | ||
| Where do we have proper jurisdiction? | ||
| And unfortunately for you, this happened in a place where, ah, you know what? | ||
| It's an Obama appointee. | ||
| Yeah, you're going to lose in two seconds. | ||
| He's going to take one look at you and he's going to be like, nope. | ||
| Or it's going to be, ah, it's a Trump appointee. | ||
| You know, this Trump appointee is going to feel this way or that way about it. | ||
| And it doesn't even matter the merits of the case. | ||
| It matters the political leanings. | ||
| And sometimes not even that. | ||
| I mean, you try to sue Baltimore police in Baltimore, and that judge is going to be like, you know, we get paid from the same coffers. | ||
| So you suing them is taking from my paycheck, too. | ||
| Get out of my courtroom. | ||
| Unless there's civil unrest, powerful media interests, and then what they do is the cost-benefit analysis. | ||
| Am I going to lose more money paying him out, or dealing with the negative press and riots that affect this city? | ||
| Once again, all from the same coffers. | ||
| So when you see the BLM riots, the city's cave, not just, you know, Baltimore, but many, they cave, they pay out, because they're thinking, the riots are gonna cost the city 15, 20 million dollars in damages, then we're gonna have to deal with the legal issues, the PR issues, the staffing, special prosecutor, all that stuff, pay them their settlement, give them the 10 million dollars, and it goes away. | ||
| That happened in New York City, where protesters, agitators who had torched police cars, they got a settlement. | ||
| Oh yeah, yeah. | ||
| They caused millions in damage. | ||
| Unreal. | ||
| January 20th, 2017, hundreds of far-left extremists, actually thousands, but hundreds were arrested, were firebombing various parts. | ||
| They were setting things on fire, starting fires in the streets, smashing windows. | ||
| And when the police arrested a group of hundreds of individuals, primarily wearing black hoodies and masks, They said conspiracy to riot, etc., things of this nature. | ||
| It all got dismissed because the lawyers argued you can't prove this individual, because they were wearing a hoodie, was involved in any crime. | ||
| And so once it got dismissed, they sued, winning I think like one or two million dollars. | ||
| So the people who destroy the city got paid by the city cash. | ||
| It's infuriating. | ||
| You had politicians and Jacob Frey in Minneapolis just bending the knee to the protesters. | ||
| Yeah, it's shocking to see that kind of thing happen. | ||
| But so, how does this get into, you know, big tech censorship, right? | ||
| Yeah, it's a weird transition, but it's funny because it goes right out of what you're saying. | ||
| How do we get even about this? | ||
| So I had this crazy story of what happened to me. | ||
| You know, it was bad. | ||
| I had no money. | ||
| And of course, you know, Facebook's free. | ||
| They offered this, you know, come build your business on Facebook, and you'll get reach and distribution, you just have to come build it, right? | ||
| That's what they're representing to everybody. | ||
| So we all bust our butts to, you know, that's what we're doing here. | ||
| We're working to get attention and reach and distribution so that we can essentially sell product or whatever it is. | ||
| And I wanted to get the story out. | ||
| So this is before anybody really realized the value of reach and distribution. | ||
| But I needed reach and distribution. | ||
| And at the time I was telling my wife because I mean, we were so broke. | ||
| I mean, I remember being on Angel's Food Network. | ||
| Like, we couldn't feed ourselves. | ||
| I mean, it was, I felt like a failure as a man, because everybody else had taken everything from me, and I was bound and determined to get this story out. | ||
| And my goal was to write a book, and I didn't. | ||
| I never had an editor in it, so there's a lot of mistakes in it. | ||
| But at the end of the day, it was one of those, I needed to fight back. | ||
| And the way was to build an audience, get those people to hear what I had to say. | ||
| So I started a magazine, you know, and I thought, well, I'll at least try to build this out and try to get an audience there. | ||
| So I started working on Facebook and I started building an audience as fast as I could. | ||
| And then one day I discovered the fake fan thing. | ||
| And I was like, huh. | ||
| Now I was doing it like where I would go to events and I was just burning money and there's no good ROI on the whole thing. | ||
| So I was trying to build this audience. | ||
| Well, then I realized that the people that had bigger audiences than me. | ||
| I went to a model who I didn't like. | ||
| She was actually a really, really terrible person, but she was just like all about herself. | ||
| But she had 67,000 fans, which was huge on Facebook in those days. | ||
| We're talking 2011, right? | ||
| I had like 14,000 and she was going to share me if I helped promote her. | ||
| And then when it came time, she's like, I'm not going to waste my time on you. | ||
| And it's like, Oh, Well, when I figured out the fake fan thing, right? | ||
| This was on Fiverr. | ||
| What is that? | ||
| What is that? | ||
| So, they're bots. | ||
| This was really where the whole bot farming thing for social media became a thing. | ||
| What do you mean you figured it out? | ||
| So somebody had said to me, well, no, no, I was actually, I was just Googling how to build an audience and somehow it took me to a website called Fiverr, F-I-V-E-R-R, I think it is. | ||
| Hire people for five bucks. | ||
| Yeah, it's like five buck thing. | ||
| And, and it said $5 for a hundred fans. | ||
| And I'm like, well, that's better than the ROI on anything else. | ||
| So I, so I bought it and I was like, yeah, I got a hundred fans and they came overnight. | ||
| Boom, done. | ||
| I got, I was like, wow. | ||
| And then a couple of weeks goes by and, and it's like 500 for $5. | ||
| Then it's like a thousand for $5. | ||
| So I'm going, and when it hit a thousand for $5 and I'm noticing nothing's really changed on my metrics. | ||
| Like I'm just like, why are they just not engaging? | ||
| So I asked the guy, asked the person I bought it from, I said, are these real accounts? | ||
| And he said, yes. | ||
| I said, no, are they like real people? | ||
| Oh, no, no, no, no. | ||
| This is all India, right? | ||
| This was India building these bot farms. | ||
| And all of a sudden I realized, you know, I mean, basic business 101, how many products or books are you going to sell to a fake account? | ||
| Exactly zero. | ||
| So I'm like, well, this is no good. | ||
| I don't care about having numbers. | ||
| I care about like actually building my life. | ||
| So I went back to that model and I said, Hey, I can get you 1,000 fans if you can get me 1,000 fans. | ||
| She said, you can't get me 1,000 fans. | ||
| I was like, yes, I can. | ||
| So I did. | ||
| Overnight. | ||
| Well, then she was beholden to actually get me 1,000 fans, which was organically, which all of a sudden blew up. | ||
| Well, guess what? | ||
| I started realizing all these models wanted, because they didn't know how to monetize back then. | ||
| This is way early, right? | ||
| This is before OnlyFans and Instagram and everything else. | ||
| They just wanted the numbers, because they would get gigs. | ||
| So next thing I know, she's getting me at that, but they're all organic, they're real people, right? | ||
| So as that's building and building and building, my page is going nuts. | ||
| Next thing I know, I'm like half her size, but she's at over 120,000, and I'm at like 70,000. | ||
| So what happened? | ||
| Except mine are all real. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well, it's kind of funny, because then I got undermined by her. | ||
| She realized that we were buying them, so she starts undermining, undercutting me the entire thing. | ||
| So you were buying fans for her? | ||
| Other people. | ||
| For all the models, which was building my audience organically, because they were basically promoting me. | ||
| So you were, like, cheating them, basically. | ||
| That sounds like fraud. | ||
| Yeah, but way past statute of limitations and nobody cared. | ||
| And some of them, when they did care, they kept buying them. | ||
| So she figured it out and then continued to buy them and go up to about a quarter million fans. | ||
| And basically it undermined the whole thing and it started to drop off. | ||
| So what did I do? | ||
| I'm like, okay, well, I'll just expose how it works. | ||
| Because I understood how all the bot farms work at this point and everything else like that. | ||
| I'm like, okay. | ||
| So I did and I put a video out on YouTube. | ||
| It's still there. | ||
| And I explained how you could identify it because like their primary like top city of response was like Romania, Lithuania, and like Egypt and all these other places that were just not American. | ||
| And mine was like Chicago. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Well, this was right before the IPO drop of Facebook. | ||
| This is stuff I haven't talked about on any show. | ||
| So we let Facebook know, like, Hey, look, like a third of your, your business is like bots now. | ||
| And they didn't care. | ||
| So you bought bots for people on Facebook, then exposed them to Facebook. | ||
| I exposed, I exposed the whole bot system to Facebook. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And it was one of those things that like, like I said, they didn't really care at that point. | ||
| They all started buying them from themselves. | ||
| They just wanted audience. | ||
| And they were using like Fiverr and stuff for that. | ||
| Yeah, they found the same systems and everything else like that and then it became like a whole industry and people were buying. | ||
| A whole fraud fan industry. | ||
| Yeah, people were buying like 60,000 fans and that's not, that wasn't my interest. | ||
| I had basically gotten out of it within a couple months because I just needed the start. | ||
| But then by that point I was large enough to actually compete in it. | ||
| Then I exposed it and then Facebook goes public. | ||
| Well, you know, during this whole process. | ||
| What year was this? | ||
| It was like 2012, I think, they went public. | ||
| And you'll see the video that I got out there. | ||
| It was a couple months before. | ||
| So it was public that they knew that a whole bunch of fans, which of course, as soon as the IPO came out, you remember the first nine months, they dropped massive in value. | ||
| Well, there's also a theory that Facebook was essentially in on something to some degree. | ||
| I'm being very careful with my language here because I don't know. | ||
| But I remember back around this time, 2013, 2014, I was having a meeting with a large television network, digital side producers, and we were having lunch and they were talking about whether they wanted to do YouTube or Facebook as their principal channel. | ||
| And they said, well, Facebook's way bigger than YouTube. | ||
| I mean, YouTube gets all the video views, but Facebook's bigger. | ||
| But now, with Facebook video launching, they're like, we put up a video on Facebook, we get two, three million views in a day. | ||
| We put it on YouTube, we're getting a couple hundred thousand. | ||
| So we're going to shift all of our focus onto Facebook. | ||
| Well, those views weren't real. | ||
| And this was a huge, huge problem. | ||
| I think some of these networks may have accused Facebook of fraud. | ||
| Facebook ultimately said they were going to change their metrics. | ||
| But the general idea was, for YouTube, you have to watch for 30 seconds for it to count as a view, or something. | ||
| It might be 15 to 30 seconds, I don't know, they might have changed it. | ||
| For Facebook, it was if the video played. | ||
| Like, they call those 1-second views, 5-second views, or 30-second views. | ||
| And so the view count on the video would say millions. | ||
| Here's where it gets good. | ||
| These networks, making the video, when I said, you realize you're not getting real views, no one's actually watching the video, they're swiping past it. | ||
| And they go, advertisers don't know that. | ||
| And so, ultimately, all that mattered to a lot of these big companies was, if we get 300,000 views on YouTube, I go to an advertiser and say, here's how much it costs for 300,000. | ||
| I get 3 million on Facebook, I say, here's how much it costs for 3 million. | ||
| They say, sure. | ||
| Short-lived. | ||
| This went on for a little while. | ||
| Maybe I should write a book on the algorithmic ad manipulation of the early 2010s, because I'm sitting in some of these meetings. | ||
| I was in the top of a Freedom Tower in New York City with one of these big digital publishers, and they explained to me how they had to engage in the bot fraud, otherwise they'd go out of business, because what was happening was all of these big digital publishers, and you know their names, I'll avoid saying them for legal reasons, but you've been to their sites, you know who they are, they're digital media websites and news websites, some of the biggest, | ||
| I'm talking to this individual who does development and marketing, and she says to me, when we go to advertisers, if we tell them that our organic reaches 30 million, and we need, say, $10,000 for a sponsor spot, they're gonna say, company X over here is offering me double that. | ||
| And we try to explain to them, those aren't real views, and they say, I don't know anything about this, all I know is, I'm gonna go to my boss, and so it went all the way to the top. | ||
| Here's the fascinating thing about this. | ||
| So Facebook is running the, you put a video on Facebook, you get views, the views are meaningless. | ||
| Nobody actually watched the video. | ||
| The company then goes to, the video producer then goes to say, I don't know, like a power, an energy drink company, and says, look, we got three million views here. | ||
| They then say, okay, If we buy from you, we can get 3 million impressions, views on our ad, and if we buy from this honest purveyor, we're gonna get 300,000. | ||
| We're gonna buy from you because we get 10 times, you know, we get the same amount for 10% or we get 10 times the views. | ||
| These people knew! | ||
| So, the media producers knew the views were fake, the buyers knew the views were fake, and the bosses didn't. | ||
| So what happens is, the people who are buying the sponsor spots only cared to go to their boss and say, I was able to secure 100 million impressions through these networks, and it only cost us this amount of money, aren't I good at my job? | ||
| And when people started saying, hey, we're looking through the numbers, and these are not converting into sales, the response was, maybe the product is bad. | ||
| Because how do you determine whether or not the ad is the problem or the product is the problem? | ||
| I can advertise asparagus-flavored ice cream. | ||
| I ain't gonna get any sales, am I? | ||
| So what happens then is the people who make the media go to those companies and say, look, we can run the ads for you and our audience will see that. | ||
| Those are views. | ||
| Facebook said so. | ||
| Or we can show you the organic reach through our Google Analytics. | ||
| If nobody wants to buy your product, that's not our problem. | ||
| So they dump this money into this, then they don't get any sales, and at a certain point, the heads, the CEOs, the C-suite start going through the numbers, and they're like, why are we spending a million dollars a year and not getting any sales? | ||
| Cut the ads. | ||
| This makes no sense. | ||
| The whole way through, everybody was in on it. | ||
| And so I'm sitting in this meeting, And there's something called ad rights distribution where what companies would do is they would use bot farm websites. | ||
| You make a website. | ||
| They contact India where they have the bot farms. | ||
| You've seen the videos where they have 500 cell phones on the wall and they're all plugged into a terminal. | ||
| They can control each one with the keyboard and they say, We're gonna make a website. | ||
| It'll look like 25 celebrities who have weird faces. | ||
| And every page has 100 ads on it. | ||
| And it'll show one picture, like Tom Cruise. | ||
| And then when you want to see the next in the slideshow, it reloads a new page with another 100 ads. | ||
| That bot farm will send 1,000 accounts to that one page, generating 100 times 1,000. | ||
| You click next, 200 times 1,000. | ||
| They would then show, through their tracking and analytics, we got a million views. | ||
| They're not real people. | ||
| They would then distribute the rights to those ad sales to large networks. | ||
| So let's just say, we'll call the company Golden Media. | ||
| I'll make up a name. | ||
| Golden Media would generate 15 to 20 million views per month organically on their videos and their content. | ||
| They would then go to, you know, viralclickbait.patreon.com And say, we're gonna buy the rights to all those ad sales. | ||
| Now, their 20 million per month is 120 million per month. | ||
| They then create a docket, a presentation where they go to advertisers and say, our network gets 120 million views per month, buy from us. | ||
| And everybody knew that it was a scam. | ||
| So, final point, as I'm sitting at the top of this tower, they said, we don't do that, but we're looking at Doing ad rights distribution because we don't have the organic numbers relative to the big networks that are making all this money. | ||
| I think it was one of the greatest fraud schemes we've ever seen pervade. | ||
| And I do believe one of the reasons we saw a major collapse in digital media near the end of the 2010s and even at the 2020s, you know, Vox layoffs, SB Nation was because advertisers realized they had been defrauded. | ||
| And then started pulling all of the money and then all of a sudden these networks didn't have revenue anymore and couldn't keep their staff on board. | ||
| So it was just like a massive little Ponzi scheme. | ||
| Massive. | ||
| Well I think it was a massive fraud scheme to steal marketing dollars from Coca-Cola and Nabisco and things like that. | ||
| Yeah, there were allegations. | ||
| That they would just bring more people in. | ||
| There were allegations that Facebook was actually showing Bot Farms specifically content for advertisers so that they could charge for the advertising, but actually never show it to anybody for real. | ||
| They were just inflating the numbers back in the day. | ||
| And that's really where the turn in social media happened. | ||
| Um, so this was about 2011, going into 2012. | ||
| And I built this audience and I remember sitting there and I built this, this was very early 2012. | ||
| I got 8.6 million fans. | ||
| Oh, there it is. | ||
| Yeah, you can keep talking, but I pulled this up. | ||
| Facebook may have knowingly inflated its video metrics for over a year, and this is not even the tip of the iceberg. | ||
| Nope. | ||
| Not even slightly. | ||
| This was very careful in how these media outlets were reporting the story, but anyway, continue. | ||
| Matter of fact, actually, we're going to show everybody the iceberg today. | ||
| We're going to show exactly how bad this problem is and how big it is, because that's what we're working on now. | ||
| So we get to this point where, if you remember, their first business model was all about engagement, right? | ||
| It was getting people on. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because they needed to have the data. | ||
| That was originally what they got out of this, was the data and the metrics and so forth to be able to sell that information to other people. | ||
| It then switched, if you remember. | ||
| Right around 2012, 2013, they decided they were going to go heavy into advertising. | ||
| But see, everybody missed something. | ||
| And I mean, it's so obvious when you look at it. | ||
| When I post something, right? | ||
| Whatever page I had, whatever was like that. | ||
| If you follow my page, where would you see that content? | ||
| Newsfeed, right? | ||
| Show up in your newsfeed. | ||
| So they aggregate content from everybody and they put it in the newsfeed. | ||
| They control that because they are the dominant party, right? | ||
| They're the platform. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well then their advertisers come in and say, hey, if you pay us, we'll put you higher in the newsfeed. | ||
| So now that same, my straight line competitor, like let's say Tim and I have two pieces of content, right? | ||
| And he pays to advertise and I don't. | ||
| And somebody down there, he's the platform and he says, Oh, thank you for your money. | ||
| I'm going to put you first. | ||
| That's unfair competition at its core. | ||
| So you're saying that Facebook was essentially violating 230 by doing that? | ||
| No, you can't violate Section 230. | ||
| Section 230 is an affirmative defense. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So what they were violating was state and federal law. | ||
| Unfair competition, it's antitrust. | ||
| They are essentially a dominant party in a market working in a partnership With our direct competitors. | ||
| My straight-line competitor has an advantage over me, and because of that shift to that business model, their entire business model, they needed to make room. | ||
| And people would argue, well, wait a second, the Internet's infinite. | ||
| Well, it's not. | ||
| Because time on site's not. | ||
| There's only so many people on there, and there's only so much time they'll spend on there. | ||
| So, the higher in that news feed you are, the more value it is, and guess what? | ||
| Lo and behold, the people that were valuable to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. | ||
| get higher in the news feed. | ||
| They can't do that. | ||
| That's not fair to the rest of the market. | ||
| And they say, well, they're terms of service. | ||
| Everybody jumps up and screams terms of service. | ||
| Their terms of service are not law. | ||
| They don't get to just write terms of service that violate laws. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And this is a very important thing people don't seem to understand, because we heard this endlessly from the left, from liberals over censorship, is that, well, you know, the terms say they can ban anybody for anything, at any point, any reason. | ||
| People don't understand this. | ||
| If I were to draft a contract for consideration with Libby, where it's like an exchange for something of consideration, I will provide you with something else of consideration, and within it, it is completely manipulative and unreasonable. | ||
| A judge will look at it and just say, this contract is insane and unreasonable, I'm voiding it. | ||
| Right, like you can't be an indentured servant anymore. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| And so Libby might agree to something and read through this, and it could say something like, in the event of termination of this contract, you agree to pay me $100,000, and then, you know, on page 7 it says, Company may terminate this contract at any point for any reason. | ||
| I'm just gonna look at that and be like, you created a contract where you could hire them for a week, fire them, and they owe you a hundred grand? | ||
| Nice try, dude. | ||
| Throw that out. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right, right. | |
| So with these big tech companies trying to pull off all this other garbage, there's a big question about whether or not any of their terms could even hold up in the full picture when it comes to these lawsuits. | ||
| Well, keep in mind, too, the terms of service is a contract by adhesion. | ||
| You just adhere to it. | ||
| You don't actually agree to it, right? | ||
| They just kept changing the contract. | ||
| Have you seen anything recently where it says, oh, updated? | ||
| No. | ||
| You're just adhered to it. | ||
| But unfortunately, a lot of judges will look at that and go, oh, well, you agreed to it. | ||
| No, I didn't agree to it. | ||
| From the time that I originally built my businesses on Facebook back in 2010, 2011, They've changed the terms of service so many times, and I'm adhered to that. | ||
| Imagine if one day Facebook says in a mass email to all their users, we have updated our terms of service, please review them here. | ||
| And when you click it, it's 40 pages of updated terms of service. | ||
| And in it, buried in page 27 was, you as a user of Facebook agree to give Facebook power of attorney on all affairs and matters related to your life, your next of kin, etc. | ||
| Imagine them trying to go to court to enforce that. | ||
| Let's take a look at one of the most absurd things imaginable. | ||
| There was a man and his wife, recently, this is a big story, went to Disney, Disneyland or World. | ||
| Yeah, this was crazy. | ||
| And the woman, I think, what was she at? | ||
| She had a peanut allergy. | ||
| She had an allergic reaction. | ||
| They made a mistake. | ||
| They served her a meal that caused an allergic reaction. | ||
| She died. | ||
| This man filed a lawsuit, and Disney sought to have the lawsuit moved to arbitration because something like a year and a half prior, he signed up for a free trial of Disney+, which said in it that you agree to resolve all disputes with the Disney Corporation or whatever through arbitration. | ||
| And they argued that now that he was at Disney World with his wife being dead, The watching Disney Plus for one month now takes away his ability to sue. | ||
| I'm pretty sure Disney lost that one in two seconds. | ||
| Yeah, they did lose it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The courts were like, nice try, dude. | |
| No, thank you. | ||
| Look, and they weren't wrong on the face, right? | ||
| He did agree to the terms that all disputes with Disney would be done through arbitration, and a judge looked at it and was like, that's insane. | ||
| Nice try. | ||
| Plus, no one ever reads the Terms of Service. | ||
| Ever. | ||
| There's a word for this. | ||
| It starts with a U and I can't think of the word right at the moment, but that's how... Unconscionable. | ||
| It's an unconscionable contract. | ||
| It's just not possible that that's how it would work. | ||
| But the other thing too is, and to stress this point about reading or not reading, in the movies, they always have these plots where it's like the lawyer's looking at the contract and he's like, whoa. | ||
| You did agree to this. | ||
| They've got you. | ||
| I think it might have been Black Mirror, I'm not sure, where the woman is watching Netflix and then it's literally her life that day being played. | ||
| So weird, yeah. | ||
| And then she goes to her lawyer and she's like, can they do this? | ||
| In the terms it says you agreed to allow them to do this. | ||
| I just saw that immediately and I was like, if you signed up for Netflix and then they started ripping off your likeness, a judge would penalize them in two seconds for manipulative and unfair contracts. | ||
| They'd say, no, no, no. | ||
| Contracts are intended to be legitimate agreements between two people. | ||
| You write them down and presumed reasonable. | ||
| We try to enforce that. | ||
| But if you manipulate someone who isn't smart enough to understand, like, you're a powerful, very wealthy individual who gives someone a 100-page contract, and they're a working-class Joe, and then you try taking their house from them, they're just going to tell you to screw off. | ||
| Well, one would hope. | ||
| One would certainly hope. | ||
| There are bad jurisdictions, for sure. | ||
| Sometimes the police will falsely accuse you of murder. | ||
| And put you in jail for two months. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| Well, let me give you another example, and this really paints this in a better light. | ||
| If, for example, Facebook decided to change, you know, Facebook, Google, Twitter, whatever, decided to change their terms of service and they said that black people can't post on our website. | ||
| Just blatantly, you know, it's blatantly illegal, right? | ||
| It's discrimination. | ||
| That means they violated a law. | ||
| And people put that in context. | ||
| It's like, wait a second, they can't write it that way. | ||
| Exactly! | ||
| It means that the terms of service are wrong. | ||
| They're not good. | ||
| And see, I recognized really early on, and this is how this story progresses into the fight with Facebook. | ||
| It was 2013. | ||
| I was making over $300,000 a month. | ||
| Just marketing, doing funny stuff, memes, you name it. | ||
| And we were just entertaining people. | ||
| It was so much fun, right? | ||
| Big marketing, because I had, I mean, my engagement was in the billions. | ||
| It was crazy what I could do back in those days. | ||
| Well, I'm making 300 grand a month, and then all of a sudden their advertising thing kicks in, and overnight, I dropped to making $6,000 a month. | ||
| I absolutely got annihilated. | ||
| I hadn't done anything wrong. | ||
| I hadn't violated any terms of service. | ||
| They simply shut it off like a light switch. | ||
| That's artificial manipulation of reach and distribution. | ||
| It has nothing to do with treating them as a publisher. | ||
| It has nothing to do with anything other than illegal conduct. | ||
| This had to do with them prioritizing ad stuff in the news feed. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And people think that they're allowed to do it. | ||
| No. | ||
| The fact that they're a partner taking money to manipulate content makes them an information content provider, at least in part. | ||
| Now we're starting to apply to Section 230. | ||
| Interesting. | ||
| Wait, wait, hold on. | ||
| This is an interesting point. | ||
| Correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| When They make the argument that we are not the speakers of this information. | ||
| This is the argument. | ||
| They say, Section 230 protects a platform for the speech of third parties who use that platform. | ||
| I'm being very rudimentary on this one, but the general idea is, if I go on X and I say that Libby kicked a dog, you can't sue X for my speech. | ||
| I defamed Libby, not X. However, X made money off that with you as a partner in the distribution for the purpose of monetary gain. | ||
| Got it. | ||
| They absolutely are party to that speech. | ||
| You got it. | ||
| That's massive. | ||
| Yeah, there's more to it. | ||
| Can you pull up Section 230? | ||
| I know this is a bit technical. | ||
| 26 words that changed the internet. | ||
| Yeah, more like the 26 words that blew it all up. | ||
| Actually, it really comes down to one. | ||
| I'm going to show you exactly how this is. | ||
| Can you zoom in on 230 C1 and C2? | ||
| You're at it. | ||
| No, this is a different one. | ||
| No, Cornell's perfect. | ||
| Cornell's perfect. | ||
| Okay, alright. | ||
| Yeah, that's an easy one. | ||
| Alright, you said section... C1 and C2. | ||
| C1. | ||
| Let me zoom in. | ||
| There you go. | ||
| No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. | ||
| All right. | ||
| And C2 is no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access or availability to material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, otherwise objectionable, et cetera, et cetera. | ||
| Any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So, most people can't do this, but this, we're gonna get a little technical here, but I want people to see this, right? | ||
| Because this is definitively broken. | ||
| We actually can point it out. | ||
| Oh, we lost it. | ||
| No, no, no, I pulled up the definition of information content provider as I think it's particularly relevant. | ||
| Oh, yeah, this is the other portion. | ||
| Cornell defines information content provider as any person or entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service. | ||
| Yeah, so let's walk through this, okay? | ||
| First line, 230C, protection for, quote, good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive materials. | ||
| Now, this is the actual law. | ||
| I mean, it's a representation of it through Cornell, but this is how it's written in the law. | ||
| This is what protects Big Tech. | ||
| All of them. | ||
| Right? | ||
| You see Good Samaritan's got quotes around it? | ||
| Nobody talks about that, do they? | ||
| Is there a legal definition of Good Samaritan? | ||
| See, there doesn't need to be. | ||
| The thing is, is that why are quotes on anything? | ||
| Why do we quote something? | ||
| It's coming from somewhere. | ||
| Bingo. | ||
| It's coming from somewhere else. | ||
| You're quoting somebody. | ||
| So who are they quoting? | ||
| They're quoting Congress. | ||
| So, an affirmative defense, right? | ||
| Do you know what an affirmative defense is? | ||
| Like, self-defense? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| I'm sure you're familiar with it, right? | ||
| If you're arrested for a crime, an affirmative defense is, under the law, I am allowed to do this for these reasons. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| You commit an otherwise unlawful act. | ||
| That is absolved, but the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that they acted within the confines of self-defense, meaning the basic premise of it is that they acted in their own defense or the defense of others, right? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Pertaining to self-defense, and there's a bunch of other areas where the truth is an affirmative defense for defamation, things like that. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Some would call that a general provision, but it actually has a formal name. | ||
| It's called an intelligible principle. | ||
| Easily understood principle for an affirmative defense, right? | ||
| And, Section 230 has one too. | ||
| It's right there, in quotes. | ||
| That is what Congress's full intent was. | ||
| They said that they have to be Good Samaritans, and while it doesn't have a legal definition, the basic premise of Good Samaritan is easy to understand. | ||
| That they're not acting for their own good. | ||
| It's the entire premise. | ||
| So if I'm arguing and my case says, hey look, you took me down for your own good, they fail instantly. | ||
| It should die right there on the vine because you get no protection. | ||
| But see, there was another problem. | ||
| There's been two and a half decades since this thing was written, this law. | ||
| What was it, 92? | ||
| Uh, 96. | ||
| It was like Bill Clinton, right? | ||
| Yeah, 96 is when it was modified, 97 is when you have the, uh... I believe it was the Wolf of Wall Street was the reason for its creation. | ||
| Oh, that's fascinating. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Is that true? | ||
| It was, um... I can't think of his company's name off the top of my head. | ||
| But essentially what happened is that they held themselves to be family-friendly, and they were taking down content, and then the content that they missed... Was it Prodigy? | ||
| Wasn't it Prodigy? | ||
| No. | ||
| So this is, it's the Wolf of Wall Street who helped create Section 230. | ||
| What had happened was, a very simple version, you may have to correct me because it's been a while since we went over this, but there was a website that talked finance, and in the comments on the website, someone said something defamatory. | ||
| So they sued saying, that's your website, you're hosting the speech, and they said, we didn't write that, that's a user. | ||
| And so Congress was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, we can't have you suing a website because a user made a comment. | ||
| Here we are. | ||
| But they made a public representation that they were actually going to keep it clean. | ||
| Well, and I think they were trying to for the most part, and they missed some. | ||
| There's the point. | ||
| Keep that in your head when we go into the next part. | ||
| Miss something. | ||
| Meaning they didn't do anything. | ||
| They failed. | ||
| They didn't see it and allow it. | ||
| And I can prove that this is all going to be right at the end. | ||
| I'm going to show you the cases even. | ||
| The law is changing and we know it's changing because it's already happened. | ||
| So if you look at 230c1 again, it just so happened, this is actually how it came about, the courts dismissed my case under c1. | ||
| Now I was arguing that they took down my content in bad faith, right? | ||
| So that should apply to c2a, shouldn't it? | ||
| Because they took any action to restrict my materials in bad faith. | ||
| Except they didn't. | ||
| They didn't even bring a C2A argument. | ||
| This is actually really interesting. | ||
| C2A says, any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability to material that the content provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, blah blah blah blah blah, no provider shall be held liable on account of. | ||
| Right. | ||
| This is the liability protection. | ||
| So this is interesting. | ||
| This means that if any of these big tech platforms take you down in bad faith, and we can define that, especially in West Virginia, there actually is bad faith law. | ||
| It goes back to being a good Samaritan, though. | ||
| Good faith as it relates to being a good Samaritan. | ||
| But to put it very, very simply, it seems as an argument that if you are restricted in any way unrelated to these things, you may actually have cause of action. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| So the argument for the protection is that you are being lewd and lascivious. | ||
| So I knew a guy ten years ago. | ||
| He had a business online, and I forget what his service was. | ||
| He made six figures, older guy with a family, and he said it's because when people Google search for his service, he's in the top five. | ||
| Google changed the algorithm, removing him from the front page, his business was gone overnight. | ||
| That is not a good faith restriction of his content, which he was in this real estate. | ||
| So this would be akin to you going to the city, filing for a permit to open a food truck, in this parking lot, and they guarantee you, they say, yep, permit is good, you can operate here, this land is good for 10 years, and then one day you show up and they've towed your vehicle out to the countryside where there's no people anymore, and you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. | ||
| You've shut me down without cause. | ||
| Yeah, I built my business based on what you said to do, so I built it, and then you took it from me? | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| This is getting really crazy. | ||
| I think the craziest thing about this, in fact, is that I've not heard it argued But I believe it is true and correct, and I think a reasonable judge would agree. | ||
| Now that we're in the era of shared profits on social media, that is to say, there are many people who produce content on YouTube whose sole 100% income is YouTube's ad sales. | ||
| I'm sorry, but I believe that makes them a party to the information content provider definition, which is, in whole or in part, responsible for the creation. | ||
| You're starting to catch on. | ||
| If there is a person who films documentaries, and it requires them to spend $2,000 to fly to a location, And YouTube is the one selling ads for YouTube on YouTube's platform for this individual who then uses the revenue generated from the content they produce. | ||
| YouTube is half. | ||
| They are half or... They're a party. | ||
| Right there, in part. | ||
| It probably wouldn't be created if it wasn't for them enabling the revenue source. | ||
| Well, I think any reasonable judge is going to say, in fact, it is true. | ||
| We know this to be the case. | ||
| YouTubers have articles for the last decade about how much money they make on YouTube solely. | ||
| This makes YouTube party to that creation. | ||
| Now, hold on. | ||
| If we have a sponsor, let's say it's a candy bar company, and they sponsor the content, I would argue that is not, in part, responsible for the creation of the content, as they are simply selling on what already exists. | ||
| They say, you have a show. | ||
| It gets 100,000 views. | ||
| We'd like to put ours in the beginning of a show you've already made. | ||
| If, in the instance they say, you're going to be launching a show, you expect to get this much, and we want to sponsor the show, I still would argue sponsorship would be exempt from this. | ||
| The issue here is that YouTube is the platform by which you are putting the content on, and YouTube is Google's parent company. | ||
| They control it. | ||
| They control the site. | ||
| Can people see it? | ||
| They control whether or not ads get sold against it. | ||
| So not only are they generating the revenue. | ||
| We can make the argument that Google says, no, no, no, no, look, Google ad sales will sell an advertiser for you, but we're not the ones making them, you know, putting the money towards it. | ||
| It's the advertiser. | ||
| And then my response is, YouTube decides whether my video will be viewed or not to generate that money. | ||
| And if YouTube removed me, the sponsors would not buy, I would make no money. | ||
| So by you, algorithmically or by choice, putting me on front page or recommended or otherwise, while another subsidiary or sister organization in Google is doing the revenue generation, you are a party, you are an information content provider, and you are legally liable for the speech said by all of these channels. | ||
| You nailed it. | ||
| Now do you want me to tell you where the courts went wrong? | ||
| Where'd they go wrong? | ||
| This is where it goes wrong. | ||
| So you know that they took down my content in bad faith, right? | ||
| So that should have been a C2A consideration. | ||
| They should have looked at it that way. | ||
| Let's pause. | ||
| Define bad faith. | ||
| It's irrelevant. | ||
| And I'll explain why in a second. | ||
| The reality is, is that they, let's take different words from that. | ||
| They restricted access to or availability of my materials. | ||
| Did they not? | ||
| They shut down six of my pages, all of my content, shut down my business and so forth. | ||
| They took me down. | ||
| That's a C2A consideration. | ||
| They didn't advance a C2A defense though. | ||
| They advanced a C1 defense. | ||
| Now here's why. | ||
| What most people are completely unaware of, because they just lump it all together as Section 230, C1 has been applied wrong for two and a half decades. | ||
| And we have not only proved it, we can prove it's unconstitutional, and the law is already changing. | ||
| They talk about a broad or narrow interpretation. | ||
| There isn't. | ||
| It's just the written words. | ||
| Now look, I had an epiphany one night. | ||
| The court had decided that C-1 protected it, they never considered C-2, and I'm sitting there going, well, if they never considered C-2, what's the purpose of it if it's a completely worthless law? | ||
| It doesn't have any purpose, right? | ||
| Well, C-1 was applied wrong, and I figured out why. | ||
| It's an actual word. | ||
| I was sitting there watching Judge Napolitano talking about natural rights, what I do for my fun time, and he's got this class and he asked the class, what's the most important word in the right to free speech? | ||
| Let me ask you, what's the most important word in the right to free speech? | ||
| This is profound. | ||
| Is it the? | ||
| You got it. | ||
| Well, I follow you on Twitter. | ||
| All right, so the word the is what's called a definite article, right? | ||
| It's English language. | ||
| It means that we know what it is. | ||
| It was actually James Madison once argued in defense of free speech that it was the most important word because it already exists. | ||
| We know what it is, right? | ||
| There's a difference between a White House and the White House. | ||
| You all know what I'm talking about. | ||
| Your audience knows what I'm talking about. | ||
| I haven't said anything except the White House. | ||
| I have a White House. | ||
| Yeah, you have a White House. | ||
| I have a White House. | ||
| But there's THE White House, right? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well, if you look at this sentence again, it says, Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong one. | ||
| It's section one. | ||
| in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene. | ||
| It says, oh sorry, I'm reading the wrong one. | ||
| It's section one. | ||
| Yeah, no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another content provider. | ||
| So the publisher or speaker specifically is another information content provider. | ||
| Now hold on. | ||
| So what you're arguing is nowhere does it say a, in which case the argument could be made that certainly the speaker of the information is Libby, but YouTube is also a publisher. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| There is, and I can say this And it is factually correct. | ||
| There is nothing in that law that says we cannot treat them as a publisher for their own publishing conduct. | ||
| Are you in the courts right now with that argument? | ||
| You got it. | ||
| How does a judge tell you you're wrong? | ||
| The law does not say any... The law should be very specific. | ||
| It should say... | ||
| If the intent was to totally identify... Correct. | ||
| It should say, no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher, a publisher, or in any way responsible for the publishing of information coming from a... Even if they mess with it and whatever, it's like that. | ||
| And the question that we've asked now twice to the Supreme Court is, and think about this question for a minute, does Section 230c1 protect any publishing conduct whatsoever? | ||
| The answer is no. | ||
| It goes back to what you were saying earlier. | ||
| It's when they fail to remove content, they cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker who put it there or did anything with it. | ||
| It doesn't protect their own publishing. | ||
| And in my case, it did. | ||
| It protected not only all of it, it protected it to the point that we said, that doesn't make any sense because if they can't be treated, held accountable for their own publication decisions, at least they have to be a good Samaritan. | ||
| And you know what the judge did? | ||
| The judge removed Good Samaritan from the entire law. | ||
| They said, oh, that doesn't apply to C-1. | ||
| It's the headline of the whole thing. | ||
| That's like the whole point. | ||
| Section C is Good Samaritan. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| It's the whole premise they have to be a Good Samaritan. | ||
| Do you know the origin of the quote? | ||
| Can I pull that up? | ||
| Of the Good Samaritan? | ||
| No, it's what Congress made the intelligible principle of the affirmative defense. | ||
| That's the basic premise. | ||
| But here's the kicker. | ||
| They did something in my case that set them up, right? | ||
| We had to go, this has been an incredibly long grind. | ||
| Six years, two trips to the Supreme Court. | ||
| We've argued the right thing. | ||
| To answer your question, Tim, why are they getting it wrong? | ||
| They're not. | ||
| They're not even letting me in the door. | ||
| They have denied me a single hearing in six years. | ||
| Now that's changing. | ||
| We'll get to that in a minute. | ||
| Well, venue matters, you know? | ||
| Go find a Trump judge in West Virginia and maybe he'll get through the door. | ||
| And everybody knows it. | ||
| You're in California, right? | ||
| Yes, you go to California. | ||
| I sued him in Northern District, California. | ||
| Because I was so early on in this, I didn't think we could beat the forum selection clause of that stupid terms of service. | ||
| So here we are in Northern District, not being able to get in the court. | ||
| We have a definitive reason why. | ||
| So textually, I'm correct. | ||
| It says what it says, do what it says. | ||
| It's all I'm saying to do. | ||
| C2 would then have a purpose because then if they do anything at all, any consideration, C2A applies. | ||
| But now here's your question, and I'm going to answer the good faith thing. | ||
| No, there's no legal definition. | ||
| But you know who gets to decide what is and is not good faith? | ||
| People miss this. | ||
| It's not a judge and it's not big tech. | ||
| It's a jury of your peers. | ||
| If it goes to a jury of your peers, now you're at trial, and the merits of the case will decide, and that jury, because they're private entities, it's not government censorship. | ||
| It's private entities deciding. | ||
| So all of a sudden this thing becomes constitutional. | ||
| But see, when they took the Good Samaritan piece out, so now they can do all publication decisions regardless of the motive, That's what's called unfettered immunity, meaning they can do anything. | ||
| Well, wait a second, wait a second. | ||
| There's no private entity that has the right to take my life, liberty, or property, correct? | ||
| I have a right, a legal remedy right, to redress my grievances with the United States, right? | ||
| Well, I did. | ||
| And then I was denied all legal remedy, all the way up to the Supreme Court. | ||
| Well, that was the moment that the government violated my rights. | ||
| Everybody talks about the rights being violated by Big Tech. | ||
| Nope. | ||
| It wasn't until the government denied me all access to legal remedy that my due process was harmed, and that was when we went back around again to the Northern District. | ||
| Now, this is a crazy story. | ||
| We go back to Judge White in Northern District, California, right? | ||
| And we filed something called a Procedural Rule 5.1. | ||
| It's a constitutional challenge. | ||
| This is a whole different game. | ||
| This is, hey, wait a second. | ||
| This law has been applied in a way that is unconstitutional. | ||
| It has concretely and particularly injured my rights. | ||
| There's a whole section in Procedural Rule 5.1 that says non-forfeiture. | ||
| You know what that means, right? | ||
| They don't get to forfeit this one. | ||
| This is my rights. | ||
| Courts have to do this. | ||
| So now I've backed them into a corner. | ||
| You know what happened? | ||
| Next thing we know, we get a notice. | ||
| Judge White has voluntarily recused himself. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Interesting. | ||
| Five years into litigation, he backs out. | ||
| Just gone. | ||
| We did a little digging later into his finances. | ||
| Millions in tech stock. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| He shouldn't be handling any big tech. | ||
| - And he's handled a lot of them. - And as an aside too, these politicians know that if any one of these politicians comes out and says, we're gonna take a stand against big tech in Section 230, Google, Facebook, all of them, just smirk and say, down rank this politician. | ||
| And then they don't appear anymore, and they can't run ads, and we've seen it happen. | ||
| We'll get to that, too. | ||
| It's fascinating when you start to understand where it all broke. | ||
| But see, now that we've gone through the textual issue, we've gone through the intent, which is good, Samaritan, because they took that out. | ||
| Now we have a constitutional challenge up against it. | ||
| The judge recuses himself, right? | ||
| And in comes an Obama appointment judge. | ||
| Did they have money in taxes, too? | ||
| We don't know yet, but I can tell you this. | ||
| His decision was, get out of my court until you give me a Supreme Court decision. | ||
| We don't want to hear it. | ||
| We don't care that there's six or seven other cases that are militating towards your direction. | ||
| And there's a, and I kid you not, this is one of those, this is so aggravating. | ||
| The Northern District, there is actually a judge in here who's honest and smart. | ||
| It's great. | ||
| Judge Alsup. | ||
| Decision called DanGuard versus Instagram and I can tell every lawyer that is listening to this broadcast. | ||
| Go look that case up. | ||
| It is the holy grail. | ||
| It is the Rosetta Stone. | ||
| They unlocked it. | ||
| The factual background of that case, the basics of it, is identical to my case. | ||
| It was my advertiser and, so my straight line competitor and my advertiser being in cahoots with one another effectively to push me out of business, and that's what happened there, except in that case it was OnlyFans. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And Judge Allison nails it. | ||
| He goes, To approve Methodist Defense, still Facebook, go figure, right, would be a backdoor to CDA immunity contrary to its history and purpose. | ||
| The backdoor he's talking about is C1 would be used to absolve all publishing backdooring C2's evidentiary requirements. | ||
| You circumvent it. | ||
| And that's what happened in my case. | ||
| It's what happened in two and a half decades of precedent. | ||
| So now, the ninth circuit is sitting on a ton of crap that they're gonna have to undo. | ||
| I mean, this is monstrous. | ||
| Now, to your point, we were talking about being a content provider, right? | ||
| Go back down to 230F3 again. | ||
| F3, you said? | ||
| Well, it's the other slide, yeah. | ||
| Information content provider. | ||
| Any person or entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service. | ||
| So almost all the judges have been focused on creation. | ||
| So is, you even kept saying it, create, create, create, create. | ||
| Create is bringing content into existence, right? | ||
| Like if I, this coin thing that's sitting in front of me here, if I make that coin, that's creation. | ||
| If I rip it, I've changed it in a way, that's also creation. | ||
| What if I do that? | ||
| I'm going to jump ahead of you. | ||
| It says development. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| When YouTube tells us explicitly what we can or cannot say without removal, they have directly involved themselves in the development of our content. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| That's aggregation, the whole purpose of aggregation. | ||
| And people say, well, then how are they going to aggregate content without development? | ||
| And I'll say, it's very simple. | ||
| You know, they always use a newsstand or a bookstore as an example of how Section 230 works. | ||
| It's completely wrong. | ||
| I'll give you a much better example. | ||
| Ready for it? | ||
| Public library. | ||
| People, citizens, are allowed to walk in, put their book on a shelf. | ||
| That book is then logged by the library, and the library puts it in the, remember the Dewey Decimal System, the old... The library has to put any book into circulation? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| They put it into circulation, right? | ||
| Now, somebody walks... Do they have to? | ||
| Like, I show up with a book, I say... Let me get through, and I'll actually answer your question. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Cool. | |
| So somebody else comes in there and says, I want a book on cats. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So the library says, look, let's look in the Dewey decimal system back in the old days. | ||
| Here's a book on cats. | ||
| It's on shelf, you know, whatever. | ||
| And you get your book of cats. | ||
| Now that's aggregation. | ||
| It's organization and so forth, but you're getting what the person wants and what the person asked for. | ||
| But what if they said that they want a book on cats and they say, well, you don't really want to see that book. | ||
| Here's this other book that we're getting paid to show you on cat food because you want to buy cat food. | ||
| That sounds like doing a Google search. | ||
| Well, now there's consideration involved, which goes back up to C2A, the word considers. | ||
| They've now considered the content and they've now developed it. | ||
| In other words, they pushed out what they didn't want. | ||
| And they put their interest in there. | ||
| They will have to be a neutral public forum finally. | ||
| That is what this forces them to do to avoid liability. | ||
| It is the end of all moderation rules. | ||
| They will have to be a neutral public forum finally. | ||
| That is what this forces them to do to avoid liability. | ||
| They cannot allow content because there's consideration. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let me be really careful about this. | |
| Remember you said fails? | ||
| Okay, that's what I'm saying. | ||
| If they fail to remove something, they can't be held accountable for it because they cannot be treated as the one who did it. | ||
| Right? | ||
| There's your C1. | ||
| C2 is if they allow it or disallow it. | ||
| Now they're a content provider in part, and to go to your point of the library, it means that if they get child pornography on one of the books, right? | ||
| And they know about it? | ||
| They should remove it. | ||
| C2A gives them a pathway to remove it. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Because they become publishers. | ||
| And when they become a publisher, they take it down. | ||
| They do it in good faith. | ||
| They would, you know, somebody could theoretically sue them for that. | ||
| That would probably hit dismissal because it's so obvious. | ||
| But it goes to a jury based on the merits. | ||
| None of the cases are going to court at all because they're getting wiped out beforehand. | ||
| I think development may be the biggest argument here. | ||
| You got it. | ||
| In terms of information content provider, which again we'll have pulled up here you can see if you show people, the argument would be, and I think this is completely reasonable, YouTube does several things. | ||
| They routinely publish updated guidelines. | ||
| This is not a good faith removal If YouTube said in their rules, if we find your content to be objectionable under C2A, Section 230 C2A, we may remove it in a good faith effort for these reasons. | ||
| YouTube does not do this. | ||
| YouTube makes political decisions over who is the most appropriate medical authority, for instance, which was a big deal during COVID. | ||
| That is entirely editorial direction. | ||
| It's development. | ||
| It is completely development. | ||
| So you have two factors here. | ||
| The first, I believe creation is an argument that should be argued and I believe any reasonable person would have to agree. | ||
| Creation's obvious. | ||
| Creation's obvious. | ||
| YouTube says, we're going to sell ads on content you make. | ||
| And we're going to split the money, and we will determine if it's good enough to make the money if people see it or not. | ||
| That is absolutely... No, no, that's creation. | ||
| That's creation. | ||
| This is... It's kind of both. | ||
| It is both, but for the creation argument, think of it this way. | ||
| I say to... Creation would be the part where they're paying to have the content effectively made. | ||
| There's your creation aspect. | ||
| But to prioritize it, that's when it becomes a development issue. | ||
| So the development... | ||
| I'm gonna split this up into two arguments, but there's an obvious overlap. | ||
| If I am to make content on YouTube, and I just put it up, and YouTube blindly just says, it may or may not appear, we don't know, or, I think algorithm's out the window, I think they can't do algorithmic distribution, because that is a choice they make on who to show. | ||
| But when you combine these things together, that YouTube tells you as a new user, we're gonna split the revenue, Hey, make a video, we're going to sell ads on your video, we're going to put it on our platform, and we're going to choose when and how many people get to see it. | ||
| That is a party to the creation of the content. | ||
| Development is when they say, hey, if you make YouTube videos under these specific rules and regulations that are subject to change at any moment, we want you to make content fitting these guidelines. | ||
| Then we're gonna sell ads against it. | ||
| Then we're gonna promote it. | ||
| We're gonna make sure people see it, and we're gonna split the money with you. | ||
| You would be hard-pressed to make the argument that if I said I have a gallery. | ||
| I have a gallery space on the corner of 5th and Lexington or whatever. | ||
| It's got big beautiful glass windows. | ||
| I can't be held responsible for what I put in those windows, and I'm going to tell someone, I'm going to bring customers in, I'm going to sell your paintings, I'm going to split the money with you, if you paint pictures of Donald Trump looking bad, or, how about this, let's make it literal for YouTube, don't paint any pictures that in any way question Dr. Fauci or the World Health Organization, and I'll put them up and split the money with you, you are absolutely a party to the production, distribution, development, and sale of that product. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| This is massive. | ||
| This would mean the end of all algorithmic feeds, because an algorithmic feed is by which the platform has decided who will be visible and who will not, which is distribution by choice, and the moderation rules that even X has right now, that YouTube has. | ||
| The big argument here is, you could make a very simple rule that says, Section 230CA, we have the right in good faith to remove for these reasons, and nothing else. | ||
| The problem then is, they'd have to remove massive amounts of content. | ||
| YouTube doesn't want to be in the position where they're going to have 20-30% of the content produced falling under a nebulous definition of lewd and lascivious. | ||
| They want to tell you explicitly what they think is lewd and lascivious or objectionable. | ||
| Objectionable to them is arbitrary. | ||
| The World Health Organization is hereby the authority on all things medical, not the CDC, not your doctor, not WVU Medical Center. | ||
| We have editorially and arbitrarily chosen who we think that authority is. | ||
| If you produce content that doesn't adhere to our developmental guidelines, we will remove it from our platform. | ||
| That is 100% development. | ||
| How much of that is influenced by what they hear from advertisers and what advertisers want to see? | ||
| That's the whole premise of my lawsuit. | ||
| The fact is that they develop the information, they remove me, and they put my advertisers in in place of me because that's how you develop an idea, right? | ||
| You get rid of the pieces you don't want, you keep the pieces you do want. | ||
| Where it failed is C1 was being used as blanket immunity to completely backdoor C2. | ||
| There was no consideration. | ||
| It just completely messed up. | ||
| And see, it's changing. | ||
| Here's why. | ||
| This is the great part. | ||
| So, of course, my briefs have been out there for years, right? | ||
| And we had the right argument from day one. | ||
| Of course, the trolls, you know, say that I, and I don't even know if I want to touch this, but Facebook lied about me flat out. | ||
| They said I had pages dedicated to urination, which was an outright lie, right? | ||
| The page's name was Take a Piss Funny. | ||
| Well, take a piss is a UK, yeah, to make fun of funny things, right? | ||
| And I had actually accidentally transcribed it, but they're like, and the judge is not supposed to consider facts of the plaintiff, or excuse me, facts of the defendant at the time of dismissal. | ||
| He put it right in the first paragraph, which of course disparaged me even more. | ||
| This is the same guy who recused himself and has millions in tech stock. | ||
| This is what I've been fighting, right? | ||
| But here's the kicker, if C1 is simply applied correctly, C2 is going to be all your, and an easier way to understand development is, any affirmative content decision, if they're doing it with their own intent, It goes to consideration in C2A, and that goes to trial, based on the merits. | ||
| That's how this is supposed to work. | ||
| You're supposed to be able to argue whether or not they were in good faith. | ||
| Yeah, and the good faith was decided by a jury, not by them. | ||
| So what you're saying about it being arbitrary, it is. | ||
| There is no legal definition. | ||
| What it's going to be is 12 people that decide, was that done in good faith? | ||
| And arguably, I think they should have a fairly wide swath. | ||
| You know, what I would need to know is, we probably should have had a lawyer with us, the question of in, let's say, Hustler Magazine. | ||
| The publisher of that is going to be, you know, the parent company or whatever. | ||
| However, do the courts, through legal precedent, consider individuals otherly involved in the creation of that magazine to be publishers? | ||
| So, let's do a different example. | ||
| Let's say that there is a company that manufactures all of the graphics, designs, and stories for a magazine. | ||
| And then uses a third-party printing company to print and then hand the physical copies out for distribution. | ||
| Would that secondary company be considered a publisher as well? | ||
| Not under any kind of newsroom definition of who the publisher is, but in terms of what it means to publish content. | ||
| Are they just a conduit? | ||
| Are they acting as just a conduit, meaning they don't make any content consideration? | ||
| If they have no content consideration... But they're making the magazine itself. | ||
| Like to create it? | ||
| - Like to create it? - So there's a company that creates a PDF, and it's got pictures, photos, they compile it out with their journalists. | ||
| They send that to a third party printer who then physically makes the magazines and hands them off to trucks to be delivered. | ||
| Are they also a publisher? - I mean, the point there would be based on the intent. | ||
| It would come down to the merits of the case, whether or not they, if they knew what they were publishing. | ||
| Like, if you're distributing, knowingly distributing child pornography, you are actually liable, automatically. | ||
| Matter of fact, section 502 of this same thing says that it's a crime to knowingly distribute content. | ||
| And see, that right there has been what's changed. | ||
| You heard about Anderson versus TikTok, right? | ||
| That recent case? | ||
| Did you hear about that? | ||
| I'm trying to find it. | ||
| Legal definition. | ||
| So under Anderson versus TikTok, the basic premise of the case was, is that the... Real quick. | ||
| It gets crazier. | ||
| According to Cornell, to publish means to make a publication, to give publicity to a work, to make a work available to the public in physical or electronic form, to circulate or distribute a work to the general public. | ||
| This would mean that your the or a argument completely stands. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| We would not consider them to be the publisher of the content because that's somebody else. | ||
| But they are a publisher by giving it publicity and distributing the content. | ||
| You got it. | ||
| It's all in the words. | ||
| We're just asking them to apply the law correctly based on how it's actually written. | ||
| It's not some dramatic novel idea Do what it says! | ||
| This is all we're asking to do. | ||
| What would be the fallout if this all hit you and your case? | ||
| Well, let me go back to the TikTok case because this will show you some monster, like this is about to change dramatically, like dramatically. | ||
| Now, I don't know if they have some other plan with AI coming after that and they're just going to finally have to capitulate to us. | ||
| But Anderson versus TikTok, the basic premise of the case was that Anderson sued because somebody had died based on the blackout challenge. | ||
| Remember that? | ||
| Yeah, I remember that. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So they sued and they said, well, TikTok's argument was we're not the publisher. | ||
| Like, they brought a C1 defense, and they said, well, we're not suing you as the publisher or speaker. | ||
| We're not trying to treat you as someone else, right? | ||
| There's no real protection in that. | ||
| That's just preventing you from being treated as another individual in its correct application. | ||
| Right now, it protects all publishing, right? | ||
| That's what's wrong. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So they argue the C1 defense, and the Third Circuit, right? | ||
| Because remember, we were talking about forum selection. | ||
| 9th Circuit's a whole different animal out there, but the 3rd Circuit decided to get it right, and they turned around and they said, wait a second, no. | ||
| You knew that that was a harmful challenge, and you still recommended it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You developed it. | |
| They found that it had nothing to do with being the publisher or a publisher. | ||
| The developer of it. | ||
| The content provider. | ||
| You knew that this harms people and you still did it anyhow. | ||
| And see the sad part is, do you know that if this had been applied correctly, It would have worked against Backpage years ago. | ||
| Backpage, they had to create two new laws, FASA and SESTA, because it was never applied correctly, but the reality was... FASA and SESTA was because of Backpage? | ||
| Because of the failures of Section 230. | ||
| Interesting. | ||
| I didn't realize that relationship. | ||
| They had to create new laws to protect children. | ||
| And see, the reason that they exist is because if they had read it correctly, what would happen is they would say, no, you didn't create the content that was trafficking, but you had an escort section. | ||
| You made it easier for them to make money. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You did all of these things to facilitate tracking. | |
| That's development. | ||
| So I've got another angle, at least as it pertains to Wikipedia, I've often argued, that I think could be another vector for altering 230 precedent and social media that I do not believe has been even attempted to be adjudicated. | ||
| Before you, I have the James O'Keefe Wikipedia page. | ||
| Now let's, with your knowledge of Section 230— I've already looked into a Wikipedia argument, so I know exactly how this works. | ||
| So my argument is, this article is from Wikipedia. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It's not from a third party. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| It's not from, you know, PPPooPoo420. | ||
| Actual YouTube user who superchats, by the way. | ||
| Good name. | ||
| This is, by their own admission, Wikipedia says, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. | ||
| The byline on the article is, Wikipedia published this. | ||
| Therefore, any misrepresentation, defamation, or otherwise is the responsibility of the publisher, Wikipedia, who has taken credit for the article. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| The argument I've heard is that, no, no, Wikipedia articles are aggregate. | ||
| You go to the view history, and you can see all of the different people who contributed to this. | ||
| My proposal then was, and people actually did this, I said, okay, Then we can make a website, a news website, where everyone gets to add a single, they get to offer up a single word, and the users can vote on that word. | ||
| And then you can actually write an article that says Kamala Harris brutally kicked a dog and stomped it to death, and no one will be responsible. | ||
| Why? | ||
| An individual user wrote only the word the. | ||
| An individual user wrote only the word Kamala. | ||
| You can't sue me. | ||
| All I wrote was Kamala. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Someone else just wrote Dog. | |
| You can't sue me. | ||
| All I wrote was Dog. | ||
| Someone else put it there. | ||
| And they say, what about the website that published it? | ||
| Don't look at us. | ||
| It's the users who wrote the words. | ||
| That means there is no speaker of what was published. | ||
| An absurdity. | ||
| Wikipedia does not show you, in this, each and every user who added words. | ||
| So, my argument was this. | ||
| At the end of the day, they aggregate it. | ||
| The fact is, there is content development in there. | ||
| And right, so take a look at this. | ||
| Let's say that someone went to James O'Keefe's page and wrote, James Edward O'Keefe, born June 28, 1984, is an American political activist who founded Project Veritas, a far-right activist group that uses deceptively edited videos and information, gathering techniques to attack mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. | ||
| Now, let's say somebody writes that. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| It's already defamatory. | ||
| It is defamatory. | ||
| Deceptively. | ||
| There's arguments that deceptively is an opinion. | ||
| What does that mean? | ||
| Right. | ||
| And they're responsible for that opinion. | ||
| What if then someone goes in and adds to this paragraph, after groups comma, Kicks dogs mercilessly. | ||
| To death. | ||
| No, no, no, hold on, hold on. | ||
| That's a sentence fragment. | ||
| I never defamed James O'Keefe. | ||
| If I go on X right now and wrote, kicks dogs mercilessly, people go, what does that mean? | ||
| If I go on to Wikipedia and say, I never wrote the first paragraph, I, as a user, just simply wrote the words, Kickstogs, mercilessly. | ||
| What's the argument? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. | |
| That's absurd, right? | ||
| A reasonable judge is going to say, you knew what you were adding to that paragraph under James O'Keefe. | ||
| As if to imply then, anything written before is also your liability, should you even add a period and click publish to alter the article. | ||
| Which would mean, and I believe that's reasonable, Every single person on Wikipedia who has added to Wikipedia is legally liable for everything written before them that they confirmed. | ||
| That is to say, if you go on Wikipedia and it says, James O'Keefe is an activist, And then you write, and a journalist. | ||
| You wrote only and a journalist, but you are now responsible for what came before it because you clicked publish. | ||
| Someone else then comes in and writes, and a philanthropist. | ||
| They are now responsible for everything that came before it. | ||
| All that's happened is when they went to edit this, they were presented with a pre-written text, which when they hit submit, they confirmed was their writing. | ||
| All of it. | ||
| Every single person. | ||
| So, I argue this. | ||
| What we would need to see, of course, is lawsuits. | ||
| The first thing I'd say is, I don't know the capability of the individuals who watch, but imagine, under the development argument, we got 1,000 lawsuits in every different jurisdiction, and it would not be too expensive, but you'd have to be able to afford it, right? | ||
| How would these come, eventually you're gonna get into a court and they're gonna be like, oh, absolutely. | ||
| Providing editorial guidelines under your community guidelines of how to produce content is directing the creation of that content. | ||
| That means you're in development of it. | ||
| You're selling ads against it, saying we will show it if you do these things. | ||
| It's a gallery saying, I will put your paintings up if you give me good paintings and you don't do these things that make me angry or would piss people off. | ||
| You are giving them developmental guidelines. | ||
| Next, imagine if We go to View History, and I take a look at this. | ||
| GreenSeaBot moved one URL. | ||
| I don't think there's an argument that they're responsible for any speech for moving a URL. | ||
| They didn't add anything. | ||
| But right here, Football Team Executive 506 characters, Objective 3000. | ||
| We can preview exactly what Objective 3000 wrote, and let's see if they added anything that was defamatory. | ||
| The owner of the team, comma, but the person he went out with was actually an undercover reporter for O'Keefe Media, and then references. | ||
| This individual, who wrote only two sentence fragments, should, in my opinion, be sued for the entirety of the article. | ||
| So, you're going to have to file some kind of paperwork for the discovery of the individual, their username, their location, so that the lawsuit can be filed. | ||
| Wikipedia would likely have to comply, just as YouTube does when these things happen. | ||
| And then, this individual would have to make the defense of, I didn't write that, which opens up a can of worms. | ||
| What did you write, and why are you not responsible for everything else published in that article? | ||
| So I might differ on that opinion, right? | ||
| Because if that individual that they sourced from, his information that made it to Wikipedia was aggregated by Wikipedia and then used for it. | ||
| What he said he would be responsible for, but he could actually bring a 230c1 defense and say, I can't be treated as Wikipedia. | ||
| I didn't do that. | ||
| They use my words in a different context maybe. | ||
| There's actually a process. | ||
| He is a publisher of the content. | ||
| Of the original content. | ||
| That's what he's responsible for, but not what Wikipedia used it for, right? | ||
| There's something – I'm saying that – what I'm saying is two different things. | ||
| The users are not protected under Section 230. | ||
| If I go on X and say Libby kicked a dog, Libby can sue me. | ||
| Do you know how much hell I catch every time you say Libby kicked a dog? | ||
| I'm intentionally making up something false as a point that you can sue me for defamation where I have to actually imply it. | ||
| These users have no protections. | ||
| My argument is, we should be suing Wikipedia users for the slightest alteration, to add words, under the argument I made, that they are knowingly adding things to a greater context, and they are speaking the entirety of the article. | ||
| They have no Section 230 protections. | ||
| Sue them for defamation. | ||
| That would be like how you're suing the Kamala Harris campaign for her defamatory speech on X, but you're not suing X for allowing the speech to remain. | ||
| Right, because X wasn't the party that can't be treated as Kamala Harris, right? | ||
| Do you know there's actually a name for this? | ||
| Look up proof texting. | ||
| Proof texting. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| This whole process, there's an actual name for this thing. | ||
| My attorney used it in one of our briefings and I was like, what's that? | ||
| And I looked it up and I'm like, there it is. | ||
| This is what they do. | ||
| The only thing I can find about proof texting is references to the Bible. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Read it. | ||
| The practice of using a Bible verse or passage out of context to support a theological belief or argument. | ||
| So it started with the Bible. | ||
| This has been happening for a long time. | ||
| It's taking something out of context to mean something else. | ||
| It's what they do to Trump constantly. | ||
| Like the Charlotte thing, right? | ||
| Where, you know, very fine people. | ||
| They use a piece of it to use it out of context in order to use it in a different way that was never meant In the first place, and they did it with the Bible, and it's literally got a name. | ||
| It's how they manipulate content. | ||
| They do the same thing with precedent. | ||
| A good lawyer, if they can't argue the merits, they can't argue the facts, they just, you know, they used to say they slam their hands on the table just to confuse people. | ||
| But they use precedent, these pieces of precedent, and that's what they did to me as well. | ||
| They said that 230c1 protects traditional editorial function, in quotes, right? | ||
| Well, what they mean by that, out of the original Zoran case, right? | ||
| Zoran versus American Online, the traditional publisher function was a platform, a distributors function. | ||
| The basic transformate, you know, um, conduit of information. | ||
| And they turned that into, it was an active publication decision that protects. | ||
| And it's again, using that context out of its original context in order to mean something totally different. | ||
| And that's where it comes from. | ||
| Proof texting. | ||
| Interesting. | ||
| Isn't that wild? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I learned so much, you know, and we're talking about, like, Wikipedia and why I even looked into Wikipedia. | ||
| You know, I became a subject matter expert on Section 230. | ||
| Like, I've invited—it was funny because when we started talking about this, you invited some of my opposition to come sit here. | ||
| I would have loved that. | ||
| Because I don't have a bar license. | ||
| I don't need a bar license. | ||
| I just need to be smart. | ||
| I've got six years. | ||
| I understand this thing. | ||
| I can cite it verbatim. | ||
| And my argument come out, and he did the whole urination thing just to smear me. | ||
| And meanwhile, I've offered to pay for him to debate me. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Really? | |
| And he still won't do it? | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| No. | ||
| He's the co-dean of a school, of a law school. | ||
| He should be embarrassed. | ||
| Because In reality, I would end his career. | ||
| He would look like an idiot. | ||
| Because I can smoke any lawyer on this. | ||
| I became the, like, I guarantee you I'm the foremost expert in the nation. | ||
| And I mean, I know that's a really bold statement, but I go up to lawyers and they say, oh, I know Section 230. | ||
| I say, okay, why are there quotes on Good Samaritan? | ||
| And they look at me funny, right? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well, because of that subject matter expert issue, I became an expert in other cases. | ||
| And this is where we started going after the censorship industrial complex. | ||
| Now, actually, the funny thing is we didn't even tell everybody the big announcements. | ||
| After six years of litigation, right? | ||
| And this is actually why Tim and I finally connected here. | ||
| Six years of litigation, we have not ever had a hearing, they wouldn't let me in the door. | ||
| We know what's wrong with Section 230. | ||
| We know how to solve the internet. | ||
| We know that it's going to be catastrophic for big tech. | ||
| I mean, antitrust is an existential threat to big tech. | ||
| Zuckerberg admitted that. | ||
| He knows because their whole business model is based on it. | ||
| That's why they're so big. | ||
| They stole everything from everybody, right? | ||
| They're exposed like on a level that you wouldn't even believe once they fix this. | ||
| And finally, this is the strange part, so not only did they The judge recused himself. | ||
| Then the other judge that came on Obama appointment violated my rights because he terminated a non-forfeitable constitutional challenge. | ||
| You can't do that. | ||
| That's procedurally wrong. | ||
| It's a willful disregard for his oath to the Constitution. | ||
| So then we brought it to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit has done something really crazy. | ||
| Northern District of California, San Francisco, right? | ||
| We don't seem, I mean, we have got all sorts of problems going on in the Northern District. | ||
| Like, there's some stuff that we showed. | ||
| I mean, it's like, wow, what is going on with this case? | ||
| Like, just do what it says. | ||
| We got a notice that it would move to San Jose. | ||
| What was San Jose? | ||
| That's big tech. | ||
| Well, wait a second. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Ten minutes later, it moved again to Pasadena. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Now, sometimes they'll move a case if, like, a judge is in two courts. | ||
| There aren't any judges that are in three courts in there. | ||
| So they move this to Pasadena, and the question then becomes, why is it now in Pasadena? | ||
| Now, at first, we've had oral arguments set. | ||
| You go into a hearing to talk about the dismissal stuff. | ||
| But they vacate every time, meaning cancel it. | ||
| And it was always the date range. | ||
| This week, keep it free because we're going to call you in. | ||
| And they always cancel. | ||
| You know, no big deal. | ||
| It was November 4th through 8th, so we didn't get our hopes up yet. | ||
| We're like, OK, cool. | ||
| Which was going to be crazy because I was going to have to be in California during the election. | ||
| I didn't want that. | ||
| But... Where are you based? | ||
| I'm from Pennsylvania. | ||
|
unidentified
|
OK. | |
| And so then we get another notification. | ||
| Pasadena, November 20th, 930 in the morning, courtroom one. | ||
| It appears that we are going to court finally. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| And we are armed with the resolution that is definitive. | ||
| It can't be argued. | ||
| We know that this is the only way it works. | ||
| There's only one way it can be constitutionally applied. | ||
| And then there's corruption. | ||
| So they could just lie and kick you out. | ||
| Well, but see, I am perfectly then set to come back to the Supreme Court with A constitutional issue, deprivation of rights, and I have a circuit court conflict because both the 4th Circuit in Henderson v. Public Data and the 3rd Circuit in Anderson v. TikTok both conflict with the 9th Circuit now. | ||
| So we have circuit court conflicts, we've got constitutional issues, like this thing, we are coming like a bulldozer. | ||
| In their direction. | ||
| And they, I mean, they thought they could outrun me. | ||
| You know, I basically, you know, self-funded all of this stuff. | ||
| And my attorney and I, it's funny because we got so good at this, people asked us to start working on their cases. | ||
| And while my attorney's essentially their attorney, I'm an expert consultant on it. | ||
| And there was no fanfare for this. | ||
| But do you know that we filed a case on Memorial Day, right? | ||
| Brideon and Webseed versus the, basically the USA. | ||
| We are suing the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, News Guard, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Facebook, Google, Twitter, the whole censorship industrial complex, because while, you know Mike Benz, right? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| You know what he's talking about? | ||
| We were, I was under NDA for a year and a half working on all of that. | ||
| We were digging through it and we brought a case forward and I mean, it's a monster. | ||
| There's no attention because they can't have this get out there. | ||
| In fact, some crazy things have happened. | ||
| With regards to Mike Adams' case, right? | ||
| We were going to get Attorney General Paxson. | ||
| He was going to come in. | ||
| We had a meeting with him, all scheduled, right? | ||
| He had lawyers with it. | ||
| 30 minutes before our meeting, he was served with impeachment papers. | ||
| That was wild, that whole impeachment process. | ||
| That morning, we had a meeting with him. | ||
| Um, when we filed, I went on Alex Jones' show, right? | ||
| First time I'd actually done it with Alex. | ||
| I'd been on the War Room and so forth in years past. | ||
| Talking about this years ago, right? | ||
| Same thing. | ||
| We've been right all along. | ||
| And we went out there and Alex, you know, Alex did something he doesn't usually do. | ||
| He let me talk. | ||
| I love the guy, right? | ||
| But he interrupts people, and it's great. | ||
| But he was fascinated by it, and I started going into the actual censorship industrial complex. | ||
| I know how it all goes. | ||
| I know how it started. | ||
| I know, like, we basically uncovered everything. | ||
| It's way bigger than Missouri versus Biden, although they're definitely blazing a trail. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And he goes, we got to get you out to the studio. | |
| We got to do a whole episode, three-hour episode. | ||
| They shut him down the next day. | ||
| I'm telling you, while everybody is fighting all of these different arguments, all different directions, the Democrats are moving on free speech. | ||
| They are trying to shut it down. | ||
| You've got Gavin Newsom. | ||
| It's a huge deal. | ||
| You even had Kamala Harris yesterday say that she thought you needed to talk to your neighbors and friends about misinformation. | ||
| You have Tim Walz saying that free speech is not An absolute right and to confront people at the grocery store. | ||
| You have all of this stuff. | ||
| Why do you think Congress hasn't taken any action on 230, even though the Supreme Court just left it in place? | ||
| What was it last year? | ||
| Well, Congress doesn't need to. | ||
| All of this stuff. | ||
| And this comes back to that. | ||
| Remember the threat that they did with the disinformation dozen? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So we're going to amend or revoke it. | ||
| They can. | ||
| Matter of fact, the government even argued in Missouri versus Biden that they lack the power because of separation of powers, right? | ||
| The Biden administration can amend or revoke it. | ||
| And they said, well, we didn't do anything because there was no real threat. | ||
| But they missed something in Missouri versus Biden that we didn't miss. | ||
| He also said that we would scrutinize the law better. | ||
| What does that mean? | ||
| They would get it right. | ||
| If they told the courts this is how it actually works by scrutinizing it, all of a sudden they're exposed to massive antitrust liability. | ||
| We already know that they're exposed to antitrust because the DOJ versus Google. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| This whole thing is coming down on them real fast. | ||
| I see a couple of potentialities and it depends on the power of the deep state, I suppose. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Should the deep state want to make sure they control narrative and they lose the mechanism by which they can create arbitrary developmental rules, which I'll refer to them as now. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Then they, uh, they're going to have to shut the whole thing down. | ||
| Because. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| You mean shut down the whole internet? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Uh, social media. | ||
| Social media is gone and it can be accomplished. | ||
| You don't think it's too big to fail at this point? | ||
| Social media can be gutted, and the challenge, though, is that it'll be extremely painful, and it'll cause an earthquake. | ||
| Oh, it would be awful. | ||
| I mean, the best thing about the Internet is that it brings everyone together around the world. | ||
| Everyone can talk to everyone. | ||
| That's also the worst thing. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| I think they want homogenized global culture, and they have to use these developmental machines to make that happen. | ||
| However, what's the worst-case scenario for the Davos executives and the global elites and the people who are trying to create their vision of what the... And I want to clarify this, too. | ||
| I'm not saying there's a cabal that gets together, wrings their little hands, and then says, we must ban this thing. | ||
| I'm saying that ideologues Are working in San Francisco. | ||
| They don't have meetings, but they all agree on how they want the world to be, and so they act in this way. | ||
| If they lose the mechanism by which they can say, you must produce content in this style or else, they have two choices. | ||
| They can allow unmoderated, reverse chronological content only, which actually, I think, could be nightmarish in some ways. | ||
| The early days of YouTube was nothing but thumbnails of women in bikinis. | ||
| Because that's what guys click on. | ||
| And the content could be, there were tons of videos back in the day, and you guys who are OG YouTubers might know this, you might remember this, you'd see a video, and it would be like, pictures of women's butts in bikinis, and it would be titled something like, the most beautiful woman you've ever seen, and when you click it, it's just a flashing screen with a countdown on it, or something random, because they got you to click, they're gonna get the views, however, I will stress, this was all part of their rudimentary algorithms, where the more views you got, the more they showed the content. | ||
| If they don't have that, it might just be more chaotic until there's a genuine culture build around certain users. | ||
| The problem with that is it means that YouTube has no control, and the channel that rises to the top through meritocracy might be Alex Jones, who in fact did to a great degree, and they had to shut him down. | ||
| The other alternative, and it's not the end of the world for these people, it means Section 230 gets overturned. | ||
| There's this period of tumult where tons of craters are devastated. | ||
| It's really bad for the economy, mind you, so it's an earthquake. | ||
| But the deep state's end result is Without social media, everything reverts back to CNN, NBC, CBS. | ||
| YouTube still exists, but the only videos available are going to be big five networks. | ||
| That's preferable for them as well. | ||
| And they'll say, you know, look, YouTube's going to be like, we got sued into oblivion. | ||
| It destroyed the company. | ||
| And so we're only working with publishers where we can assume liability safely that are working with us directly. | ||
| That is Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, et cetera. | ||
| The people that the advertisers are comfortable having their content. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| If you have five content creators, and let's say you're YouTube, and you're told you can no longer set developmental guidelines, there's no problem for you. | ||
| You'd simply just say, let the best creator win. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But they don't want that. | ||
| Well, that's what 230c1 protects. | ||
| Like, they should be advocates for this correct interpretation, technically, because at the end of the day, they just push back from the table, right? | ||
| We don't have to correct anything. | ||
| Except, let's broaden the picture here. | ||
| Am I Racist by Matt Walsh. | ||
| It is not being reviewed by any of the major publishers in movie reviews and entertainment. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Hollywood Reporter? | ||
| Deadline? | ||
| Like all of them? | ||
| They told Matt Walsh to screw off. | ||
| The emails they got back said things like, haha, yeah, right, I'm not going anywhere near Matt Walsh. | ||
| That's insane. | ||
| When we published our song, Only Ever Wanted, in 2022, the response is, we sent out PR emails to entertainment magazines that are not political saying, new song by the Offsprings, Pete Parata, and Tim Pool, and they responded with obscenities, insults, or otherwise. | ||
| These are the same people at YouTube. | ||
| They will not tolerate A meritocratic YouTube where Alex Jones becomes the top creator. | ||
| When people saw that Jeremy Johns, the YouTuber, reviewed Matt Walsh's film, the left went nuts and started attacking him, saying, why are you reviewing the film? | ||
| And he was like, I didn't even say anything about his politics. | ||
| I was talking about a comedy film. | ||
| Doesn't matter. | ||
| They go after him. | ||
| YouTube is full of these people, and they're going to be like, first of all, you're going to get a lot of people saying, I refuse to work at a company that's allowing Alex Jones to be the top creator. | ||
| They will not allow that. | ||
| So my fear is, as a business perhaps with shareholders, it's corrective. | ||
| And I should say, my optimistic view is this. | ||
| The correct application of Section 230 results in shareholder revolt demanding YouTube strictly adhere to the law to avoid litigation and liability. | ||
| May the best channels win. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Remove your developmental guidelines. | ||
| Sell the ads like normal. | ||
| We want money. | ||
| Bang! | ||
| Alex Jones is number one on YouTube. | ||
| And I genuinely believe he would be. | ||
| No question. | ||
| Yes, for sure. | ||
| Meritocracy, it always goes to the top. | ||
| The ideologues get purged, this is my optimistic view, because the shareholders don't care. | ||
| They have a legal obligation to generate revenue for the shareholders. | ||
| The shareholders say maximize profits and that means they're gonna have to make the most entertaining and the best content will be the ones that are shown. | ||
| YouTube won't be able to remove things arbitrarily without being sued for being developers. | ||
| The other side of the coin... Content providers, technically, but yes. | ||
| Yes, developers or content providers. | ||
| They're manipulated. | ||
| My fear, however, is that the powerful interests in intelligence and the ideologues who control a multi-billion dollar international corporation simply say, let's run the PR, claiming that because of the severe liability, we have no choice but to shutter servers and begin removing channels. | ||
| We are going to then start Calling all of these other channels that defy us. | ||
| It'll give us an excuse to ban Tim Pool. | ||
| It'll give us an excuse to ban Stephen Crowder and Sticks, Hex, and Hammer. | ||
| Then what will be left? | ||
| CBS, ABC, NBC, or better yet, Disney+, Max, etc. | ||
| And what they'll say is, YouTube is still the home for original content among large companies that we have direct control over. | ||
| Mr. Beast, for instance. | ||
| You'll go on YouTube and there will be, I think, reasonably 50 to 100 channels of individuals that directly work with YouTube liaisons. | ||
| Mr. Beast will start getting 2 billion views per video instead of 500 million because there will be substantially less videos on the platform. | ||
| Everything will hyper-aggregate in the hands of powerful corporations. | ||
| And Stephen Colbert will get 27 million views per clip because the only video to watch is going to be Stephen Colbert. | ||
| It'll be like in the old days when we could only watch what was on TV. | ||
| Big Bang Theory will get 20 million views per episode on YouTube once again. | ||
| And you don't think YouTube would suffer any financial repercussions for that? | ||
| I think they would collapse. | ||
| I don't think anybody would go. | ||
| I think everyone would go because it would be the only game in town. | ||
| We always go to the only game in town. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| And this is my, again, my worst case scenario. | ||
| I'm saying my optimistic view is that they're forced to adhere to meritocratic systems. | ||
| Yeah, they push back from the table and say, here's the platform. | ||
| Well, let's go back to, you know, 2010 or whatever. | ||
| Vice.com, when they had these big hit documentaries that were getting 10-11 million views. | ||
| The Suicide Force in Japan was massive. | ||
| The Biggest Booties in Brazil, I think that was like 2013. | ||
| Millions of views. | ||
| And the reason for those views was not because they had the best content. | ||
| It was because there was little else to watch. | ||
| So I was thinking about Loose Change 9-11. | ||
| You guys ever see that one? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Oh, Loose Change. | ||
| Remember that? | ||
| So, in the mid-2000s, a documentary was made called Loose Change. | ||
| It did well, but Loose Change, second edition, went insanely viral. | ||
| It's a video that purports there was a conspiracy behind 9-11, perhaps involving the government, etc. | ||
| And I'm sure many people watching have seen it. | ||
| Zeitgeist was another documentary that went massively viral. | ||
| I believe it was the second Zeitgeist, which took off, where they talk about fractional reserve banking, and this is... I forgot the guy's name who made it. | ||
| But they went viral. | ||
| Why? | ||
| There was nothing to watch. | ||
| This was the day of ordering movies on Netflix in the mail. | ||
| So if you were sitting at home and you wanted to watch something because you were bored, it was the TV or the Internet. | ||
| What were the Internet's offerings? | ||
| Well, all the big content providers, the little actual channels that made movies, were looking at their bottom line saying, Internet is too small a revenue share for us to invest in. | ||
| If we have to spend 50 million dollars to get our movies on the internet but we can only make five, we ain't doing it. | ||
| So what happens? | ||
| Low quality, but still content. | ||
| Right. | ||
| People then begin watching Vice documentaries. | ||
| I'm online, I want to watch a video, I don't have a TV. | ||
| Many of my friends in this day, they didn't have TVs, they had laptops because they couldn't afford any of this stuff. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So Vice puts out a documentary, everybody watches it. | ||
| In 2013, I had a meeting with Google, Google News Team, and their YouTube development partners. | ||
| And they said, our biggest competitor is Netflix. | ||
| And I said... | ||
| You are completely wrong in how you're approaching this. | ||
| YouTube is a place for everyone to share videos and produce content for it to rise organically. | ||
| Netflix has produced movies and distribution. | ||
| And they said, yes, but we are losing viewers to Netflix. | ||
| When Netflix launched streaming, people stopped watching YouTube videos and started watching premium content. | ||
| I believe it is fair to say, as we are moving in this direction, take a look at Megaupload. | ||
| People used to go to Megaupload to watch movies. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because you couldn't watch movies on anywhere else. | ||
| Amazon didn't exist, so Pirate Bay and once they introduced platforms where you could spend ten bucks to get the movie, the studios took everything back over and regained control of what was going on. | ||
| That's sort of the story of the internet. | ||
| Right. | ||
| The moves that are being made right now are an attempt to once again recreate the homogenized, controlled structure of broadcast towers. | ||
| So for 50 years, 60 years, the way I would describe it is there was one gigantic obelisk at the center of society that beamed down to the masses the word of culture. | ||
| You must adhere to these things. | ||
| Every day people would walk into work, go to the water cooler and say, did you see the Jeffersons last night? | ||
| I saw the West Wing. | ||
| What did you think? | ||
| I mean, but even back then there was substantially less content. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well, this is also... Real quick, what ends up happening is, with the age of the internet, those obelisks collapsed. | ||
| People immediately started sharing content, and from the ground up, alternate towers started to emerge that became quite powerful, and people stopped paying attention to the obelisk. | ||
| The machine is trying to recreate the obelisk of culture by banning individuals, by creating these arbitrary rules, by having courts incorrectly enforce their fake rules and laws, and judges with tech stocks, and politicians who know that if they speak out against this, their name will never appear on the internet again, and they will lose their election. | ||
| Well, it's kind of the, it's the kind of disruption, like with the Mexican radio, the border blasters, who really took down the monoliths of radio because they weren't being paid to play any records, they just played whatever they wanted, and they had such high-frequency signals that they could get their content, you know, from across the border out to everywhere. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That really changed things in radio, too. | ||
| Well, so this is something that we sort of have been working on, because as I said, we work on other cases. | ||
| But if you think about it, right, how did Donald Trump get elected? | ||
| A lot of people try to take credit for that. | ||
| Meme magic. | ||
| Well, yes, but there's a core of that. | ||
| The powers that be, what everyone calls the establishment, the council, CIGIE. | ||
| CIGIE? | ||
| CIGIE. | ||
| C-I-G-I-E. | ||
| Oh, I thought you were making a Quantum Leap reference. | ||
| No, they're actually codified. | ||
| That goes backwards in the censorship industrial complex. | ||
| They act outside of the Constitution. | ||
| That's a whole different animal. | ||
| That's what they don't want me to go into. | ||
| Look into it sometimes. | ||
| C-I-G-I-E, right? | ||
| Oh, I think we may have talked about that before. | ||
| What's his name? | ||
| Greg Stentrum, I think, wrote an article that Roger Stone pushed forward. | ||
| And I mean, it's just like, whoa. | ||
| It ties it all together as to how this is effectively what the establishment is. | ||
| But they were not prepared, right? | ||
| 2016 election. | ||
| I was one of the monsters out there in Facebook that was pushing, right? | ||
| The memes. | ||
| The meme war and whatever. | ||
| We effectively made Trump's position simple with memes. | ||
| It's very, very simple concepts. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Like now, don't eat the cats. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Don't eat the cats. | |
| Don't eat the dogs. | ||
| I love that song. | ||
| So, but the thing that they were not prepared for, and I'll sort of put this in a framework here, is that they were not prepared for what social media does, which it connects the candidate to the electorate. | ||
| There's no filter anymore. | ||
| Right, I mean that's what everybody loved about Trump in 2016 in that election, and that's also what everybody loved about him during his presidency, and that's also the reason that you have Democrats complaining about misinformation, because they're essentially complaining about Trump. | ||
| Correct, and it goes with Tim saying is they're trying to get it back to that system because they don't control it anymore, and he got so ahead of them they weren't prepared for when it came election day and all of a sudden The guy won. | ||
| This is why they know what to do. | ||
| This is why they raided Kim.com in New Zealand, a man who had never set foot in the United States, who ran a business out of Hong Kong, who complied with the law. | ||
| They went and arrested him, and they are now planning to extradite him on all of these charges, I mean, over a decade later. | ||
| To the United States? | ||
| To the U.S. | ||
| Even though he's never once been here? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yep. | |
| So the story of mega uploads. | ||
| Why is Australia doing that? | ||
| The UK is going to start trying to... Because they're vassal states of the American Hegemonic Authority. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So Kim.com started a company called Mega Upload. | ||
| Maybe everybody remembers. | ||
| And it was a website where you could upload files and store them. | ||
| Very, very important for businesses. | ||
| Like we use... people use Google Drive and other... Or Dropbox or whatever. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And... Dropbox, is that what you said? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, Kim.com makes this site, and what happens? | ||
| People start pirating on it. | ||
| They upload movies, post the links, then anybody can watch the movie on Mega Upload. | ||
| Kim.com gets told to remove these things. | ||
| Whenever he does, he says, we'll take them down. | ||
| Like, we make money as a file locker. | ||
| People can upload pictures and memes and their content. | ||
| We're good. | ||
| We don't need to have piracy. | ||
| They start removing it. | ||
| But it's too much. | ||
| People all over the world are pirating faster than the company can actually deal with it, despite the fact that Kim.com says they actually took all of it down. | ||
| They were working. | ||
| One day, filmed, you get New Zealand authorities, I don't know, the MPA movie industry, you see dudes with guns raiding his home to arrest him. | ||
| He gets run through the ringer, they destroy his business, which didn't even operate in the United States, and now they've been trying to extradite him the whole time. | ||
| Because he created something that broke the control operation of American cultural economics, like cultural exports, as well as control of the narrative and otherwise. | ||
| It then gets replaced by the machine state's version, which they can't control. | ||
| And they're still trying to just... They've destroyed the guy's life, basically. | ||
| Not that he's living as bad as, say, like, you know, somebody who's poorly living on the streets or anything like that, but they have tried to make an example of a guy who stumbled upon something. | ||
| It's not like he was an evil guy who trolled us in Modestation and said, I'm gonna destroy the industry. | ||
| He's like, I made a company, look what I did. | ||
| And then they were like, we don't like that you did that. | ||
| Whether it was bad intent or otherwise, you are an affront to the system. | ||
| I didn't know his backstory. | ||
| I've spoken with him several times with Twitter spaces and so forth, and we go back and forth. | ||
| I don't think he quite gets the magnitude of what this is. | ||
| I mean, I think you all do. | ||
| I think, you know, if the state was concerned that, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars were being lost due to piracy because of mega upload, and they felt the only way to deal with it was to shut it down, They didn't have to destroy the guy's life, arrest him. | ||
| They could have just said, look man, it's a machine for piracy whether you want it to be or not. | ||
| But why they're trying to destroy his life just seems mean. | ||
| Well, they like destroying people's lives. | ||
| Look, they were trying to destroy James O'Keefe's life, Douglas Mackey's life. | ||
| Well, maybe they don't want these subversive... | ||
| These individuals are deviant. | ||
| They don't want somebody who is powerful, capable, intelligent, and who... I mean, the mentality may be, look, we stop this guy now, but he's a smart guy. | ||
| He's gonna figure out something else later on that we're gonna have to deal with. | ||
| Just shut him down now. | ||
| That may be the thing they're... | ||
| Well, that's exactly what it is with Trump, is he got ahead of them, right? | ||
| They didn't expect the electorate to connect. | ||
| He got ahead of them. | ||
| He wins the election. | ||
| They have to say, okay, fine, but then the entire government underneath him, all the intelligence community and so forth, they got to work on what was effectively the election integrity partnership. | ||
| That was purely to get him out. | ||
| This entire, like everybody underneath him was trying to get him out. | ||
| And they did that for the 2020. | ||
| And, you know, we won't talk about whether or not that was, but it was one of those. | ||
| Yeah, right. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| But that's just it is they got to get that connection severed. | ||
| We can't, they can't have us talking about it. | ||
| And that's like, you were talking about the obelisks. | ||
| They don't want other ones to rise because same people will rise to the top, the ones that have the better arguments. | ||
| But the problem is, is that that conflicts with their arguments. | ||
| And that that's at the core of what the disinformation does in cases. | ||
| Well, I can put it another way. | ||
| You know, let's say you're a chicken farmer. | ||
| I am, technically. | ||
| And you've got 50 chickens all hanging out doing their chicken business. | ||
| What do you want of the chickens? | ||
| I want them to eat the food when I give them the food, lay the eggs, I'll collect them every morning. | ||
| But what if there's one rooster that keeps pecking other roosters and causing problems and hurting the hens? | ||
| You remove him. | ||
| You say, that behavior is not allowed in my chicken city. | ||
| Gone. | ||
| What if there's a chicken that keeps escaping? | ||
| Well, we don't want that one having babies because the chickens are gonna get out and they're gonna die. | ||
| They're defying our rules and the confines we've created for them, so we're gonna eat that one. | ||
| This is how they view the system in a sense. | ||
| Someone like Kim Dotcom or Alex Jones, these are the individuals who completely find ways through the system to succeed in ways that are outside what they're trying to make happen. | ||
| The difference is we're not chickens. | ||
| We're all humans. | ||
| We are peers and they think they're better than we are and they want the world to run the way they think it should be run. | ||
| Typically when people do this, the world collapses and people die. | ||
| But ideologues and zealots tend not to care because they think they're right. | ||
| But I do want to say, as we've got a few minutes left, one thing to add. | ||
| If there is anything that I have ever experienced that has made me believe in a higher power or in something greater than myself, it is the mini-doc that was produced online about meme magic getting Donald Trump elected. | ||
| If you guys have not seen this, I really recommend it. | ||
| I don't know how to find it. | ||
| It's a short video that was made on YouTube years ago talking about meme magic that got Donald Trump elected, and I'll give you a few of the points. | ||
| In World of Warcraft, the video game, 2006, it was very popular. | ||
| There are two factions, the Horde and the Alliance. | ||
| How does the game work? | ||
| You sign up, you choose a faction, you choose one of the races within each faction. | ||
| The principal races are human and orc, but there's druid, what is it, night elves and blood elves, they added a bunch more, there's pandas now for whatever reason. | ||
| But let's say, in the early days, you say, I want to be a human character. | ||
| You're running around the kingdom of Stormwind and you're hunting boars to get experience. | ||
| You come across a horde player as an orc. | ||
| The way they made it, because they didn't want collusion between the two factions because there's player versus player and the factions are at war, Is that if you speak in the game, people will see a word bubble above your head. | ||
| If you speak as a different race that has a different language, it will present gibberish. | ||
| But not really gibberish, it's some kind of algorithmic alteration of the words. | ||
| When somebody of an opposing faction would type LOL, the other person would see KEK. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Uh-huh. | |
| This created a meme. | ||
| Young people started saying CAC instead of LOL. | ||
| Because you'd be playing World of Warcraft, you'd see an orc, and the orc would put CAC, and jump up and down, and you knew they were laughing at you. | ||
| We knew what that word meant. | ||
| There's a game called Life is Strange, where in the first, I don't know about the second or third one, but in the first one, it's a story-driven game where you play as a college-age woman, young woman, and she has the ability to rewind time. | ||
| In one part of the game, she's texting on, like, a sidekick, like old school, with this other male character, and he responds, Kek. | ||
| Kek was a meme among young people. | ||
| As it turns out, Kek was also the name of an Egyptian god of chaos and darkness, who is a frog. | ||
| But this was just sort of like happenstance. | ||
| Now, hold on. | ||
| I did not know the origin of this. | ||
| This is great. | ||
| Well, so this, no one looked up the Egyptian god Kek or Keku and was like, I'm going to make this a meme. | ||
| Pepe the frog went viral, not because someone knew that there was an Egyptian frog god, because Pepe was just a meme that someone made. | ||
| And so they started sharing this frog, they started saying Kek, and then people were like, eh, this is kind of weird. | ||
| Then a song went viral, Chatelet, and there's an album cover of it's a frog with doing some kind of magic or something. | ||
| Someone put all this stuff together like these weird coincidences that came together and then people noticed actually had an analog in ancient Egyptian religious culture about chaos and dark energy or whatever. | ||
| And I'm probably getting a lot wrong, but this is like the gist of it. | ||
| Was absolutely insane. | ||
| So on 4chan, When you make a post, there's a string of digits. | ||
| I think it's 16. | ||
| I could be wrong. | ||
| Maybe it's not. | ||
| And that's your post ID number. | ||
| And so you can reference other posts by clicking that number and it brings you to it. | ||
| But it'll be like 990101356. | ||
| There's a thing they do as a joke, where they say, dubs, trips, quads, and that is, if the final numbers on your ID are the same, they'll say something like, who's gonna win the Super Bowl? | ||
| Trips gets it right. | ||
| Someone would then respond, the Chiefs, or the Ravens, and if it was 777 or 666, they'd be like, oh, it's trips, that means it's true, as a joke. | ||
| Someone posted on 4chan, Donald Trump will win, and it was all sevens. | ||
| You gotta watch the video breaking all this stuff down, because I remember being online at this time, seeing the memes, seeing the Pepes and all these things, and being like, this is wild. | ||
| People really, like, believed. | ||
| I don't know, you can look at it a bunch of different ways. | ||
| Is it magic? | ||
| It could just be collective consciousness organizing around the internet, forming these ideas and sharing these jokes, looks strange to an individual when you're looking at the greater entity that has sort of emerged through human culture. | ||
| Or maybe there's dark spirits from ancient Egyptian religion who are sowing chaos or something, I have no idea. | ||
| Either way, it is fascinating to see all of these weird things that happened that lined up. | ||
| And some people believe the purpose of censorship is to stop the emergence of a collective conscious around these ideas. | ||
| One thing that I see with it that is much more realistic than spiritual is Humans will eventually create a conscious, a pseudo or faux conscious entity through the internet. | ||
| When we all go online and we all share things, you will eventually see all of the collective actions of information sharing and gathering and opinions come together to form some greater culture. | ||
| When it was unchecked, that was kek. | ||
| People were willing into existence, memes, chaos, jokes, silliness, and the machine state saw this and said, there is this gigantic sphere of influence that is creating a conscious entity of chaos and silliness and disorder. | ||
| We must destroy it. | ||
| It's the Tower of Babel. | ||
| Maybe. | ||
| Which is such a fascinating biblical story, which was reinterpreted by Jorge Luis Borges, who was an Argentine writer, into the library of Babel, where every combination of letters exists in a book. | ||
| And then what happened? | ||
| God struck them down and destroyed their ability to communicate? | ||
| Well, in the Tower of Babel, yeah, so the people build a huge tower in order to get closer to God, and they got too close, just like Icarus. | ||
| I mean, all of our stories are so— Wasn't it that— All of our stories are so amazing when you put them in— Correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| It was like the people were building, communicating, and through communications created this great tower. | ||
| Yeah, because everybody spoke the same language. | ||
| So the tower, they were able to coordinate. | ||
| Yeah, they were able to coordinate. | ||
| They were able to build this great big tower. | ||
| They got too close to God. | ||
| God smote the tower and confused their tongues so that they could no longer communicate. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| And scattered them across the world speaking different languages. | ||
| And then what's fascinating, too, is there's the reversal of the Tower of Babel when after Jesus is crucified and, you know, he ascends into heaven and the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles. | ||
| And they go out to speak to everybody. | ||
| The Holy Spirit opened their tongues so that they could speak to everyone and proclaim the Word of God. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow! | |
| Yeah. | ||
| That's what Big Tech basically is. | ||
| It's the Tower of Babel. | ||
| It allows people to cross over and speak and organize. | ||
| Well, we're building it. | ||
| We're building it so big, and these kinds of communications emerge. | ||
| And I am now desperate to find this little mini doc. | ||
| I'll try and pull it up. | ||
| I recommend people look for it. | ||
| I can probably find it in five minutes. | ||
| But that about does it for our time. | ||
| This is really, really interesting. | ||
| I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with your case. | ||
| I think anybody who heard this should share and discuss this, because if we got a wave of lawsuits challenging Or challenging certain individuals on defamation. | ||
| That's what we do. | ||
| Can I put that out there? | ||
| If we had 5,000 people in all these different jurisdictions making the same arguments, it's going to get through the courts and it's going to happen. | ||
| Can I put that out there? | ||
| We're doing exactly that. | ||
| We are representing other people. | ||
| We're taking on cases and so forth because we know how to go after Big Tech now. | ||
| They can find me either on Twitter or Social Media Freedom Foundation or at socialmediafreedom.org. | ||
| They can reach out to us there. | ||
| There's a lot of materials on that and so forth. | ||
| But we are, I mean, I'm basically trying to take down big techs almost single-handedly. | ||
| But we know how to do it. | ||
| We know it's about to change. | ||
| I mean, the magnitude, I mean, it's nice being in a room where people actually understand what's going on. | ||
| Like, you guys caught on. | ||
| This is massive. | ||
| If that corrects itself, it changes everything. | ||
| It changes the internet. | ||
| It changes, they will not have the same power they do. | ||
| Do we know what's in the future? | ||
| Give me time. | ||
| They'll find a new way to maintain control, but it would be nice to ease up on those breaks of massive control. | ||
| Nice to win one war. | ||
| And that's what I think is going to happen in November. | ||
| Well, I hope there's two big wars, one in November. | ||
| Not only mine. | ||
| You want to get it to the court, right? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| You want to get it to the Supreme Court. | ||
| Well, because the Supreme Court left it in place last year. | ||
| The Supreme Court would codify it permanently. | ||
| It would never get screwed up again. | ||
| If the Ninth Circuit does it, at least in the Ninth Circuit, You know, I'm high enough profile that I'm sure that, you know, we'll come back on here and we'll talk about it once we've beaten this thing. | ||
| What's interesting to me, too, is, oh yeah, you gotta wrap it up, I know, but Newsom is trying to ban, has signed a law banning all deepfakes, and I'm wondering how that would imply to, how that would work. | ||
| Crazy. | ||
| Is there anything you want to shout out as we begin to wrap up? | ||
| Just Social Media Freedom Foundation, socialmediafreedom.org, we got You can find me on Twitter. | ||
| I don't really do much with any of the other sites anymore after all this nonsense. | ||
| I pretty much stick to Twitter. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| We're a small operation, but we pack a big punch. | ||
| Nice. | ||
| I appreciate you having me on, Tim. | ||
| It was well overdue. | ||
| Right on. | ||
| Thanks for coming. | ||
| Should be fun. | ||
| Libby, you want to shout anything out before we go? | ||
| You can find me on Twitter, at Libby Emmons. | ||
| Glad to be here. | ||
| We have some great stuff at the Postmillennial today. | ||
| You can check it out. | ||
| Great. | ||
| We're gonna be back tonight, ladies and gentlemen, 8 p.m. | ||
| YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL. | ||
| Should be fun. | ||
| You can follow me on X at TimCast. | ||
| And tomorrow, I'm actually gonna have a Saturday morning news show. | ||
| I'm gonna pick weekends back up, so I will be doing my morning show six days a week now, because Friday morning is culture war, but we'll have Saturday and Sunday shows for you. | ||
| Follow me on X, again, at TimCast. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out. |