Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 5, 2023 - Louder with Crowder

01:26:27

Google Wants to Steal the 2024 Election, This is How we Stop Them! | Feat. Dr. Epstein

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	🎵 🎵You're a stranger in love🎵
	🎵I know what I know🎵 🎵
	🎵You're a stranger in love🎵 🎵I got to follow🎵
	🎵 🎵I'm in the spirit🎵
	🎵 🎵
	🎵 Alright, good morning everybody
	You don't get a sip because that's not really my thing.
	I leave that to Steven when he is sitting in this chair, but I still have the mug and it's still got a wonderful tasty warm beverage in it.
	Glad you could be with us today.
	It's a little bit of a different day.
	We don't always get the time to fully dive into certain topics and so we'll take an entire hour to do that.
	on occasion. You've seen us do that before when we did the investigative piece on McKinsey.
	We did it when we dove into the career of Muhammad Ali. A lot of different times we take a chance
	and go into a subject that we think that you are going to be interested in and in this one,
	this is not much of a chance. You need to be interested in this.
	Today's subject, it really does fit perfectly in the realm of something that requires us to dive just a little bit deeper, and I appreciate you guys giving us your time.
	Before we jump into it, really quickly, I just want to make sure that if you are not a member of Mug Club, you go to ladderwithcrowder.com slash Mug Club to sign up.
	$89 you get this show you get the hot twin show you get Alex Jones you get the mr
	Guns in gear you get Brian Callen you get Nick DiPaolo ladies and gentlemen all of the guys
	I mean every single one of these guys is fantastic it affords us opportunities to do shows like this as well
	Where it's not just kind of the the normal show that we do which is fun and exciting and there's always great topics
	to discuss There but every once in a while we need to take a minute
	and dive just a little bit more deeply into a subject And really let me just kind of start at the beginning and
	then I'll introduce our guest who is waiting very patiently for that moment
	I appreciate that.
	I was watching a movie called The Creepy Line, and I believe it was around when it came out.
	2018 was when it came out.
	I either watched it then or I watched it in 2019.
	And this was basically a movie or kind of a documentary about how Google would manipulate its search function and, you know, potentially End up leading to manipulating elections.
	There were a lot of really creepy things, not to steal the name of the movie, but it just really, it bothered me.
	And it was something that I didn't know much about.
	So do me a favor, comment below.
	Did you know anything about the movie, the creepy line, the documentary, or maybe some of the work related to how Google could be shifting elections, manipulating you into voting?
	Uh, if you're in the right district and happen to be of the right political party persuasion and that party needs to turn out the vote to win that district.
	Were you aware of that?
	I think you will be after today.
	And unfortunately, it's going to scare the hell out of you, but that's okay.
	We've got somebody on the case for us today and joining us today in third chair is Dr. Robert Epstein.
	Psychologists are now for publicizing the influence of search engines and you've kind of had this this very storied
	career Uh, and this has been something that has kind of flipped
	the script on you a little bit, right? You're not a conservative
	Let's start out there. It's okay, though. We're all going to be okay, right?
	We're all going to talk and have a discussion where we have things that we definitely agree upon
	But maybe some of the other issues we don't agree That's okay with everybody.
	You're not a conservative, but conservatives kind of drug you into this a little bit and your world kind of turned upside down.
	Tell me a little bit about that in 2016 when that happened.
	What was Google doing and how did you get connected to Donald Trump and the Trump family and being a conservative and no longer a scientist?
	Let me just point out that you have a gun on your desk.
	I do, yes.
	I'm not going to point it at anyone though.
	Don't worry, it's safe.
	Inanimate objects rarely kill anyone.
	It's usually people that do the doing, and none of the people here want that to happen.
	Okay.
	Because next time I'm coming with protection.
	Don't worry.
	I'm packing next time.
	It's totally acceptable here in the studio.
	There are a lot of firearms around for everybody's protection.
	We've never used them on each other.
	No.
	Ever.
	No.
	Not once.
	That we can remember.
	So tell me what happened that kind of threw things, I'm imagining that kind of turned life upside down just a little bit.
	Well it started turning upside down actually on New Year's Day in 2012 because I got a bunch of messages from Google, there might have been eight of them or even more, saying your website has been hacked and we're blocking access.
	So, you know, I've been a programmer my whole life, or at least since I was 13, and I was interested.
	I mean, you know, everyone's websites get hacked.
	It's very common.
	Google itself has been hacked.
	For sure.
	But why was I getting messages from Google?
	Why not from a government agency or some nonprofit organization who made them the sheriff of the internet?
	So that was the first thing.
	Second, I noticed that they were somehow blocking access not just on their search engine, which makes sense, it's theirs.
	But they were blocking access on Firefox, which is owned by a non-profit organization.
	They're blocking access on Safari, which is owned by Apple.
	How could Google possibly do that?
	I did eventually figure that out, and I published a big investigative piece in U.S.
	News & World Report.
	People can get to it at thenewcensorship.com, and I explain about Google's blacklisting.
	I go into detail about their blacklisting.
	That was published, I think, in 2016, I had never seen any of these blacklists.
	None had leaked yet.
	Since then, they have leaked.
	I was writing about things which I knew existed within the company because I'm a programmer, and I wasn't guessing.
	I knew for sure that these things existed.
	The point is, I was learning A lot about them and getting more concerned about them, 2012.
	2013, I started doing experiments because I started to think, wait a minute, Google maybe has some power here that we're not aware of.
	There were marketing studies for late 2012 that caught my eye.
	The marketers were pointing out that if you could just move up one notch in those search results, that could increase your sales by 30%.
	It could make the difference between life and death for your company.
	And if you get knocked off that first page, you're dead.
	Yeah, you don't exist.
	When was the last time that you went down to the little Google thing that had the numbers and how many pages and results came up and clicked next?
	Oh, it was exactly never ago.
	You barely scrolled down past the bottom of the current screen.
	I don't know any time that I actually get all the way down to that part of the page anymore.
	So you're right.
	Life is found in that top half of that first page.
	Well, actually 50% of all clicks go to the top two items.
	So I was thinking if people trust those high ranking items, if they trust those high ranking items so much, Could those high-ranking items be used to shift people's thinking?
	Maybe their opinions?
	Maybe their purchases?
	Maybe their votes?
	So I'm a researcher.
	This is what I do.
	So I did a controlled experiment early 2013.
	I predicted That if we randomly assign people to this group or that group, Candidate A or Candidate B, and in Candidate A, people see search results that favor Candidate A. So, if you click up high, you get to a webpage that makes that candidate look really good.
	If you're in the other group, it's the opposite.
	So, random assignment, good scientific methodology, and I thought With this kind of manipulation, I could shift voting preferences by two or three percent.
	The first shift we got was something like 43 percent, which I- Really?
	Yes, of course, which I did not believe.
	So we had- You're like, okay, run that again.
	Exactly.
	And we're not doing this with college sophomores, by the way.
	We're doing this with the full age range, people who look like the American voting population.
	We do it again, we get 66 percent.
	I'm thinking, wait a minute, you know, we triple check, we did it over and over again.
	The bottom line is, is that I ended up discovering something called, which is now called SEME, S-E-M-E, the Search Engine Manipulation Effect.
	If you go to searchenginemanipulationeffect.com, you'll actually see the seminal publication, which was in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is kind of a big deal if you're in science.
	Yeah, it is, absolutely.
	In any of the sciences.
	And that, you know, that described five experiments in two countries, more than 4,000 participants, and it described one of the most powerful manipulation techniques that's ever been discovered in the behavioral sciences in a hundred years, SEAM.
	And basically it means, wait a minute, Google has this power and it's not like
	the power to put a TV commercial on the air or to buy Facebook ads.
	This is a very different kind of power because they have a monopoly on search worldwide.
	Yeah, what is it, 85% of the search market is controlled by Google?
	That's more than 92% now.
	Is it really?
	Worldwide and it's going up still.
	And so Bing and DuckDuckGo haven't really dented.
	Well, Bing is about 2%, DuckDuckGo is about 1%.
	They don't impact elections.
	That's insane, yeah.
	But if you have that kind of control and you can shift opinions by that much
	without people knowing, because people don't even know.
	I mean how would you look at a bunch of search results and recognize that they're biased toward one candidate?
	You'd have to click on every one, look at the webpages, read the webpages, you know.
	So people don't know and you can't counteract what they're doing.
	So it's unlike billboards and TV commercials and radio commercials because if you buy a billboard, I can buy two billboards.
	Exactly well and a lot of people when you go and search you're just assuming that an algorithm is basically taking whatever keywords that you're putting in and Finding you the articles or the the sites that are most relevant minus some paid spots, right?
	We know that they're sponsored posts and stuff like that are sponsored listings Or or you know, maybe like the first four but they always note those as being sponsored or paid or an advertisement, right?
	And you're just assuming okay, whatever I get next he's got to be the most relevant thing to what I've typed but you're saying it's not or Theoretically, it's not I'm saying that they fool us because most of the searches people conduct, about 86%, are for very simple facts.
	What is the capital of Texas?
	Is it really that necessary?
	Are people really that afraid of just factual statements getting out, or at least opinions said his opinions? Well, well some information
	There there are forces out there that they that they don't they don't want that information out there
	So they they suppress it and it turns out that Obviously the the press in general has always had that
	ability for sure, but the press is very competitive So, you know, it's hard to you want the story. Nobody else
	is covering right, right If everybody's running this direction and somebody comes to you and says, well, wait a minute, no, I've got this piece right here, you're going to run with it because it gets people to buy your paper, click on your website, whatever it is.
	Well, in general, too, we have a relatively free press, probably the freest press of any country in the world.
	So, you know, the different points of view are out there.
	The problem, though, with content on a platform like Google Is that there is no competitor, and there's that trust that we have, not just in Google, but in algorithms and computer output.
	We have this trust.
	I mean, we've been studying this now for more than 11 years.
	We've been measuring it.
	People really trust that.
	They trust those high-ranking search results, for example.
	They trust the search suggestions Google's flashing at you.
	Search suggestions, believe me, that's part of The game here.
	They manipulate us from the very first character we type into the search bar, literally.
	I mean, if you don't believe me, pick up your phone or your computer, type the letter A, they're going to flash some suggestions at you and chances are that some of them or most of them are going to be for Amazon.
	Now, you're looking for aardvarks.
	You're looking for apples.
	You're not interested in Amazon.
	Some other A. Do us a favor.
	So that's a really great thing.
	Let's do this.
	Everybody out there right now do this.
	Go to Google, type in the letter A. I want everybody to do the exact same thing.
	Just the letter A, not capitalized, and then take a screenshot of what you get.
	I want to see how different those results are across this audience, and send it to us at any of our social media accounts.
	You can make sure you put it up.
	We'll put it up on the screen here for you to see where to send it to, at S Crowder on X. I always want to call it Twitter still because that name is just that there's so much kind of brand identity behind that and equity built up.
	But put it out there.
	I want to see it, and I want you, more importantly, to be able to see what everybody else's results are and how different they are.
	Now that's, that is, I mean, if it's Amazon, then they're pushing a company, right?
	But it seems innocuous enough where you're like, okay, it could be different.
	After we finish our conversation, you'll be like, holy crap, okay, now I see it.
	I've done an experiment, and you've shown me this is weird.
	So keep going.
	I didn't mean to interrupt there, but... When I was testifying before Congress, and if you want to see my testimony, just go to EpsteinTestimony.com.
	As you can see, I've I bought a lot of URLs.
	I was about to say, you own a lot of websites.
	Yeah, whoever you're hosting through really likes you.
	So, when I was testifying for Congress, EpsteinTestimony.com, I gave this challenge to Senator Ted Cruz, and he pulls out his phone right in the hearing, and he types in an A, and I said, well, okay, tell me what you see.
	Three out of the four suggestions were for Amazon.
	Really?
	And he said, well, why?
	I said, well, because Amazon is Google's biggest advertiser and Google is Amazon's biggest single source of traffic.
	These are business partners.
	We've shown in experiments that just by manipulating those search suggestions, they're flashing at you.
	We can turn a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split with no one having the slightest idea that that has occurred.
	But so give me a little bit more information there.
	So what would happen, so if I was on Google right now and I was typing in some information, are you saying something like, how do I vote?
	Or which candidate?
	Or what did Trump say?
	Or what did Biden say?
	What am I typing in that is skewing me?
	Or is it all of the above?
	Well, first of all, if you type in something that has a bias, like you type in Hillary is the devil, then of course you're gonna get related search suggestions. But if you just type something
	simple like Donald Trump is, you should get a mix of things probably. Hillary Trump is,
	you should get a mix of things.
	Well, 2016, before that election, on Bing or Yahoo, if you typed in Hillary Clinton is,
	you got what people were generally searching for, which ironically you could verify at the time on
	Google Trends, which was things like Hillary is the devil, Hillary is sick, Hillary eats babies,
	whatever, all those crazy things.
	Babies?
	I mean, I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn't say that she's a baby eater.
	I don't know where that one came from.
	But if you type that in though on Google that summer of 2016, you got nothing like that.
	You got Hillary Clinton is winning and Hillary Clinton is awesome, which no one was searching for.
	So what we learned in our research is this, is what Google does when they're supporting a candidate or a cause, They suppress the negative search suggestions.
	Ah, so you're only getting neutral or positive, which is going to take you usually, which is going to generate, if you click on it, it's going to generate search results that are kind of neutral or positive, and you're rarely if ever going to see anything negative because they're suppressing the negative search suggestions.
	So that can take that 50-50 split and turn it into a 90-10 among undecided voters?
	Among undecided people. People are undecided on anything, it turns out.
	Google has that ability to manipulate with search suggestions,
	answer boxes, which give you the answer, the search results.
	Google owns YouTube.
	They're manipulating people with a sequence of videos, with the up next video.
	They are also, it turns out, indoctrinating our kids, which is a new area of study for us.
	But the point is that if you had the slightest idea of what Google is doing...
	For example, they monitor all your gmails.
	Not just the ones you write, not just the incoming emails coming from whatever they're coming from, the attachments.
	How about this?
	You're typing an email because you're really mad at your girlfriend, your boyfriend, your boss, and you're typing this horrible email and what you're saying, and then you look at it and you go, Wait, I'm not sending that.
	That's crazy.
	And then you erase it.
	Google already has recorded it.
	That's part of your profile now.
	If people knew the extent of the surveillance and the extent of the manipulation, first of all, I guarantee you they would stop using Gmail.
	I guarantee you they would stop using Chrome, which is a Google browser.
	They would stop using Android phones because that's a Google.
	Yeah!
	You know what?
	Now we're on the same page.
	There we go.
	I'm not saying I'm a Tim Cook, you know, loyalist or anything.
	I just like the products a little bit better than Android.
	But continue.
	You're singing my tune.
	I'm just saying that there's a world of hurt here that people are just unaware of, and that is, the more I have studied it, the more I've learned about it, the more concerned I've become.
	First of all, because I'm a dad, so I'm concerned about young people and what are they seeing.
	Is there any hidden messaging going on there?
	Is anyone trying to shift their thinking in any particular way?
	Well, one of the leaks from Google, which is I think in 2018 or so, 2019, was an eight-minute video from their advanced products division, which is called The Selfish Ledger.
	Not their advanced products division, but this video.
	The video is called The Selfish Ledger.
	And if you type in The Selfish Ledger plus my name, you'll get a transcript of it and you'll get a link where you actually can go see this video.
	This video is about the ability that Google has to re-engineer humanity.
	And they say in the video, they call it re-sequencing human behavior according to, it's right in the film, company values.
	Really?
	But whatever they deem to be the correct behavior.
	It's sounding like the Chinese Communist Party without actually having the communism or the party.
	It's just this big corporation that's doing this.
	That's terrifying.
	It's actually without any... It's probably worse.
	It's much worse because it's without any accountability to anyone.
	And they're controlling all of this stuff, the surveillance, the censorship, the manipulation in every country in the world outside of mainland China.
	And they're accountable to no one.
	So it's much, much worse than China.
	The Chinese know they're being surveilled and manipulated by the Chinese government.
	The Chinese government doesn't hide that.
	But here you've got a private company that's accountable to nobody.
	We didn't elect them.
	Again, who made them sheriff and who gave them all this power?
	And why aren't our public officials doing anything about this?
	That's the question that I think a lot of our audience will have because, look, we've discussed this before.
	You're very familiar with the Hunter Biden laptop story and how that swayed the election.
	So I think it was a combined total of 17% would either have switched their vote or simply not voted for Biden.
	Just the suppression of that one story potentially could change an election.
	Suppressing somebody's voice on YouTube, so like you said owned by Google, could change the outcome of an election, could change the pushback on restrictive policies regarding lockdowns or masks or things that you disagree with or could hide things maybe that you do agree with, right?
	So it can censor people and They're arbitrary rules.
	We've had strikes on our channel for things that don't even make any sense.
	And there's no way for us to get around it.
	There's no way for us to appeal it and get them to change their minds on something.
	That doesn't work.
	They say, there's an appeals process you can submit.
	Click here if you disagree with this strike.
	And it's like, yes.
	It basically goes to the trash bin, I think, somewhere at Google and notifies them that, aha, maybe we need another strike to get back in line with YouTube.
	The problem is that politicians aren't doing anything.
	And we've had Senator Ted Cruz on, we've had Senator Marco Rubio on, we've had a lot of people on, and I'm like, look guys, enough talking about Section 230 as it specifically relates to those platforms, right?
	Enough talking about it.
	Either you do something about it or you don't exist.
	I'm not saying that's us, I'm saying that's them.
	If you don't do something about it, and they are exactly who you say they are, and they are skewed against conservative policy makers, then they could just make it to where people don't find you.
	And an election comes around and you should win, but you don't.
	And you've lost your opportunity to do anything.
	And I think probably on Section 230, you would agree like, Hey, this is part of the problem.
	I saw you nodding your head when I mentioned it, like Section 230 kind of being this ambiguous thing where they get the benefits of not being sued, but none of the responsibility to allow voices on as long as they're not breaking the law.
	Right.
	And we have rules and guidelines for that, what that looks like.
	Otherwise it should be, you have the ability to have some free speech in the public square, but they're not even allowing you to do that.
	That's the obvious stuff.
	We know about that.
	That's become like a car alarm to us, unfortunately.
	We get a strike on YouTube and it's like, yeah, it's a Tuesday.
	Fine.
	That happens.
	This is even worse.
	And so let me just kind of rewind a little bit to 2016.
	So where did you get your PhD?
	A conservative bastion?
	A little university in Cambridge, Massachusetts called Harvard.
	Harvard.
	Okay.
	So Harvard train.
	You're a smart guy, right?
	You're not a conservative.
	So that would make you, would you call yourself a liberal?
	I lean left.
	Lean left.
	Okay, perfect.
	Leans left, supported Hillary Clinton, and then this happens.
	Donald Trump tweets out, wow, report just out, Google manipulated 2.6 million to 16
	million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 election.
	This, this, and I think this next one, this was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a
	Google should be sued.
	My victory was even bigger than thought at Judicial Watch.
	Now there's some context there.
	Those numbers aren't quite right, I believe.
	I think you said potentially up to 2 million, to 16 million, or 12 million, whatever it was.
	I think it was off a little bit on the top number.
	And it didn't go into some of the nuance.
	But immediately what happened?
	Hillary Clinton replied to him.
	Now, she had no reason to reply to him.
	None!
	And what she said was this.
	She said that that research has been debunked, which is completely false.
	But I checked with lawyers, that's an opinion.
	And she said, and it's based on data obtained from 21 undecided voters.
	And I went, what?
	And where did she even get those ideas from?
	I'm sure That someone at Google gave her that language.
	That then got picked up by this machine, which I had heard of, and I didn't know it was real, but it got picked up by the New York Times and a hundred other- They did a fact check.
	I read it today.
	A hundred other mainstream news sources, many of which I've dealt with in the past, I know the people, I've published in them before, and I got cut off.
	Just like Dershowitz, I got completely cut off from mainstream media, mainstream news, even though, again, in many cases I know the people.
	I mean, I was editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine for four years.
	I mean, I worked for New York magazines.
	Yeah.
	And they cut me off.
	How did that—so as somebody who leans left, how did that make you feel?
	I mean, because in your mind, you're like, guys, I'm going where the data's telling me.
	Like, we have a massive problem here that you should care about, too.
	And that's really all you're saying.
	Just because Donald Trump chose to grab a hold of that in that moment shouldn't have—shouldn't have changed what was going on.
	But it seems like it did.
	What— Oh, it's—in many ways—let me explain.
	Trump's tweet came in the summer of 2019.
	That was shortly after I had testified before Congress about my work.
	And also that summer, I gave a private briefing to a bunch of state attorneys general, including the guy who just got off the hook.
	Ken Paxton.
	Ken Paxton, who actually had been really, really aggressive and getting more and more aggressive against Google over the years.
	And so I'm standing out in the hall.
	This is all the summer of 2019.
	One of the AGs comes out and he says, well, based on what you told us, Dr. Epstein, he said, I don't want to scare you, but he said, I think you're probably going to be killed in some sort of accident in the next few months.
	Then he walked away.
	I know exactly who it was.
	He's still an AG.
	And obviously I'm here, so I wasn't killed, but my wife was.
	And that was a very sad story that you and I were talking about, but it's not just a sad story, it's terrible.
	I'm married, I have two young kids.
	How many kids do you have?
	Five.
	You have five children.
	What's the oldest and youngest?
	Give me the spread here.
	Oh, I don't want to.
	Okay, they're older.
	Are they older or are they young?
	It's a spread.
	Okay, it's a spread.
	All right, so I have two very young children right now, and so I'm just entering into the dadhood phase.
	And that's a terrible thing, and that would be enough.
	But there's more to that story That makes what he said to you, one of the attorneys general there, said to you, kind of ring in the back of your mind a little bit, like, wait a minute, can I trust that this was just an accident?
	So, just give us a couple of things there, because when I read about it, I was like, you've got to be kidding me.
	Well, the little pickup truck that she was driving, um, I mean, some things were just, they were not right.
	The, the truck was never examined forensically.
	It disappeared from the impound yard.
	I said, where, where is it?
	And they said, oh, it was the remains of the truck were purchased by some dealer in Mexico.
	So it had disappeared to Mexico.
	That's your property though, right?
	I thought it was my property.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Did they ever give you an explanation for why it happened?
	No.
	And an explanation at that point wouldn't have made any difference because the thing was gone.
	So, uh, you know, and I did talk with a woman who was actually in the car right behind her.
	And from what she, the way she was explaining it to me, it sounded like something had gone suddenly wrong with her brakes.
	And of course, brakes can be tampered with, but yeah.
	Anyway, who knows?
	The problem is, I'll never know.
	No, I know.
	And I'm sorry for that.
	I don't want to relive it for you.
	I don't want you to dive deeply into that.
	You're now in a position where you're, you're, you aren't suicidal, correct?
	I just want to make sure I get that on the record right now.
	If we end up finding, you did not kill yourself, right?
	That's, and we joke around about that, but at the same time, it's, it's a real thing because these are very powerful forces that probably don't want you tinkering with what they're doing.
	Well, I have to keep going on ex-formerly Twitter, and I had to do it again a few days ago, and I have to say, just a reminder everyone, I am not suicidal.
	Now, why do I have to keep doing that?
	Because just a few days ago there was a very good article came out about my work, and about what I'm doing now to try to stop these companies, which I'm sure you'll want to talk about.
	And it was in a publication called PJ Media, which I think is very good, although it leans heavily to the right, but still I think it's very good.
	And it was this article about my work in PJ Media, and it compares me to another Epstein.
	He was an Epstein.
	And it says, you know, they do have one thing in common, because this Epstein that I'm writing about now, me, is just as likely to be suicided as the other Epstein was.
	So I have to go back online and say, no, I'm not suicidal.
	But I am doing work which is definitely inherently dangerous because my team and I,
	and I have almost 50 people working with me, brave souls.
	And we are discovering things about Google and to some extent, some other tech companies
	that are really scary because...
	For one thing, we've learned how to, not just how to test the powers that they have, that we do in our basic science, our basic experimental research.
	And that's good enough to know, but then, okay, now what do I do, right?
	Exactly.
	So, you know, that's part of it, the basic science, that tells about their capabilities, which is interesting, but that doesn't mean they're actually doing anything, right?
	But we've, starting in 2016, we have learned how to preserve what, at Google, they call ephemeral experiences.
	Now, in a million years, they never imagined that anyone was going to capture the ephemeral content that they show people.
	So, what's ephemeral content?
	Why is that so important?
	I'm glad you asked the question, because it made me seem smarter for not having to.
	Maybe the audience would like to know.
	I know, but maybe they don't know.
	Well, I'll just tell you, and then you can pass it on.
	So, ephemeral means fleeting, short-lived.
	And by definition, ephemeral means it disappears and you can't go back and see what it was.
	2018, there's a leak of emails to the Wall Street Journal.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	What are these Googlers, they call themselves, what are they discussing?
	How can we use ephemeral experiences to change people's views about Trump's travel ban?
	Well, wow!
	My head spun when I saw that because I had been studying an experiment since 2013 The power that ephemeral experiences like search results are ephemeral, search suggestions are ephemeral, answer boxes, YouTube sequences, up next videos, that's all ephemeral.
	And here we're employees of the company saying, basically acknowledging that they know the power that these ephemeral experiences have to shift people's thinking and behavior.
	Now that's incredibly dangerous that they know this and presumably maybe even do it.
	I'll get to that in a minute.
	Because it disappears.
	In other words, it leaves no paper trail.
	Normally, when people commit a crime, there's a paper trail.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	It's very hard to prosecute.
	And, you know, if you believe that the election was stolen by, you know, these machines doing stuff or voter fraud, we were talking about that before.
	How do you prove that?
	It's one of the hardest things.
	This is worse.
	This is worse because these things don't leave a trace.
	It makes it even harder.
	And so, for you to have come up with a way to monitor that and to catalog that, massive amounts of data, I'm assuming, that is not cheap, by the way, to be able to store that, to process that, to pay people to do it.
	I don't know if I want to go into the details of how, but you guys have a system, let's just say that.
	What's the name of this system that captures all this data?
	Isn't there like a network name or something for it that you guys have?
	Internally we call it our monitoring system, but publicly now we're starting to call it America's digital shield.
	And we actually have a mock-up of a website that's going to be up soon.
	It's going to be live that is going to, I hope, generate a lot of interest.
	Yeah, there we go.
	We've got it right there.
	All right.
	What we have learned to do better and better and better starting in 2016 is to preserve ephemeral content.
	So how do you do this?
	Imbeciles at places like The Economist and Columbia University, and I have to call them imbeciles because… Is this a Harvard snob thing?
	I'm just kidding.
	A little bit.
	A little competitiveness?
	A little bit.
	Maybe a little bit.
	That's okay.
	It's a nice university.
	But you know what they do to try to see if there's bias in Google content?
	They use an anonymized computer.
	And that one computer over and over again, they're running searches and then they look at the stuff and they say, there's no bias.
	There's no bias.
	There's no bias.
	Okay.
	You can't look at anonymized, at content coming from an anonymized computer because their algorithm recognizes that as a bot.
	It recognizes that it's not a real person because it doesn't have a long 20 year history of data in their database.
	So they can play it all square because it's a bot potentially and not show bias.
	Oh, we've shown this. We've shown this. If they know it's not a person, they just send perfectly unbiased stuff.
	Really?
	So, how are you going to see the real stuff?
	So now, starting in 2016, we've come up with better and better ways of recruiting people around the country.
	We call them our field agents.
	They're all registered voters.
	They're real people.
	And we hide their identities, just like the Nielsen Company hides the identities of the Nielsen families that they use to get the TV ratings.
	Same thing.
	It's very, very expensive, very slow, very labor intensive.
	But each day, we have a team of almost 50 people who work on this, each day we're able to successfully recruit, vet, NDA, equip, train every day another 30 to 60 people.
	And then we've started getting some of their kids signed up too.
	So we In 2016, we miraculously got 95 field agents in 24 states, preserved 13,000 searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo.
	Looked at the actual search results that real people were getting and found there was extreme bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, whom I supported, and I no longer do, obviously, but the point is that we calculated from our research at the time that that level of bias, if it had been present nationwide, would have shifted between 2.6 and 10.2 million votes to Hillary Clinton, with no one knowing.
	As it happened, she won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, so it looks like If you took Google out of that election, the popular vote would probably have been very, very close.
	We built a bigger system in 2018.
	2020, we didn't have 95 field agents.
	2020, we had 1,735 field agents in four swing states, because that's where the action is.
	And we preserved more than 1.5 million ephemeral experiences.
	And we found, guess what?
	Extreme political bias favoring Joe Biden.
	Who am I supporting, but I no longer do.
	Anyway, so wait a minute.
	That means that they shifted more than 6 million votes to Joe Biden.
	Wait a minute.
	They shifted 6 million votes?
	More than 6 million, at least 6 million.
	Can you tell me what the swing states were?
	If I can remember, I think Florida, Arizona, Ohio, fourth one, I don't know, could be Michigan, I'm not sure.
	Okay, so these are states that change in election, potentially, right?
	These are battles, yeah.
	Because we know that there were razor-thin margins in these places.
	Now, so, what was it in Georgia?
	It was 11,000 votes or something like that.
	In Arizona and in Michigan and Wisconsin, it was really, really, really close.
	Pennsylvania was close.
	All these places.
	2020, Georgia was one of the four.
	So I've left out Georgia, but Georgia we had more than a thousand field agents just in Georgia because there was so much going on there.
	There were those two.
	Six million in just those four.
	Yeah, but it gets the story gets really crazy now because we at this time we were learning how to analyze data faster and faster and faster so I sent it to Senator Cruz's office.
	Why did you pick Senator Ted Cruz?
	Because after I had testified a few months later he invited me to DC we had a four-hour private dinner talking tech for four hours that's why.
	The man is really smart and he understands these issues.
	He is, yeah.
	So I sent him the data that we had.
	A couple days later, November 5th, so this is two days after the presidential election, Cruz and two other senators sent a very threatening letter to the CEO of Google.
	If you want to see it, go to lettertogoogleceo.com.
	I'm not kidding.
	One more of your site's letters.
	Lettertogoogleceo.com, and you'll actually see the letter written by these senators.
	And now, the shocker, November 5th, 2020, Google, that day, shut off all of the bias going to voters in Georgia.
	How do we know?
	Because we had more than a thousand field agents there.
	Why does this matter?
	Because they were, at this point, gearing up for the two Senate runoff elections in January.
	But Google backed away from that election.
	Literally, the bias, which we've never seen this happen before, the bias in Google went to zero.
	Google search went to zero.
	But more important, Those partisan GoVote reminders that they had been sending out stopped.
	So tell me what the GoVote reminder is.
	Is that on the search page?
	Where are you talking about that?
	Oh no, this is far more dangerous.
	This is on Google's home page, which is usually blank, but now and then they put a big message there.
	It says GoVote.
	That says go vote, or register to vote, or mail in your ballot.
	They can put anything they want there, but what we have found is they do this in a partisan fashion.
	So for example, one example, 2022, in Florida, 100% of liberals got that go vote reminder all day on election day.
	That go vote reminder, I mean, Google's home page has seen 500 million times a day just in the United States.
	But 100% of liberals got that reminder in Florida, 2022, only 59% of conservatives did.
	Really?
	That is a really extreme manipulation because we know from actual research that Facebook conducted and published that in that kind of election, a national election, if Google is sending out a go vote reminder in a partisan way, Then literally on election day itself they can send 450,000 more votes to one candidate than to the other.
	They can get people to vote who would normally stay sitting on their sofas all day.
	They can get that many people off their sofas.
	The point is they stopped.
	They stopped.
	So this illustrates a very important point that Justice Brandeis made over a hundred years ago, which is, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
	And the second part of that quote, which no one knows except me, is, and street lamps are the best policemen.
	Yeah.
	That's what Justice Brandeis said in 1917 or something like that.
	It's perfect.
	And we use it all the time and we don't use the full one.
	We're going to change that.
	You can't just use sunlight as the best disinfectant anymore.
	You have to have the cops thing in there.
	That's right.
	By the way, are you starting to get the picture a little bit here?
	Is this not a little bit creepy and scary?
	I got a couple of guys in here doing the stuff, the tech wise.
	These guys are like, really?
	Are you serious?
	A little shocked.
	So let's just, I just want to back this off just a little bit and make sure that you guys understand, this shifts so many elections potentially.
	And nobody should have that power, no matter what my particular belief would be about candidates, or who should be in office.
	It should be a vote, not somebody... I mean, they have get-out-the-vote campaigns.
	We know that it works because candidates have been doing it for as long as voting has been a thing.
	Right?
	Where you go through districts that maybe you need to win this one a little bit more.
	Make sure you do a get out the vote campaign.
	Have door knockers.
	Have people calling.
	Have people giving rides.
	Have signs out to remind people to go vote because they can't be bothered in their daily life to remember that it's an election day.
	That's kind of an important thing to determine who is going to be in charge of your area or your country.
	And they do this to swing, in just one state, you're saying 400 and some odd thousand?
	No, no, no.
	Nationwide.
	Nationwide, they go 400,000 votes to one candidate.
	To one candidate, just on election day alone with that manipulation, the partisan go-vote manipulation.
	Now, there's also a bit of good news, though, because the fact that we did get them to back off, the fact that Sunlight... Right, so you've got some results.
	That's right.
	So what this was telling us was, wait, monitoring could be the solution here to a lot of the terrible things that they are doing.
	And again, we have more and more evidence over time.
	2022, we had 2,742 field agents, all registered voters.
	By the way, these field agents are politically balanced.
	There's no bias, and we're very careful to politically balance them, because we publish our work in peer-reviewed journals.
	So we're following all the rules to make sure we have credible data.
	So at this point we're in ten swing states.
	I'll give you a couple of little glimpses of what we found.
	First of all, Google easily shifted tens of millions of votes in hundreds of elections nationwide.
	They all shifted in one direction.
	I happen to like that direction, but I don't like the fact that a private company is running our country, that the free and fair election is an illusion I don't like that at all.
	One, that's a stupid comment, because how do you prove it's the freest and most fair election that we've had in our history as a country?
	I didn't realize that the other ones were less free and fair before that.
	And I'm not talking about the 2020 issues, but then why is one side out there saying, hey, No, these aren't necessarily, we need to make sure that these elections... Now, it's not just a bias of, our guy didn't win, right?
	It was, I'm seeing some stuff, and this doesn't look like it's fair, but then the other side completely saying, well no, these are the freest and fairest elections that we've ever had.
	Why is that divided?
	Okay, my answer is going to surprise you.
	Okay.
	But it's actually the truth.
	You think it's just candidate bias?
	My guy won, so I'm happy with it?
	No, no, no.
	Okay.
	No, I'm going to tell you the truth.
	And all I can ask you to do, since it's going to sound a little nutty, is just... That's okay.
	Did I mention that Alex Jones comes on this show?
	Oh my God.
	That's what I'm saying.
	We're fine.
	We're in good company.
	If you've ever met Alex, he's one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.
	It's hilarious.
	You may think he's like this intense guy that kind of runs around these... By the way, he's been right so many weird times where I'm like, that's crazy.
	And then six months later, I'm like, well, son of a gun.
	He said they were turning the frogs gay, and it sounded weird, but there's the report!
	Well, you know, he just invited me to be on his show, and I don't know what to do.
	I have my limits.
	He's a great guy.
	I've spent some time with him.
	I've gone down to Austin.
	I've done a show with him.
	He's been up here a lot.
	He really is a great guy.
	He's very fair.
	He'll ask you some questions, for sure.
	I'm putting my tinfoil hat on.
	Tell me where it gets creepier.
	I'm going to tell you something now.
	Again, you'll have to mull it over, but it's the actual truth, okay?
	And if you want to read my written version of this... You have another website?
	I do, and it's howgooglestoptheredwave.com.
	You're saying they mess with 22.
	Oh, yes.
	Big time.
	Okay, lay it on.
	I'm going to shut up.
	Here it is.
	Here it is.
	You know this fascination, almost an obsession, that some conservatives have with things like ballot harvesting and messing with voting machines and ballot stuffing and on and on and on, all that stuff?
	Yeah.
	all of which by the way was claimed by you know Google's legal uh excuse me Trump's legal teams
	in 2020 and that got thrown out of 63 courts all that all those beliefs all that stuff is actually
	spread by Google and to a lesser extent some other tech companies.
	Now why would Google want to spread a bunch of conspiracy theories and get people believing that stuff and get people repeating that stuff and then inspire OAN and Newsmax and Fox to run story after story after story?
	Why would Google want that?
	Because they do what magicians do yeah, they use misdirection They want you looking over there because they don't want
	you looking at them. Yeah, and That is the truth so these stories
	Most of them are completely false Even the ones that are true, they don't have much of a net impact on elections.
	So even, you know, Attorney General Bill Barr tried to explain that to Donald Trump, made no difference.
	The point is they don't have much net impact because they're inherently competitive.
	Inherently competitive.
	I just saw a speech by Senator Steve Daines Which he's complaining about all the ballot harvesting that the Dems did in 2020.
	He said, we got to get better at that!
	I mean, that's the point.
	You see what I'm saying?
	These are inherently competitive techniques.
	They have relatively little net effect.
	But Google, which wants you to believe in all these conspiracy theories, what Google does is different because they're not shifting a few hundred votes here and there, a few thousand votes here and there.
	They are shifting millions of votes in ways you can't see and you cannot counteract.
	That is insane.
	I'm gonna tell you this.
	When you started talking about that, I kind of figured that you were, once you started talking about it, I figured where you were gonna go with this.
	And the reason that I can say that, guys, you can go back and you can look at our shows when we had Mayor Giuliani on and said, why are we going after these?
	And just to be clear, on the 63 cases, the vast, vast, vast majority of those were either thrown out for standing or procedural issues that never actually even got to discovery, where the judge basically said, Nope, we can't go down this road, not gonna go down this road.
	It wasn't that the entire thing was adjudicated and determined to be false, but your point I think is very valid because it was my point as well regardless.
	I was saying, Why are you going after these things?
	The main point that you can go after... Now, in your case, you're saying, hey guys, we need to be focusing on Google.
	I agree 100%, but we also need to be focusing on states like Pennsylvania that changed their constitution illegally.
	They went to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, who did it, and said, well, yeah, that's fine.
	I know it was supposed to be in two legislative sessions back-to-back.
	The point is, there were much more solid grounds to go on and to try to make arguments.
	See, you're actually proving my point.
	That was right, though.
	We researched that.
	They just didn't bring that case.
	You're proving my point, because as Mark Twain said, it's easy to fool people, but hard to convince them that they've been fooled.
	And you are proving my point.
	And I have a feeling if you and I chatted and chatted and chatted, more and more and more, you would come up with stuff that you think is real and big and consequential.
	And you know what?
	It's probably not, because Dirty tricks have always been played.
	They always will be played.
	For sure.
	They're inherently competitive.
	What you have to do is you have to look and say, wait, where did these stories come from?
	How are they circulated?
	Remember this.
	These tech companies have 100% power to control virality.
	No, it's not 99.2%, it's 100%.
	They decide what stories go viral and what stories do not.
	If stories like that...
	About Pennsylvania or any other state and some dirty tricks and, I don't know, Dominion voting machines.
	Don't lump those two things together.
	I know what you're saying, but Pennsylvania is something that you can look in the court documents there and see what happened.
	Dominion voting machines saying the ghost of Hugo Chavez manipulated the votes in there, that's crazy.
	Right?
	I'm just telling you that you have to... What I have been studying for a long time now is a whole different kind of beast, and the beast... Oh, your beast is way worse.
	It's way worse because... It's the one we have to be fighting.
	I'm agreeing with you 100%.
	I'm just making the point that there were, even though he didn't know about Google... You're going to do it again.
	You're going to do it again.
	Let me say it this way.
	Even though Giuliani didn't know about the Google thing, or if he did, he wasn't doing anything about it.
	There were stronger things to go after and fight against.
	Then what they did go after.
	And what it did is played perfectly into the hands of Google.
	By Google's own manipulation, most likely, is what the case you're making so that people would believe in the conspiracy theories.
	What I'm saying is the Pennsylvania case is not a conspiracy theory.
	Stop, stop.
	Hold on.
	How do you say it is?
	I literally looked into the sessions.
	Let me tell you the law.
	In Pennsylvania, you cannot have mail-in voting unless the legislature meets in two separate sessions and approved it.
	They met in one.
	and they didn't meet in a second. Now you could make the argument,
	yes but that didn't sway the election, and I would grant you that premise, okay maybe it didn't,
	but it was something that happened that I'm like, why did they do that? COVID?
	You're still doing it. Why do you think that's a conspiracy?
	I'm gonna take that gun.
	No, I'm genuinely trying to understand.
	I'm not pushing that as like the grounds for the 2020 election at all.
	I think if we were prior to the Google story, it'd be Hunter Biden's laptop thing, right?
	That's much more consequential, you know, across the country.
	But in this particular case, why is it not okay for me to be frustrated that states did stuff like that?
	Or at least in this one case it happened.
	I'm not saying that overturns everything.
	I'm just saying that frustrates me.
	It's like, well, but you have laws and you broke them in this case and that our main point was mail-in ballots is a hard thing to do.
	Doesn't mean it's going to help me, doesn't mean it's going to help this guy.
	It's just a hard thing to do.
	It's going to take a bigger gun than that, apparently, to have any effect here.
	I'm trying to tell you this, that I have given speeches to big crowds of Tea Party people, all of whom were carrying guns.
	And none of them used them on you, see?
	We're nice.
	I've been sewn up nicely, let's say.
	But the point is that I have scared people, I've gotten them for a few seconds to kind of consider the truth of what I'm saying, and then they go right back.
	And if they're not talking about Pennsylvania, they're talking about, oh yeah, but what about this thing in Ohio?
	What about this thing?
	I have friends in Arizona now who just keep going on and on and on about voting machine stuff in Arizona.
	And, you know, I just testified before the Arizona State Legislature.
	You know what?
	Now and then, someone actually gets it.
	Because Carrie Lake, who lost the governorship, lost that race in 2022, She has now gotten it.
	She gets it and she's actually saying now, wait a minute, maybe she was distracted with some of these small issues and maybe really, maybe she should be looking at the tech companies.
	And guess who else gets it?
	Ramaswamy!
	Ramaswamy is now saying, well, all those things you're concerned about, yes, they're all real, we should be concerned, but— There's the thing.
	You didn't give me the but, though.
	You told me that that was silly, and I'm saying, well, hold on now.
	I agree that your thing is bigger, and it's the thing to focus on.
	Because you can't really do anything about these other things, even if they are real and they're much smaller in scope, right?
	So I grant that.
	See, but it's not a little bigger.
	No, I didn't say that.
	It's a lot bigger.
	It's like a little... It's the game.
	It's like a tiny little marble compared to, like, the sun.
	It's a whole different kettle of fish.
	It's really, really scary because it's operating on a massive scale.
	By 2015, Google was deciding the outcome of 25% of the national elections in the world.
	And that number has gone up over the years.
	Can I talk about monitoring systems?
	Can I talk about the digital shield?
	Because this is, I don't have much faith, yes, Cruz is very impressive, I admit, but I don't actually have much faith in the legal system, especially these days, or in regulators, because in general, law and regulation, even without massive dysfunction, Laws and regulations move very slowly.
	Tech moves... Yeah.
	...speed of light, kind of, by definition.
	You're actually going to one of my next questions, but my, I guess my, to sum all of that up was, we need to be focusing on this.
	All this other stuff is the distraction.
	I'm agreeing with you, and we need to be doing that.
	So how do we do that?
	Because I don't, we run up against problems all the time that we find and that frustrate us, and we don't necessarily know how to have an effect to change things, right?
	So you have a monitoring system out there.
	How do we practically go, I want to back that guy and jump in with you on this?
	And unfortunately, you said this, you're the guy standing between us and...
	This stuff kind of falling apart.
	And that's a, that's a strange thing, but somebody said that to you.
	It was in an article, right?
	Aranda Devine, the woman who broke the story for the New York Post on Hunter Biden's laptop.
	If you go to Epstein in the NewYorkPost.com, you will get to her recent piece about my work.
	And she ends that article.
	It's an amazing article.
	I could not have paid someone to write a better article.
	She ends it with, only Epstein is standing in the way.
	I did not pay her to do that.
	Well, I'm sure you probably never set out to have that sentence exist with your name in it.
	I don't know who would.
	I don't think I've ever blushed before reading an article, but I think I probably did blush reading that.
	I mean, wow.
	Now, why would she say that?
	What is it that I'm doing?
	Well, in 2022, we didn't have 95 field agents.
	We had 2,742 field agents in 10 states.
	We preserved more than 2.5 million ephemeral experiences on multiple platforms.
	And we got faster and faster and faster and faster at doing what we're doing.
	And I made a decision, which is kind of risky.
	And in fact, this is where your people And did we come to the, did we come to your aid, the crowder
	people?
	This is where your people, uh, could be very helpful because I made a decision.
	I decided, okay, the time has come.
	We have to go beyond elections.
	This country needs a permanent, a permanent monitoring system, monitoring the tech companies 24 hours a day in all 50 states.
	We need to have representative samples.
	It needs to be politically balanced.
	So all our data are court admissible.
	And we will either catch them and put these people in jail, or we will stop them.
	And when we stop them, we'll see it in the data, because we'll see the bias disappear.
	We will see the crazy stuff that they're sending to kids will stop.
	We will see the go-vote reminders, those partisan go-vote reminders, they will stop.
	We'll see it.
	And in a way, that would be the best thing for our democracy and for our republic, that would be the best thing, is that we just stop them.
	They just stop.
	And by the way, if I were them, I would stop, because So we started building last fall.
	I managed to get just over three million dollars from some very generous donors who believed in this monitoring concept, where we now call it America's Digital Shield, and we started building.
	And as of today, let's see, I knew this was going to come up so I went online.
	You have the website.
	I need to know what website search engine he uses.
	Oh, I'll get to that.
	Oh, I'll get to that.
	As of today, at this moment, we have 11,638 field agents, all registered voters in all
	50 states, plus 2,377 children, and we have preserved more than 41 million ephemeral experiences
	on Google, on Facebook, on YouTube, on Bing, Yahoo, and other platforms.
	In other words, we're building it.
	Now, our goal is to try to have a full system in place with representative samples, court admissible, By the end of this year, so we can actually go right after the primaries.
	Literally, we can protect the primaries.
	And, you know, we're on the way, but the three million is pretty much gone.
	And I'm in a very tough position right now because to shut this system down would be insane.
	It would be even more insane than the fact that I built it.
	But it would be insane to shut it down because that would be literally handing over the free and fair election to the tech companies permanently, probably, and handing over the minds of our kids to the tech companies permanently.
	But I don't know.
	I'm not a fundraiser.
	I'm a very good researcher.
	So the money, I'm kind of baffled there.
	And I need help.
	Right.
	Well, how can we help?
	What do you want people watching this show right now?
	And look, you spend your hard-earned dollar as you will, right?
	We encourage you to join Mug Club.
	That's one of the things that you can do to help fight back against stuff like this.
	What do we do in practice? Because we always talk to you guys about making a difference practically.
	It's not just about hearing about a story that gets you all rah-rah fired up. It isn't about
	that. It's not, we're not looking to just do this to get people to watch our show and just to be
	entertained. We try to do entertainment as well as news and kind of make it somewhat palatable
	and help preserve, you know, the ability to have free and fair elections. That's first and foremost.
	So here's an opportunity.
	Here's an opportunity to kind of put your money where your mouth is.
	And I'm assuming that you guys take donations big and small.
	Doesn't matter, right?
	Whatever people can do to kind of support your cause, where do they go if they want to pitch in?
	You should go to mygoogleresearch.com, but let me just point out that when I go on a show that has a big audience, which this show does, and I go on a show, I get a gazillion people trying to reach me or reaching me saying, I'll be a field agent, I'll be a field agent.
	So don't do that.
	Don't do that, because we can't ever accept volunteers, because if we accepted volunteers, Google would send us thousands of volunteers, and we know because they have sent us people.
	They will water it down.
	Of course, so that they can control the system.
	So we have to find people using the methods that we use.
	We find registered voters.
	So, don't do that.
	What we need are funds.
	Now, we only pay our field agents $25 a month.
	It's just a token fee for the privilege of being able to look over their shoulders when they're, you know, getting content from these tech companies.
	So, we preserve and protect their privacy.
	So, when that data is transmitted to us, it has no identifying information ever, and we only look at data in aggregate.
	So, we're doing exactly the opposite of what the tech companies do.
	The tech companies look at your individual data, and then, like the misers they are, they go, oh, look, more data, and then they monetize it, and they use it to manipulate you.
	We're doing exactly the opposite.
	So we preserve people's privacy, but we only pay them $25 a month.
	But if you hit, we have $11,000 already.
	Yeah.
	And that number is going to be much, much higher.
	That's a lot of money.
	If you want to help us sponsor a field agent, I mean, literally go to my Google research.
	Leave that up at the bottom.
	Just put that up at the bottom and leave that for a little bit.
	MyGoogleResearch.com if you guys want to do it.
	Is it set up like you can just pick to sponsor or are you just saying give $25 a month as the dollar amount?
	Is it set up that way?
	It's set up that you can just click monthly and put any amount you want.
	If you want to sponsor 5 field agents or 10 field agents.
	We're getting right this minute and this is wonderful.
	We're getting about $1,000 in small donations every single day from people we don't know.
	And, you know, again, that's amazing, that's wonderful.
	But do you know what it costs us?
	That's not enough.
	I'll say it for you, it's not enough.
	It's fantastic, it's wonderful, but we can do better if we want to preserve free and fair elections.
	This is a very, very big project because it has tremendous people needs.
	It has tremendous security needs, which are very, very unusual because we have to protect the data and we have to protect our people.
	It's a very expensive project, which at the moment is costing us more than $10,000 a day to build.
	And that gets us 30 to 60 new field agents every day who've gone through the whole process.
	And it's expensive.
	So if anyone out there, if you have connections to a major foundation, connections to a generous person who can afford a major gift, I can't do this myself.
	I literally need help from other people.
	But the good news is we've gone a very long way in a relatively short time.
	We started building this permanent system last fall.
	We now have 11,638 field agents, all registered voters in all 50 states.
	As far as those representative samples go, we've hit that minimum in 10 states so far.
	So we're going state by state by state.
	Are you starting kind of in swing states where your focus is?
	Because like you said, that's where the action is going to be.
	We did start with the swing states because those are absolutely critical in elections.
	But we're after far more now because the content we're seeing, because we're getting data now from kids.
	Yeah.
	And it's not from kids, it's from their devices.
	Right.
	We're seeing the content that's being sent to their devices.
	They don't even have to be in front of their devices, we're still seeing the content.
	And that is actually getting me even more concerned than the political bias, because these companies are sending Data to our kids that is so creepy that at the moment we don't even know how to analyze it.
	I'm telling you the truth.
	YouTube videos that kids actually watch, because the data we're getting shows that kids are actually watching these videos.
	It'll be like something that kind of looks like just a crappy cartoon.
	parent walks by, just sees a crappy cartoon, keeps walking.
	Four or five minutes into the cartoon, boom, someone's head explodes, something horrible happens.
	It's very brief, speaking of ephemeral, it's very brief, but then if you look on YouTube, you can do this.
	If you go down along the bottom.
	Yeah, you can see what parts people watch the most.
	Exactly right, and there'll be a spike right at that point where this terrible thing happens
	because kids replay that over and over again.
	Now, why would they do that?
	Because that's how you addict people to content or to your platform.
	That's how you addict them because we are drawn, all of us, to accidents on the side of the road.
	Of course, yeah.
	You can't take your eyes off certain kinds of content.
	Negativity, bias.
	Wow!
	I know a few things.
	Wow, that's a first.
	Not for me, even in general.
	It wasn't directed at me.
	I'm a Notre Dame man, come on!
	Wow, I'm very impressed.
	That is called negativity bias.
	For those in the know, in the social sciences, it's been studied in many fields.
	It's very, very real and very powerful.
	You know, that's what Google makes use of when they suppress negative search suggestions.
	Because if they let negative search suggestions appear, those negative search terms will draw 10 to 15 times as many clicks as neutral or positive terms.
	It's the same kind of deal.
	Anyway, Google is making use of negativity bias in content that they're sending to our kids.
	That's insane.
	Kids to that platform and to increase watch time, which is the number one metric they have for revenue.
	Right.
	So let me just clarify in that cartoon scenario that you have.
	One, I'm assuming that people would want to be able to kind of verify something like that.
	Are you guys able to capture that kind of data?
	Because you were talking about not really even knowing how to capture that yet.
	Are you able to capture that where you can actually see it happen again and show somebody, see, this is what I was talking about?
	Is it provable or at least admissible?
	Replay that tape because I think you may have missed a couple words there.
	We know how to capture it.
	We're capturing, from kids now, we're capturing massive amounts of data 24 hours a day.
	We know how to capture it.
	We don't yet know how to analyze it.
	How do you – we can watch a video, we can see the creepiness in the video, but by the way, there's a creepiness that goes beyond even that one horrible moment, the traumatic moment.
	There's creepiness all through that we know is important.
	But we just don't know yet how to articulate the importance of it, and we don't know how to analyze it mathematically yet.
	But we will figure it out.
	In a scalable way, obviously, right?
	We're talking about massive amounts of people that would be needed just to watch this stuff and then to extrapolate.
	Like you said, mathematically, what is going on here?
	Well, the good news is we're building an archive.
	In other words, these companies never imagined that anyone would actually capture and preserve and archive ephemeral content.
	That's what we're doing.
	Well, I mean, the number keeps growing every minute, every second.
	But literally, as of when I checked this morning, we had preserved more than 41 million of these ephemeral experiences.
	And we're going to preserve hundreds of millions and eventually billions.
	And we're getting better and better at doing the analyses.
	And I'm just telling you, what we're doing is crazy, insane, complicated.
	In the beginning it seemed almost impossible, but we're doing it.
	And this, to me, is the real protection that we can have from not just Google, but the next Google after this one, because If you don't monitor and capture, preserve, archive ephemeral content, you'll never understand what's going on.
	You'll never understand why this person won the election versus that person.
	You'll never understand what's happening to kids.
	I mean, human autonomy literally will be undermined and people won't know.
	You have to monitor.
	In other words, this is not optional for humanity.
	Okay, maybe my monitoring system is optional because I could get, you know, run over by a Google Street View vehicle tomorrow.
	Please, let's go.
	I'm sorry, let's go a different direction.
	Different direction now.
	So, incognito mode, does that do anything for us?
	Is that just a...
	Are they just messing with us with incognito mode?
	It's completely fake.
	Completely fake.
	I knew it.
	I wrote this question down earlier because you said with Google like obviously all of these things exist and I'm thinking okay well what service do you use and then I was thinking well wait a minute does incognito mode actually do anything so what what do you use?
	If you go to MyPrivacyTips.com.
	You have this whole list.
	I do.
	Okay.
	That's why I finally started using these, these cool domain names because I couldn't remember the links.
	So MyPrivacyTips.com will take, take you and your four members of your audience to.
	Oh, come on.
	It's five.
	Is it five?
	Let's do five.
	You said four or five.
	Damn, that's a 25% increase.
	It is.
	Wow.
	We'll get Google on getting more here.
	Okay.
	So MyPrivacyTips.com will take you to a piece which begins, it's an article I wrote, and it begins, I have not received a targeted ad on my mobile phone or computer since 2014.
	So, it'll explain to you how you can get started in preserving your privacy, and I first published that in 2017, and good news for your viewers is that I just updated it a few days ago, so now everything's up to date, and it'll get you started.
	One of the things I mentioned, I'm just going to flash this and put it down, is that every single person here has a surveillance phone in their pocket, in their purse, somewhere.
	Those are all surveillance devices.
	Yes, they really do listen to every single thing.
	I don't doubt it.
	And remember a few years ago, I don't know, you look a lot younger than I am, but a few years ago, it wasn't that long ago, you could remove a battery from your phone.
	Now they solder them in so you can't remove the battery.
	Why would they do that?
	Convenience?
	I'm just kidding.
	Of course I know.
	No.
	It's so you can never turn off your phone.
	Not completely.
	You think it's off and it's not off.
	Those are surveillance devices.
	They're listening, they're recording.
	If you disconnect from your mobile service provider, then yeah, they're just storing everything locally on the phone, but the moment you reconnect, all of it gets uploaded.
	We don't do that.
	We actually build our own phones for our key staff members, and these are secure phones.
	This is what people who work for, you know, NSA or the CIA, this is what they use.
	If you go to MyPrivacyTips.com, I'll explain to you if you want to start experimenting with secure phones how you can do that.
	That's very practical, good advice too.
	I don't think a lot of people know this.
	Maybe it's the want to know this.
	Ignorance is bliss.
	It's not in this case because you just end up in a very dark place as a society.
	But I think we're pulling back the blinders for a lot of people.
	I mean, people have come on and said, ah, you shouldn't have a phone or like, ah, whatever.
	You just don't like Apple or you're an Android guy, whatever it may be.
	But you're you're basically saying like, look, it's If you're serious about this, these are the things that you can do to take steps.
	You can support this kind of surveillance system, right?
	You can sponsor the $25 a month at a minimum.
	I know we can get stuff like that done, right?
	But there's also things you can do with your phones.
	You can stop being the product, right?
	Because that's what Google counts on is you.
	You're the product, right?
	Your information, all of that data, that is the product.
	So, we don't use, and I say we, my friends, my family, my staff, none of us use anything that has anything to do with Google.
	So, none of us use the Google search engine.
	None of you listening or watching should ever use it again because it's an extremely aggressive surveillance tool, but it's also the most powerful mind control machine ever invented in history.
	There's so many different ways in which that search engine is manipulating you that, again, if you really understood, trust me, you would never touch it again.
	So what do you use?
	We use Brave, brave.com.
	That's what we use for our browser.
	Brave has its own search engine.
	It's built into it.
	It's the Brave search engine.
	It works extremely well.
	For texting and that kind of stuff, we use Signal.
	It's a free app.
	It's run by a nonprofit organization.
	Signal is excellent.
	It's true that some of the big tech companies have tried to diss it and tried to make up stories about it.
	I won't lie.
	But, even Edward Snowden, the guy who brought all that creepy data out of the intelligence agencies a few years ago, even he uses Signal.
	So, we use Signal.
	You can use Signal for video calls, for regular calls.
	It encrypts everything.
	For email, please stop using Gmail.
	Please, please, please, I beg you.
	Well, you should be using ProtonMail.
	And that's based in Switzerland.
	It's subject to very strict Swiss privacy laws.
	There's a free version, which will probably get you at least through your first year.
	But even if you at some point need the paid version of ProtonMail, it's like six bucks a month.
	I mean, all of these quote-unquote free services, they're not free.
	You pay for them with your freedom.
	Now that's not free to me.
	If you're paying with your freedom.
	That's one of the best articles I ever wrote.
	I should buy that URL.
	I wrote an article called Free Isn't Freedom.
	But I need to get that domain name.
	I should do that.
	You pay with your freedom.
	You know what?
	Don't do that.
	Don't use Gmail.
	Get ProtonMail.
	It encrypts the messages end-to-end and the attachments so that even the folks at ProtonMail can't read it. Now that's a very different model. Very,
	very different model. So instead they're just people who really use it heavily or people are
	in business so they're charging a few bucks a month. That's what we should be doing. In
	other words, these companies should not be allowed to use surveillance in a way that we're
	not aware of to not just sell us stuff but also to manipulate us.
	The surveillance business model should be illegal.
	Well, and a lot of companies now are switching away from, or at least trying to decouple themselves from the advertisers being the only way they get paid because then the advertisers are in control of the content that gets put on your platform and they can turn that off at the drop of a hat depending on how they feel about you that day.
	When we look at 2024, when we look at the upcoming elections, obviously we've talked about the primaries, we know that you guys are there, you're monitoring this stuff, and you're hoping that your mere presence is enough to get Google to stand down and not do anything with these elections.
	This seems like a national security issue because it is.
	There is no question that this is about national security when you're talking about our elections.
	If we don't have free and fair elections, really what do we have and how long do we have until
	this country descends into a thing that you're not going to want to be a part of, right?
	You're not going to want to be here for that because it won't be freedom and there won't be any semblance of the America that you grew up with.
	And I'm not talking about cultural issues.
	I'm talking about just not having any choice in who represents you.
	That's the most basic thing that we have here.
	Why is the government, even in small parts or organizations that are government adjacent, or somebody stepping up and saying, you know what, that's right, we do need to fund something like that so that we can do it.
	Now, I don't want the government to do it.
	I don't trust them to do it.
	I understand.
	And if it's the government, I want it to be a state government or a local government funding it, because you're doing it on a state-by-state basis anyway, and so states can say, you know what, hey, we'll take care of everybody in the state of Texas.
	We'll take care of everybody in the state of Georgia.
	We'll take care of everybody in the state of Michigan.
	Why are these groups not stepping up?
	Especially right now, your strongest argument is to conservatives, because they're the group that feels like they're targeted the most by this kind of stuff.
	Your data seems to suggest that too, obviously, right?
	Why are they not stepping up and saying, we got to get this thing funded because at least it will give us a fair chance with our ideas.
	And if our ideas are good enough, people will vote for us.
	If they're not good enough, they won't.
	Fear of Google.
	A lot of people who have access to a lot of money, they depend on Google for their livelihood.
	They can't take a chance of Google demonetizing them, demoting them, removing them, deleting them.
	They can't take a chance.
	One of the best articles ever written about this problem was written by the head of the biggest publishing conglomerate in Europe and his piece was actually called Fear of Google and he called it an open letter to the CEO of Google and he was talking about the fact that they can't do anything in their business without deciding how Google's going to react because Google can easily just Snap their fingers with or without cause, and the courts, by the way, have said, yes, you can do this, you're a private company, and they can just demote you or delete you.
	And if you're a publishing house or any other company, you're dead.
	And the courts in the United States have over and over again said, yes, you can do that, Google, either under CDA 230, which you mentioned, or under the First Amendment.
	They still have the First Amendment, don't forget.
	Which gives them the right to suppress speech, apparently.
	But the point is that there are some very, very wealthy conservatives who I have spoken to about this problem.
	One quite recently.
	And, you know, I can't really give you details, but he owns a chain of something or others around the country and he's very, very wealthy.
	He can't gamble.
	He cannot take a chance.
	He's in retailing.
	He cannot take a chance on offending Google.
	There's a guy who in the past has supported us.
	But he owns a chain of blankety blanks and he or his lawyers or some of his accountants finally explained to him or his marketing people, you know what?
	You can't do that anymore.
	You can't be supporting that work because we can't take a chance on offending Google.
	You know, the fact that I live my life 24 hours a day offending Google is pretty nuts.
	That's pretty crazy.
	It absolutely is.
	Let me, let me just change what you said.
	Those companies, those guys say we can't take a chance on offending Google.
	You can't afford not to.
	You're in a position to make a difference.
	I'm sorry, but it's time to grow a pair and actually put your money where your mouth is.
	Nobody ever said this was going to be easy.
	Nobody ever said preserving democracy was not going to be painful.
	Nobody ever told you that being in a position of influence and power, being blessed by God with resources—I'm not saying hard work doesn't play a part, I know it does—but you're given that as a steward.
	There are things worth fighting for.
	There are things worth putting yourself at risk for.
	There are things worth investing in and saying, you know what?
	If everybody feels like I do right now and doesn't do anything, then this is only going to get worse.
	And eventually you won't be able to speak up against it.
	Eventually you won't be able to make a change.
	You have to be willing to put something on the line.
	And I agree.
	There are people out there that have more to put on the line.
	You're putting your life on the line every single day.
	We're putting something on the line every single day as well.
	And then by having you on, it's like a double whammy, right?
	But we're talking about the opportunity for you to stand up and do this.
	I've talked to some CEOs recently, and one of them, a big company, and they deal with these issues.
	Well, we can't afford to do this or be associated with that.
	And I'm like, you can't afford not to.
	Our entire right to do it depends on you doing it and depends on other people in your position not being afraid to do that.
	It will cost you something.
	But if you don't do it, it will cost everybody else everything.
	So you have to do it.
	If, here's the caveat, if you actually believe what you say you believe, if it's just a convenient idea that's different, But then you need to own that.
	You need to look in the mirror and say, you know what, I don't really believe in this country and the ideals that started this, that gave me the opportunity to create a business of what's it called around the country, doesn't matter what it is.
	All of that, I don't really believe in that.
	I'm just glad it's here that I could take advantage of that system and make my money and go sit in my house and make sure and pray to God that I don't offend these guys and they don't come for me next.
	The only way to make sure that they don't come for anybody next is for you to stand up.
	You have to do it.
	I'm sorry, that kind of pisses me off because people think that this is going to be easy.
	It never has been in history.
	Nothing great ever has been.
	And it's going to cost you something.
	And you're out there fighting, and you don't even necessarily wear the team jersey!
	You're not a conservative, right?
	But you're out there fighting this cause.
	There's so many other things that I really wanted to get to.
	I know we've already kind of gone long here, but these conversations could go on and on and on, and we've already listed a number of ways that people can support you.
	Bring that back up really quickly.
	They can go there.
	If you're, we're gonna donate.
	The Adam's Crowder is going to donate.
	I want you to join us.
	MyGoogleResearch.com.
	Do it.
	We talk all the time about joining Mug Club.
	That's another way to fight.
	But sometimes there are causes we want to contribute to outside of that.
	This is one of them.
	Do you want to be able to look at the election and trust that it was secure?
	This is a way to do that.
	Guess what?
	If you can never trust that your elections are secure again, it's only a matter of time before people take to the streets.
	It's only a matter of time.
	Eventually, you're just going to think, well, it doesn't really matter, and you're going to be devoid of hope.
	And we don't want to be in that place.
	We don't want to be in a place that's polarized.
	We want to be in a place where people have diverse ideas.
	Yes, but there's a core set of beliefs that unite us, and then we understand we're going to have differences.
	He used to support Hillary Clinton.
	Doesn't anymore.
	It's fine.
	I'm not going to ask you why, but that doesn't matter.
	We're on the same team right now.
	We're fighting for the same cause.
	There are things like that that unite us, and I know there's speeches about being far more that unites us than divides us.
	That's absolutely true.
	Now, there's some big divides right now, and we have to bridge those gaps a little bit, but we have to start here first.
	We have to be able to trust that the people that we voted for are the people that end up in office.
	That is 100% primary.
	We have to protect the rights that allow us to do that, and we have to step up, and we have to give And we have to do our part in this.
	I don't know if it takes exposing more politicians to what's going on, super PACs to what's going on, groups that say they fight for justice and for freedom and for the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
	All of these groups.
	You'll take, probably, donations from whoever's willing to step up and give you them, right?
	As long as there's no strings attached to that money, right?
	So, do it.
	Do whatever you can do to get more people to watch this episode, to understand what's going on, and then send them to give.
	Because that's really the only way that we can stop this.
	It's not just about elections, though.
	That's the major thing, right?
	It's about our kids.
	It's about every single aspect of our lives being controlled by big corporations that are accountable to no one.
	And get favorable treatment, it seems, in the courts where, sorry, nothing we can do about that.
	You just, I guess, don't exist.
	They're a private company.
	They can do whatever they want.
	You're the digital town square now.
	Things have changed.
	If you as people who have resources don't step up, if the elected officials that we have don't step up, if there aren't future Robert Epsteins that stand up, what are we doing here?
	This is all theater, if that's the case.
	It's not making any difference.
	We have to stand up.
	We have to fight.
	Dr. Epstein, thank you very much for doing that.
	I really appreciate it.
	Thank you for spending some time with us today.
	I know we went over a little bit on time.
	I'm a little fired up.
	This is intense stuff that you're doing.
	He's not selling something.
	He's not coming to you to try to line his own pockets.
	He's trying to fight to save our country.
	Let's join him in that fight.

▲