Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:27:19

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #8

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday the 19th of November 2020 if my memory recall memory serves me correctly.
	I'm joined by Callum and Hugo.
	This is the first time we've managed to have more than one other person on the podcast, so hopefully we have no technical problems.
	And a quick update.
	So we're still experimenting with format and things like that, as I'm sure you can see.
	So what we're going to do is obviously have the live podcast live and we'll unlist it afterwards and then put the clips up later.
	And when the website's up, which I promise you it's going to be up soon because I'm not happy about how things are going, but when it's up, so premium members will be able to get the full thing after it's been live or the regular Public can just watch the clips on the YouTube channel.
	We're just trying to figure out the best way to do all this, and that seems like a worthwhile thing to try.
	How are you guys doing?
	You okay?
	Yeah, not bad.
	Good.
	Good.
	That was easy.
	Good luck for John, you know, with all the editing, because he's got to flip between three cameras now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It'd be nice if I could hire him an assistant, but we can't.
	But the update with the tech is great, so congrats.
	Well, that's good.
	Right, so I guess we'd better begin with the robber barons of Silicon Valley.
	This is the Senate hearing, and it's the fifth Senate hearing.
	That has been done with not just Republicans, it's obviously Democrats and Republicans, but the Republicans are the only ones really worth talking about in it because the Democrats are essentially a buffer against the Republican attacks on Silicon Valley.
	I think that's the most fair way to describe it because that's what's happening.
	But to be honest with you, Silicon Valley get what they deserve.
	This is a clip of Lindsey Graham just explaining why they're here.
	Section 230, it exists today, is got to give.
	And I think there's Republican and Democrat concern about the power that's being used by social media outlets to tell us what we can see and what we can't, what's true and what's not, to the extent that Section 230, in my view, has to be rewritten.
	So that's the purpose of this hearing, is to find a way forward to bring about change.
	So what's interesting about this is that this is the framing.
	They're having these hearings, ostensibly at least, as a way of trying to find an acceptable way to rewrite Section 230, which is the provision in the law that allows social media platforms to operate as if they are merely platforms and not publishers.
	And the problem with this is they've operated with this protection while operating as publishers, at least by the allegations of the Republicans.
	The Democrats on the panel were really boring, frankly.
	Senator Blumenthal was the only one worthy of talking about where he said things like, hate speech deserves no free expression.
	The purpose of the hearing is to browbeaten bully social media giants.
	Yes.
	And then he just had a bunch of left-wing identity politics concerns, mentioning things like white supremacist, anti-Muslim bigotry, and an obscure reference to child trafficking.
	I guess he must have been listening to Obama's conversations with QAnon.
	But then we get to the sort of opening statements from Grigori Dorsey and Mark Zuckerbott.
	I guess we can just play the clip and then I'll talk about it because it's just really amusing.
	We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence, that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking.
	And according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread.
	Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.
	We informed the New York Post of our error and policy update and how to unlock their account by deleting the original violating tweet, which freed them to tweet the exact same content and news article again.
	They chose not to, instead insisting we reverse our enforcement action.
	We did not have a practice around retroactively overturning prior enforcements.
	This incident demonstrated that we needed one, and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate.
	I hope this illustrates the rationale behind our actions and demonstrates our ability to take feedback, admit mistakes, and make changes all transparently to the public.
	I'm proud of the work we've done to support our democracy, and I look forward to discussing this.
	I also welcome the opportunity to discuss internet regulation.
	I believe we are well overdue to update the rules for the internet around content, elections, privacy, and data portability.
	There are important questions here, including who should be responsible for what people say online.
	For any system to work, I believe there needs to be a transparent process that people feel they can trust.
	Right, so I love this meme that's come out of this, which is Jack Dorsey looks like Rasputin who's built a robot to help him with the Senate hearings, and Zuckerberg is mechanical throughout the entire thing.
	You can see the way he's talking there.
	Yeah, but he's incredibly mechanical.
	But I think it's interesting that Jack Dorsey admits error there.
	Twitter made a mistake.
	I think this is the first time he's actually come out and said, we made a mistake.
	Especially on the censorship of the New York Post's Hunter Biden reporting, which is electorally relevant.
	It's important.
	It implicates Joe Biden in international corruption for millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars.
	It seems like an important thing, and it was blocked under the policy of hacked material.
	But the interesting thing I found is we're not going to just reverse our decision, because they admit we made a bad decision, but the New York Post have to live with this, and they have to delete the tweets, so they have to be compelled to action.
	But you can post it again, no problem.
	It's like, well, if that's the case, why don't you just remove it?
	And he's like, well, we don't have a policy for that.
	It's like, okay, but you can still do it.
	You can just do it.
	You know, you don't need a policy.
	Oh, but we've created a policy.
	And this shows you the sort of, like, you know, technocracy that they're operating under.
	Well, if we don't have a policy, we just can't do it.
	It's unthinkable.
	So just press the button, for Christ's sake.
	It's like the South Park meme where Cartman says, I don't make the rules.
	I just write them, publish them, and enforce them.
	Exactly.
	It's also like the big-headedness of saying you have to kiss the ring and then we'll let you back on.
	Exactly.
	I wanted to make a correction because you got one thing wrong.
	You said it's the first time he's admitted to making a mistake.
	Oh, is it?
	It's actually the second time.
	The first time was, I think it was like two years ago or something like that.
	Right.
	He was talking to Republicans about shadow banning, which he had fervently denied existed for years.
	Yeah.
	And then had to admit, yeah, we did do shadow banning.
	It disproportionately affected Republicans, so that's why we fixed it.
	And he's like, well, what does fixed it mean?
	But that's his second admittance that he's done something wrong with censorship.
	Okay, I didn't know he'd admitted that.
	I mean, one prominent thing that happened as well was that he was in Rogan, right?
	And he brought his lawyer as well.
	And so they were saying...
	He was saying that what they were doing on Twitter was not wrong, but mainly that he didn't know some things were happening that Rogan talked about.
	So that was the angle before.
	So him admitting this is not unprecedented, but it's bad.
	But this is...
	This is a new level.
	This is categoric.
	He literally says, we were wrong.
	Because before, and both of them, and we'll see Zuckerberg in a minute, but both of them are very slippery and non-committal where they can be.
	But the Republicans are pretty good on this, so we won't cover it now.
	But, yeah, the thing that annoyed me about Zuckerberg is that he's bragging, in his statement, he brags about, like, You know, the fact-checkers and how they're banning QAnon and things like this.
	It's like, right, okay.
	But anyway, the good thing, though, was when the Republicans started going on the offensive.
	And it's been really frustrating because for years the Republicans have been passive when it comes to Silicon Valley.
	And so it's nice to see Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley coming into their own and really starting to nail them down.
	Go for the Ted Cruz one.
	When Twitter is editing and censoring and silencing, the New York Post, the newspaper with the fourth highest circulation in the country, and Politico, one of the leading newspapers in the country, is Twitter behaving as a publisher when it's deciding what stories reporters are allowed to write and publish and what stories they're not?
	No, and that account was not suspended.
	It fell afoul of the hacked materials policy.
	That's a lock.
	That's a lock and can be unlocked when you delete.
	I understand that you have the Star Chamber power.
	Your answer is always, well, once we silence you, we can choose to allow you to speak.
	But you are engaged in publishing Let me shift to a different topic.
	Voter fraud is particularly possible where, quote, third-party organizations, candidates, and political party activists are involved in, quote, handling absentee ballots.
	Would you flag that as potentially misleading?
	I don't know the specifics of how we might enforce that, but I imagine a lot of these would have a label.
	Pointing people to a bigger conversation.
	Well, you're right.
	You would label them because you've taken the political position right now that voter fraud doesn't exist.
	I would note both of those quotes come from the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform.
	That is, Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker.
	And Twitter's position is essentially, voter fraud does not exist.
	Are you aware?
	That just two weeks ago in the state of Texas, a woman was charged with 134 counts of election fraud.
	Are you aware of that?
	I'm not aware of that.
	Is that a yes that you will answer those questions in writing?
	We'll certainly look into it and see what we can do.
	And actually answer them and not give lawyerly doublespeak about why you're not going to give specifics.
	Answer them.
	Will you commit to this committee that you will answer those questions?
	We're going to work to answering broader transparency around outcomes.
	All right, that's a no.
	Mr.
	Zuckerberg, how about you?
	Will you commit that Facebook will answer those specific questions?
	So, yeah.
	Ted Cruz with, for me, an unqualified Yas Queen sleigh.
	I mean, he looks like Wolverine at this point.
	I don't know what's going on, but I'm loving it.
	Zodiac killer.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And he's coming for you, Jack.
	He's got a grudge here.
	Ted Cruz seems to have made a really good point.
	The way that they're dealing with questions of voter fraud, it appears to be from the perspective of a publisher.
	They appear to be promoting a particular kind of editorial agenda with it.
	It seems to be going one way and not the other, although sometimes it does occur that Politico journalists, as Cruz mentioned, get whacked with it as well.
	But it's not suspension, it's just a lock...
	I love the way he said it.
	In the star chamber, kiss the ring and Twitter will let you back on.
	Aren't you lucky?
	But the best one.
	I'd never heard of Senator Josh Hawley before, a Republican from Missouri.
	But this guy was fantastic.
	We've only got a few clips of him, obviously stitched together, I've done, just to get the essence of it.
	But if you can find Hawley's full thing, where he's grilling Zuck, it's fantastic.
	Let's go for it.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	In the late 19th century...
	The heads of the biggest corporations in America, the robber barons, got together and they set rates, they set prices, they determined how they would control information flow, they determined how they'd get rid of competition.
	And I'll be darned if we aren't right back there again, except for this time you're the robber barons.
	Your companies are the most powerful companies in the world, and I want to talk about how you're coordinating together.
	To control information.
	In recent days, my office was contacted by a Facebook whistleblower, a former employee of the company with direct knowledge of the company's content moderation practices.
	And I want to start by talking about an internal platform called Tasks that Facebook uses to coordinate projects, including censorship.
	What particularly intrigued me is that the platform reflects censorship input from Google and Twitter as well.
	So Facebook, as I understand it, Facebook censorship teams communicate with their counterparts at Twitter and Google and then enter those companies' suggestions for censorship onto the task platform so that Facebook can then follow up with them and effectively coordinate their censorship efforts.
	Mr.
	Zuckerberg, let me just ask you directly, under oath now, Does Facebook coordinate its content moderation policies or efforts in any way with Google or Twitter?
	Senator, let me be clear about this.
	We do coordinate on and share signals on security related topics.
	Just yes or no.
	Do you communicate with Twitter or Google about coordinating your policies in this way?
	Senator, we do not coordinate our policies.
	Do your Facebook content moderation teams communicate with their counterparts at Twitter or Google?
	Senator, I'm not aware of anything specific, but I think it would be probably pretty normal for people to talk to their peers and colleagues in the industry.
	It would be normal if you don't do it?
	No, I'm saying that I'm not aware of any particular conversation, but I would expect that some level of communication probably happens, but that's different from coordinating what our policies are or our responses in specific instances.
	Fortunately, I understand that the TASC platform is searchable.
	So will you provide a list of every mention of Google or Twitter from the TASC platform to this committee?
	Senator, that's something that I can follow up with you and your team after on.
	Well, yes or no, I'm sure you can follow up with the list, but why don't you commit while I've got you here under oath.
	It's so much better to do this under oath.
	Will you commit now to providing a list from the tasks platform of every mention of Google or Twitter?
	Senator, respectfully, without having looked into this, I'm not aware of any sensitivity that might exist around that, so I don't think it would be wise for me to commit to that right now.
	How many items on the TASC platform reflect that Facebook, Twitter, and Google are sharing information about websites or hashtags or platforms that they want to suppress?
	Senator, I do not know.
	Will you provide a list of every website and hashtag that Facebook content moderation teams have discussed banning on the task platform?
	Senator, again, I would be happy to follow up with you or your team to discuss further how we might move forward on that.
	Senator Cruz and Senator Lee both asked you for lists of individuals, websites, entities that have been subject to content moderation.
	You expressed doubt about whether any such information exists, but you've also now said that the TASC website, you've acknowledged the TASC platform exists.
	That it is searchable.
	So will you commit to providing the information you have logged on the TASC website about content moderation that your company has undertaken?
	Yes or no?
	Senator, I think it would be better to follow up once I've had a chance to discuss with my team what any sensitivity around that would be that might prevent the kind of sharing that you're talking about.
	But once I've done that, I would be happy to follow up.
	All right.
	So you won't commit to do it here.
	We could, of course, subpoena this information, but I'd much rather get it from you voluntarily.
	But I think let everybody take note that Mr.
	Zuckerberg has now repeatedly refused To provide information that he knows that he has and has now acknowledged that he has that Tasks has under oath.
	Right.
	I thought that was brilliant.
	That was great.
	Yeah.
	Like, really nailing him to the wall on every single point.
	You know, we know you've got the information.
	You admit that you have the information.
	Can we have a list of Google and Twitter mentions, just mentions of it?
	I mean, they could have gone a lot deeper.
	They could have gone, okay, well, let's see every mention of Alex Jones.
	So we can see, because the reason that what Josh Hawley here is doing is so important.
	Is, as I'm sure you all know, the fact that Alex Jones appears to have been the victim of a coordinated deplatforming campaign when he was deplatformed last year.
	And it was on every platform, apart from Twitter, on the same day.
	And everyone was looking at Twitter like...
	We're waiting.
	Why haven't you deplatformed Alex Jones?
	And Jack Dorsey was forced to come out and say, well, he hasn't actually done anything wrong.
	Until eventually when they did deplatform president-elect Alex Jones on this.
	Because he...
	I believe it was either Google or Facebook first, and then all of a sudden, within an hour, all the rest of them are gone.
	Which is directly what he's getting at that we've known for ages that these guys communicate on who to get rid of.
	And Alex, we have leaked screenshots from Ryan Hartwig about this.
	He was in his office in, I think it's Arizona, and they go in for work, do the content moderation because it's the third party that does this.
	And Facebook had sent their content moderators a new message saying, emergency update, change to the terms of service, anything mentioning Infowars at Alex Jones is now to be deleted.
	So they just made it up out of the blue.
	He hadn't broken the terms of service.
	They just made new terms of service that suddenly had him banned.
	And then everyone else all agreed, except from Twitter.
	And then a couple of weeks later, they also just happened to agree.
	Yeah.
	And this is the thing.
	For anyone who doesn't know, there's about a 200 square mile section of San Francisco that is called Silicon Valley.
	And all of these, like Apple, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, just everything that Alex was on, they're all there and they all did it in the same day.
	Yeah.
	Just to clarify, it also wasn't Alex alone.
	I think Milo got de-platformed around about the same time, and a bunch of other people.
	But the string between all of these people is they're all anti-progressive, because you could put them on a broad range of spectrum.
	I know the left would say they're all far right.
	But they're all basically Republican, basically anti-progressive, and openly challenging progressive values.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I want to just say that if I were to take his word and say there are some security concerns, legitimate security concerns, he could have said, okay, there might be security concerns, I will give you a list that I can give you of everything else than security concerns, and I pledge to doing this right now.
	Yeah, you could have put a proviso on it.
	He could have said, we'll give you a mention of Google and Twitter that's not connected with national security.
	It would have been easier than what he actually said.
	Exactly.
	And like Hawley called him out, he was evasive and therefore saying no.
	We'll follow it up later, we'll follow it up later.
	Yeah, I bet you wish you could.
	Also, why is Jack Dorsey streaming or calling from his kitchen?
	He's like a multimillionaire billionaire.
	What's going on?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Literally in his bloody kitchen.
	Come on.
	At least Mark Zuckerberg's wearing a suit.
	And what is going on with Jack Dorsey, though?
	Like, he looks mad.
	He looks like he's always kind of wide-eyed, and he's got this really long beard, and it's greying at the front.
	I know how that feels, Jack.
	That happens when you're under immense pressure.
	But he looks, honestly, like Rasputin.
	I mean, he looks just like him.
	But I mean, I can believe that he never signed up for this, and now he's in the middle of this, and just what can he do?
	Well, that's the thing.
	I don't think any of them did.
	I've said this before, but it seems that they're all kind of riding like dragons that they didn't expect.
	Like, Zuckerberg was some nerd.
	Yeah, I mean, they're all tech guys, right?
	Yeah, they're all tech nerds, you know?
	And suddenly, they're effectively the sort of political center of the universe, for all intents and purposes.
	Yeah.
	But the big thing here is...
	I can't remember who was talking about it.
	Who was on the radio this morning talking about this?
	I can't remember.
	But basically, they were making the point that the reason this is important is that if they're communicating with each other...
	I mean, on national security, I can see the argument.
	Let's say there's an Islamist group or a white nationalist group in the United States, and the other groups don't...
	Google and Twitter don't know about it, but Facebook do.
	Well, you'd share the national security information and be like, look, these guys are actually plotting terrorist attacks.
	You need to take them down.
	Fair enough, okay?
	But the guys we mentioned and the guys we're interested in are the political ones, who haven't engaged in any terrorism, are not going to engage in any terrorism, let's be honest.
	And it's because of their politics that they were removed.
	So if all three of you are communicating about these people, then all three of you are pushing a political agenda, which is that anyone who disagrees with us politically has to go.
	And if he can subpoena that information and then we can read it...
	That might be a very good smoking gun for the case of getting rid of Section 230.
	Perfect, in fact.
	And this is presumably why Zuckerberg and Dorsey were so reluctant to commit to just providing lists.
	It's just information, surely.
	I mean, I hope that he follows through with the threat of a subpoena and just forces them to give it to them legally.
	That'd be fantastic.
	But the thing is, this is, as you say, it's going to be the smoking gun evidence.
	They're acting as publishers, ruining their Section 230 cover and presumably putting them all in a world of hurt.
	That's what I actually don't really understand.
	I don't understand the argument for abolishing Section 230 because Section 230 says basically, everyone knows that by now, that if you moderate content, if you select what you publish and what you don't, you're not a platform, you're a publisher.
	And as a publisher, you don't have the protections against a lot of things anymore.
	And so if they are acting like this and Section 230 already provides for this, isn't it a problem of enforcement and not Section 230?
	Well, the problem is they're violating Section 230, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	And so it's about the enforcement of Section 230 and not about its existence.
	I think it was created specifically for the tech companies, the social media platforms, so they could operate without legal liability, and now they're violating those rules.
	I mean, I agree with you.
	It was created in, like, 1996 or something.
	I think there was some modification or ruling or something.
	That allowed them to claim it.
	There's always redraftings everything else.
	Yeah, I'll have to check.
	But I mean, I agree with the premise that Graham comes out with, Lindsay Graham comes up with, this needs to be rewritten.
	Like, if it's going to be the case that you're going to take these kind of editorial decisions, then why should you have these protections?
	And that's a very, very strong lever to sort of use against the Silicon Valley companies.
	But really, I just wish they would just return to 2015, put the algorithms back, just let people on the platforms, and then we'll sort it out from there.
	It was great back then.
	The amazing part is you watch those hearings, and I've done a lot of cutting of them as well, and the Democrats sitting senators and House of Representatives who go to these meetings are worthless.
	You can watch all of the hearings, hours of them.
	Every question they ask is softball or pointless.
	Or reinforcing the position of the tech giants as if they've done nothing wrong.
	Except when you talk about that interview on 60 Minutes with Obama, he openly comes out and says their position is untenable.
	Because, what were the wording?
	He said they are making editorial decisions, even if they're not doing it in the content moderation side.
	When they write their algorithms, they do make editorial decisions.
	So they've got no leg to stand on this.
	Even Obama can see it, and he calls it out.
	And the Republican senators seem to have a really strong case here at the moment, and I'm glad that they've been persistent about this, because they seem to have actually finally backed them in the corner, and now it's time to pounce.
	So yeah, let's hope this goes quite well.
	Shall we go on to the tragedy that is Jeremy Corbyn?
	Yeah, I actually might end up simping for him in this, because I know that sounds weird.
	It's on a very specific point, but we'll get to it.
	Okay, go on, this better be damn specific.
	Yeah, so Corbyn was kicked out of the Labour Party fairly recently.
	I think it's been a few days now, or like three days, so I'm pathetic.
	The reason was, is not because the Human Rights Commission alleged him to be an anti-Semite or had done anything like that, him specifically.
	Throughout the party, there were instances and they demonstrated how they weren't dealt with properly.
	And then their criticism of him was he had interfered in specific cases, which, his office.
	And his response to this report was to say that it showed that anti-Semitism was exaggerated within the party.
	And he wrote a big thing on Facebook about it.
	And his response is what got him kicked.
	Because it was like, for all days to say something like this, can you not keep your mouth shut for five minutes?
	So Keir Starmer rightfully came out and said, right, that's it.
	I've not had enough of this.
	You're out.
	And, of course, the Corbynite faction of the Labour Party didn't like it, so they've been organizing, and eventually, my understanding is, the Parliamentary Labour Party voted to let him back in, and so that's the preliminary vote, and Keir, as the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party and leader of the party, has a veto on it, and he decided to veto it, which...
	I wasn't surprised by it.
	But what's interesting is we got some news today from the Telegraph who were reporting that it might have been a secret deal.
	So people have been going back and forth between the two camps negotiating we ought to let them back in.
	And that's how the vote went through on the parliamentary side.
	And then Keir has reneged on the deal just going, nah, change my mind, get lost.
	So I've got his statement here.
	So, let me just be clear.
	Because it seems the structure of the Labour Party is Byzantine and bureaucratic, right?
	So, they've got a Labour Party that is just for the members, and then as a subset of that, they've got a parliamentary Labour Party that's for the MPs.
	I might be wrong, but there's a whole bunch of nonsense.
	So you've got the constituency Labour Party.
	So for the Conservatives, that would be an association.
	A local constituency.
	So that makes one thing.
	So the constituent Labour Party makes up all the constituencies.
	And then the Parliamentary Labour Party is all the MPs together.
	So Kier's the leader of that.
	So he's been let back into the party.
	The constituency party.
	But he's not a conservative MP because he's kicked out of the parliamentary.
	So Corbyn is currently an independent MP for Islington North.
	It's like the first independent they've had in a hundred years.
	And what was Keir's reason for not letting him back into the Labour Party?
	I mean, he's not just going to be calling him an anti-Semite, is he?
	Yeah, he did.
	So here's the specific wording.
	So I've cut out a little bit in the middle because it wasn't really important.
	So the first bit.
	Wow.
	So literally, it's my job to get rid of anti-Semites, so I'm not letting Corbin back in.
	So he's not directly calling him it, but...
	My god, Keir, it sounds like you're calling you an anti-Semite.
	I mean, it's not direct.
	I mean, it's not like a direct hit, but I have been winged by that, you know what I mean?
	Like, there's no way of framing it that he's not basically calling you an anti-Semite Corbett, so that's embarrassing.
	The last part there, I will keep the situation under the review.
	It's interesting because it makes me think that these rumors of a deal going on are more likely.
	From our experience in UKIP, these things happen anyway.
	People talk to each other to try and find solutions to whatever is upsetting them within parties.
	Or maybe it might be that he wants to continue with the purchase, right?
	Maybe.
	So that it's under review.
	It's not just Corbin, but others as well.
	Well, McDonnell would be the next likely candidate.
	I mean, if this is essentially a cover for rooting out the commies, then definitely McDonnell needs to go.
	And I saw an interview with McDonnell where he looked like he was sweating bullets right after Corbyn was gone.
	Obviously, he was speaking in close defence of Corbyn.
	Saying, oh no, this is terrible, this is terrible.
	But yeah, there must be a few who are kind of like, you know, cold sweat.
	Especially some of the ones who may have a social media history of posting about Zionists or Israel and who may come from sort of ethnic minority communities where these sorts of conversations are not unusual.
	I mean, not even, you know, social media history.
	Don Butler.
	Not just that, but there's a guy who literally went to a meeting.
	Was it Zara or someone else?
	No, no.
	I think it's Richard Bergen.
	Oh, Richard Bergen.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He just gave a speech saying Zionism is the enemy of the people of Palestine and we must destroy Zionism.
	And then he went on Politics Live to deny that he'd ever said it.
	And he was like, okay, play the tape.
	Just play the tape.
	Well, now what?
	Now what are you going to do?
	Disavow?
	Disavow yourself.
	Yeah, disavow my past statements.
	I don't know.
	It's a brave tactic.
	Let's see if it pays off.
	YouTube, we disavow Richard Burgess.
	Yeah, we just disavow.
	If I recall correctly, then some of the Labour members have been comparing Israel to Nazis, right?
	Yes.
	Yeah, that was in the report.
	Yeah.
	And was it Ken Clarke who said that Hitler was a Zionist as well?
	I don't know whether he actually said it or not.
	No, he did.
	I watched an interview.
	I've seen the interviews, but I haven't heard the audio.
	I haven't heard the audio, but I've seen remarks that he's made and stuff.
	But essentially what he is suggesting is that Hitler had a plan to send all of the Jews to Madagascar and then Israel.
	So really, Hitler's a Zionist.
	Yeah, like, he's got the first part of that correct, I learned about it in history class, you know, the different plans, but the second part, obviously wrong.
	Yeah.
	Like, that's not...
	That's not what makes someone a Zionist.
	No.
	But this is the thing, like, the Labour Party should just not talk about Jews.
	I mean, you know, I don't particularly see why you should talk about any demographic, really.
	You can just talk about policies.
	But don't create policies around the Jews, Labour.
	Or just around ethnicity or things like that in general.
	But I mean, Corbyn did bring out a race manifesto, so...
	Yeah, I mean, we're not going to get into it today, we'll get into it another time because it's hilarious, but there's...
	In response to being accused of anti-Semitism, the Labour Party has issued a report today also accusing themselves of Islamophobia.
	So like, what are you even doing at this point?
	Not only are we guilty, we're really guilty.
	Look how guilty we are!
	Oh, flagellate us, daddy!
	I assume it's like some weird Trojan horse, where they want to make themselves seem so guilty of Islamophobia, they're like, right, because we're guilty, we need to investigate the Tory party as well.
	But it might end up as the college in the US that said we're really guilty, or was it Princeton, I think?
	Then got themselves investigated by the DOJ or something like that.
	Yeah, for racism.
	Exactly.
	Because they said we're racist.
	All of the professors, you know, the deans and the sort of academics are like, yeah, well, I mean, you know, institutional racism, white supremacy, blah, blah.
	And so, yeah, Trump's Department of Justice is like, oh, you are racist, are you?
	And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, not by your standards.
	You know, hang on a second, we're self-flagellating like a German religious Protestant or something, you know, nothing for you.
	But yeah, it's wild.
	But have there been any good memes?
	We're not after that yet.
	So, purging?
	Definitely a good strategy.
	Callum comes out as pro-purge.
	You should qualify there.
	No, I don't even need to.
	We're talking about the Labour Party.
	It's absolutely right.
	So, I expect Keir to continue on that route.
	I mean, there are loads of Corbynite MPs who he hasn't put in his cabinet.
	So he's taken a few into the cabinet and they've kept their mouth shut.
	And the ones he hasn't are all tweeting about it and being like, how horrible is this?
	And I expect him to get rid of them.
	Diane Abbott, for example.
	I mean, endless embarrassments for the party at this point where it's like, right, we don't need you.
	You need to be gone.
	Corbyn needed her.
	Not anyone else.
	The shoes.
	For sex, maybe.
	Well, yeah, but the point is...
	Just to clarify, that's a story that was put out that apparently he was having sex with her at one point.
	Well, yeah, in the 80s, they had a relationship.
	It's not a story.
	They had a relationship.
	Yeah, no, it's not a story.
	It's true.
	But she's clearly a kind of holdover from a relationship with Corbyn.
	Nobody cares about Diana.
	Anyway, yeah, there's a lot of people who are going to have to go.
	But how do the members feel about this?
	So if we can get the polling up.
	Oh yeah.
	So this is polling of all Britons, what they think of whether or not we should get rid of Corbyn, Labour voters and Conservative voters.
	Can you scroll down to the graph so it's easier for folks to see?
	As you can see there, a little bit further, every single group agrees that he needs to go.
	Yeah, so 50% of the general population say it's right not to reinstate him, and only 21% say it's wrong.
	Oof.
	Conservative voters, even more disparity, but that's not surprising.
	What is surprising is on Labour voters, 38% say get rid of him, 32% say no, we shouldn't get rid of him.
	Wow.
	So, you know, Kia's even got, from this YouGov poll, support within the party over a majority to do this.
	And from a YouGov poll, you would probably expect a stronger majority for momentum, right?
	Yeah, the left-leaning bias seems to be something we've seen in YouGov before.
	I'm not that familiar with YouGov, so I'm not going to say.
	I have my suspicions.
	I have my suspicions.
	Younger people are over-represented on that, I think.
	Okay.
	Which means they lean left.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, the response to this has been great, because both sides are memeing this, and the memes are fantastic, and I just thought I'd share some.
	So, here's the first one.
	Is that on screen, John?
	Yeah, so Corbin last night, I want to live in a society.
	Corbin today, I don't want to live in a society.
	We can get the first image up.
	Yeah, so just throwing him out, and then letting him back in, and then throwing him out again.
	Next one.
	You want to read this?
	Yeah, you are in this party, but I do not grant you the rank of Labour MP. This is outrageous!
	It's unfair!
	Corbyn, leave the younglings alone!
	You don't have to do anything!
	But yeah, in response to this...
	because Corbin goes down to the synagogue I got torn off for being spicy yesterday I just want to say we fully support Israel, man.
	No question of it, just no doubt.
	If the JIDF want to give us a sponsor, go ahead.
	Yeah, if they order sponsorship, we're down.
	People who were worried you were going to lose the edge.
	You can change the side, but you can't change the manager.
	It's pretty tangential edge.
	You've got to be informed to understand why that's funny.
	But that's the interesting thing.
	I mean, the Labour Party is now synonymous with anti-Semitism.
	I mean, you can make jokes like this...
	Corbin at least is.
	I mean, Keir Starmer's doing a fairly good job of making it seem like there is an option that it's not.
	Not that I want to support Keir Starmer, really, because I don't really like him, but...
	Yeah, it's the tactical sound move for Keir Starmer to not only purge Corbin, but to keep going, because he has to get rid of that stain.
	Because I can make this joke with any regular member of the public, and it lands, and they find it funny, and everyone gets the meme.
	So he has to be able to get rid of that meme factor.
	So, in response to this, I was wondering whether or not there'd be a split.
	Now, the people who made those memes are from different labor groups that I follow, so they're breaking down.
	But...
	There is a small wedge already forming, so five Labour councillors the day he was suspended automatically just left, I think, Leicester, and they decided to become eco-socialists, is how they're putting it.
	So, yeah.
	I expect this to continue with Corbynite councillors.
	Maybe we'll see some MPs after more MPs start getting purged.
	But it depends on what Kier and his team do, because it's actually very similar to UKIP. In structure and what they're doing.
	So the structure of UKIP seems to...
	I don't know who wrote this, but it seems to be someone from the Labour Party.
	Because we had an NEC, they have an NEC. Their NEC recently elected more...
	Stormtroopers instead of Corbinites.
	I don't know if we're allowed to call them that!
	Well, the leftists are calling them that.
	I'm not even calling them that.
	That's actually from the Labour Party subreddit.
	Oh, okay.
	Great place for salt.
	I just want to say, I mean, that might not be very politically correct, given their opinions on things.
	Yeah.
	So, hmm.
	Anyway, so they've also got the power which UKIP had, which was if you're bringing the party into disrepute, they can just get rid of you.
	Now, of course, bringing the party into disrepute is a meaningless phrase.
	Blank check.
	Yeah, so if you just need to get rid of someone, you can.
	And this is whether or not he goes too far.
	Because he's gotten rid of Corbyn, he's getting a lot of pushback from the Corbynistas, and he'll want to get rid of more.
	But if he does what UKIP does and just start purging everyone, then you're going to end up splitting.
	You're going to have a full-on split.
	That's probably about a third of their membership they're looking at.
	Maybe.
	I mean, they've got 500,000 members, so they can cull that in half and not even care.
	The Tories, for anyone doesn't know, have got about 200,000 or something like that, isn't it?
	I think it's down to 100,000.
	Is it down to 100,000?
	They had 200,000 a few years back.
	So Labour became huge as well, but didn't they drop the entry fee to 50p or something?
	No, this was a Corbyn thing.
	Because usually it's about 20 quid or thereabouts for a party because you don't want just anyone joining.
	You want someone who's actually committed.
	And you want to raise some money.
	Yeah, as well.
	Because it's part of running the party.
	You can't run a party without money.
	So Corbyn decided he wanted more activists and he wanted quick money.
	So he dropped it to three pounds.
	So everyone and their dog joined.
	And a lot of Conservative members joined to vote for Corbyn to be leader.
	Which worked out, I guess, for the Conservatives.
	Stunning move.
	Yeah, it worked.
	They got a huge majority, so yeah.
	So, that's how they got all these Corbinistas, and I'm guessing Keir will put it back up, because he's also annoying the trade unionists, because they're all Corbinites, and the guy who was on the Corbinite side trying to negotiate this deal is a major trade unionist.
	I think it's Unite the Union he's in charge of.
	Yeah, I think that's the one you're talking about.
	Huge trade union that gives them tons of money.
	And if...
	I can't remember how long ago, but I think it's like a week or something like that.
	They said they're going to stop giving money until things turn around under Starmer.
	And I'm guessing they were going to throw back in, but this was a threat.
	But now it's escalated to the point where I don't think they're going to throw back in.
	So Keir Starmer is going to have to go more Tony Blair-like in trying to get money from large donors and upping the fees to try and get money in that way than relying on the trade unions.
	That's terrible, because the British public were happy to vote for Tony Blair.
	That's what's irritating me, because if he's able to ride this well, we will end up with a Labour government under Starmer, and it will be Tony Blair-esque, at least.
	I mean, his cabinet positions, I mean, Naz Shah's in there for community cohesion.
	The worst person you could pick.
	I mean, for the Americans watching who might not know, she's the lady who retweeted the fake Owen Jones account that said the victims of the grooming gangs, what was it?
	They should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity.
	She liked and retweeted it, and then unliked and un-retweeted it when everyone noticed.
	It was like, Naz, A, that's a parody.
	B, that's also evil.
	What are you doing?
	And she was like, oh, that was a mistake.
	Yeah, she's also featured in the anti-Semitism report as someone who shared on Facebook an image that moved Israel to the United States and then with the caption, problem solved, and they put her in charge of community cohesion.
	This was the sort of thing I was talking about, where people from certain ethnic minority communities may also have their views on Israel and the people who live in Israel, and they might not be flattering views.
	I mean, she's a nutjob, though.
	She came out in Parliament.
	I think it was International Women's Day or something.
	And she said her role model for women's rights is Mohammed from Islam, like the prophet.
	It's like, Naj Shah, Islam is right about women.
	Okay.
	Well, that is kind of the Muslim position.
	If you're a Muslim, you kind of have to think that, don't you?
	I mean, maybe, but if you're Keir Starmer, could you not find literally anyone?
	I mean, did you have to pick her for community cohesion, the person who's in charge of these kinds of issues?
	But man, so that's what I'm worried about, because you can get this public face of Keir and then you will get these nutjobs like that running things like it.
	But it's the same thing with Biden, though.
	Everyone's like, oh, Biden's not a radical leftist.
	No, he's not a radical leftist, but he is in no way a bulwark against radical leftism, and he will allow it to propagate.
	It'll all be under the rubric of just being, oh, diversity training or something, but then it'll be full-on critical race there, and it's exactly the same thing with Keir.
	This is why I'm gutted that we're going to get another five years of Tony Blair at the very least.
	And here's where I start simping for Corbyn.
	Go on.
	Right.
	Okay.
	It's got to be very specific.
	So this is not because Corbyn's good, but the parallels I see with UKIP are not just the purging that's going on, but the fact that Gerald Batten, for example, was not very radical in economics, but on cultural issues, he was massively anti-woke.
	He was not going to toe the line on political correctness.
	And that's what made him great.
	And that's what made him popular amongst people like us who love that kind of thing.
	And that made him a massive threat to the status quo, at least the status quo on culture.
	Now, with Corbyn, he is absolutely no threat on culture.
	He's lockstep with the woke culture.
	But on economics, he was a threat.
	His ideas of how to solve economic problems were terrible, but he was a threat in the sense that he was going to massively rework the system.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, John MacDonald did say, it's my job to overthrow capitalism.
	So at least if you were a socialist, you had a socialist candidate to vote for.
	He was openly Marxist, openly advocating for this kind of thing.
	And now that's gone.
	So you end up with this bland, centrist...
	Sir.
	Sir Kier.
	Sir Kier, who is not a threat on culture and he's not a threat on economics.
	So nothing interesting for anyone who cares about anything.
	Sounds popular though.
	If you're in favour of some great levelling, I don't think Sir Keir Starmer is the guy you want to look for.
	He's not going to be redistributing anything, is he?
	But maybe only 25% of the people are looking for that, as per the poll.
	Well, that's the point.
	You know, 21%, wasn't it?
	Something like that.
	Yeah, 21% overall.
	So that's my take on it, that it is actually kind of a great shame, because at least if you're a socialist, let's say you're a left-leaning type, you could at least find some hope in Corbyn, as he is a threat on economics.
	And at least for us who don't like Corbyn, great, because he was able to destroy the party from our perspective.
	Yeah.
	And...
	If he's now not in charge and we end up with a Joe Biden type who is just bland, boring, and lets the radicals through by the sides...
	God, that's got to be boring.
	And it's got to be sad when he wins, because Boris is not going to be able to put up a threat against this.
	But it's also going to be bad, because he's going to do a bunch of stuff that is just the sort of Tony Blair agenda, isn't he?
	Absolutely.
	So the hope is that he does go too far with the purging.
	So if...
	I don't know.
	I mean, we're not going to do anything.
	We have no interest or connections with the Labour Party.
	But please, if you're listening here, go further.
	Keep going, because I need that wedge.
	We need to cut you guys off.
	Okay.
	But I mean, it's not clear that it would be something different, right?
	Because you said that he would enable the far left and these people to have greater positions of power.
	But I mean, Boris is doing it as well.
	And he's not taking it back or anything.
	But now with Boris and with the conservatives and the radical left have someone to rally against.
	And so they can have these...
	There's a big boogeyman there and they have a big kind of support on that as well because it's kind of popular in those circles.
	But if they have a labor guy in who's just bland and uninteresting, he might be doing the same things behind the scenes, like letting these people have power and let him, but there's not going to be this huge boogeyman to look towards and to rally against.
	I know, but it's...
	Same with Biden.
	Like, it's difficult with UK politics, because Boris has been a disappointment.
	But for those of you who are majorly disappointed, some good news in the fact that we spoke about the...
	What was she?
	Equalities minister.
	Yeah.
	The lady who came out and said, nope, black lives matter is evil, critical race theory is evil, we're going to criminalize teaching that in schools.
	Karma, was it?
	Has that happened, though?
	Kemi.
	Kemi, that was it, yeah.
	The alternative would have been Dawn Butler.
	And if it had been a Corbin victory, she would have been in there endorsing the thing and probably making it mandatory learning from the age of one.
	Yeah.
	So there are some victories on this side, you know.
	Has it happened, though?
	Has anything happened apart from his speech?
	It was criminalised for teaching it within schools.
	Yeah, they did actually change the guidance that teachers have to follow.
	So nothing that is anti-capitalist and nothing that is overtly racial, apparently.
	So the wording was nothing that was about overthrowing the system you live in.
	Perfectly reasonable.
	So anti-capitalist stuff because this is a capitalist society.
	And the stuff on critical race theory was you were allowed to teach it, as in you were allowed to talk about it, but only under certain circumstances.
	So you had to mention that it's a divisive theory, it's not widely accepted, and it also is, you know, not fact.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, that's the breakdown of the Labour Party, which, God, I hope continues, because that's so much mean-worthy gold.
	Should we move on to your last thing?
	Yeah, well, the last thing, the thing I'm worried about with the Labour Party is that Keir Starmer is actually going to come out of this looking really great.
	He's purged the anti-Semites, he's continually held Boris to account in his forensic, pedantic manner.
	I'm genuinely worried about a Labour government coming in, but I should be just as worried about a Conservative one, really, at this point, because they have been a tremendous disappointment.
	But anyway, speaking of tremendous disappointments, let's talk about Rudy Giuliani's, I'd say it, failing lawsuits.
	If there is a Kraken in the ocean, I would love to see it now.
	I watched Ben Shapiro's podcast about this yesterday, and he's right.
	The best time to release it would have been yesterday.
	The next best time is today.
	The worst time is tomorrow.
	Like, I don't know why they're doing a poor job of this, because it seems...
	As we have been covering on the podcast, there are lots and lots and lots of at least individual examples of voter fraud that are very concerning, and this should be something that is very difficult to refute.
	But instead, referring to this CNN article about it, Giuliani is making much bigger claims than he can demonstrably prove.
	And I think this is a bad example.
	So, in the case of Lancaster and Fayette Counties in Pennsylvania, he wanted it so they couldn't cure the absentee ballots and check those with procedural mistakes.
	And the judge said back to him, you're alleging that two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote, but at the bottom you're asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	Could you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?
	Not exactly a good start.
	The scope of what he's asking for there is way too big.
	And the problem is that he's essentially presenting a conspiracy theory, which I'm not saying there's no truth to the fact that there's been a conspiracy.
	I think there obviously has been, at least to some degree.
	But Giuliani is going way too big way too fast, in my opinion.
	For example, he says that Giuliani argued the Trump campaign had been blocked from observing ballot process in key cities and Democrats could have conspired to commit election fraud by counting absentee votes.
	Both assertions, the judges have repeatedly rejected the court's unfounded or wrong.
	The thing is, that's not unfounded or wrong, but the rejections are coming further down the line because of the expanding of what he's saying.
	For example, Giuliani said, if this is allowed without serious sanctions, this will become an epidemic.
	It just all happened in big cities controlled by Democrats who all of a sudden decided you don't have the right to inspect an absentee ballot.
	You'd have to be a fool to think this was an accident.
	And he says, we're not alleging direct fraud, but they're saying it's a fraudulent process.
	And this, I mean, it does look like it's a fraudulent process, but my God, like...
	The case was not very well laid out, and I was watching a few YouTube lawyers talking about it, and they are like, don't buy into the hype of this.
	This is not going brilliantly.
	In fact, this seems to be going very badly.
	It could have been a lot better framed.
	Giuliani hasn't been in the courtroom in like 30 years, and it shows.
	Like, putting your conclusion before your reasoning.
	Yes.
	And, like, I've heard some excerpts from the courtroom, and it was something like, the judge asked, what kind of level of scrutiny should I put to this?
	And Julian was like, the normal level.
	She was like, so strict scrutiny.
	No, the normal scrutiny.
	There is actually legal terminology that the judge is asking for there.
	I don't know what it is because I'm not a lawyer, but Giuliani saying normal, that's a colloquial term.
	Strict scrutiny is like a legal term that means something.
	Normal scrutiny is nothing.
	It was really weird.
	Frustrating, frankly.
	It's like Ben Shapiro pointed out, because I watched the show as well, and it was...
	We keep finding instances of hundreds of votes going to Trump because of mess-ups.
	Well, thousands now in Georgia, actually.
	Yeah, or thousands.
	But thousands would get him back Georgia.
	But he's got to find over 100,000 or whatever it is in Pennsylvania and in Michigan or Wisconsin.
	Yeah.
	The thing that he should be focusing on is specifically the 4am deliveries of like 130,000 votes for Biden.
	This is something that he should be...
	What he's alleging is a giant, vast conspiracy, and that's very easy for him to go, there's no proof, there's nothing there.
	If he was specifically talking about a particular time, a particular date, signed affidavits from the witnesses who were the ones filming the cell phone camera things from within the ballot counting stations at like 4am, surely that's a lot more incisive?
	I mean, I'm not an expert on it.
	You'd also convince the judge that way.
	You don't convince a judge by saying every voter in the state of Pennsylvania is fraudulent.
	And also here's a bunch of evidence of like a few hundred.
	It's like, okay, well that's going to make the judge think you're wasting his time.
	Yes.
	But there's one other point Ben made, which is it's very much, the way Ben puts it is it's very much like when the left accuses a police officer of acting racist because a white cop shoots a black guy, therefore there's racism.
	Well, not necessarily.
	There's the opportunity for racism.
	It's the same way with the Dominion voting system and the voting stuff.
	John Oliver very helpfully showed us how to hack them and that they're unguarded and you could just walk in and do it.
	Absolutely.
	But that doesn't prove that they were.
	It just shows that it can be done.
	As Elizabeth Warren said, there are some severe concerns about this.
	I'm so glad she wrote to the head of these companies because there are huge suspicions.
	But again, if you don't actually show that it happened...
	You ain't going to win the court case.
	Exactly.
	So it's disappointing to see this.
	I mean, at least one thing, like I said last time we were talking about this, we can learn is you've got to destroy these online and email voting systems.
	Sorry, electronic voting systems.
	I don't know if they have email ones in the U.S. Interestingly, we did try this in the UK in 2007, I think it was.
	And majorly in Swindon was one of the trial areas.
	Absolute failure.
	The guys didn't have enough time to set up the software or the machines.
	And when they did come in, the level of scrutiny was very, very low.
	Very few people understood how the code worked.
	They had to get specialists from central government.
	And it costs about, I think it was £100 to £600 per voter for each trial.
	Absolute waste of time.
	So we never did it again.
	So I don't understand why the Americans keep them.
	Yeah, we return to pottery shards.
	Pieces of paper.
	What does it mean pottery shards?
	We don't have to do the pottery shards.
	It's authentic.
	Just because the Greeks did it.
	It's authentic.
	It's got the romantic value.
	Yeah, it's a real thing.
	It's not just a piece of paper.
	Or a number on a screen.
	But there was a quick update from the Wayne County Republican-Democrat war over the fact that the ballot tallies were incorrect and they were not lining up.
	And the...
	What was his name?
	I can't remember the guy's name.
	He was screaming at them that they're racists.
	The stain of racism is on them forever and will be for all time.
	I think it was Black Lives Matter Ned, something like that.
	Ned Strabe or something like that.
	But yeah, this is this one.
	So yesterday we covered how they had been doxed, harassed, threatened, and just essentially intimidated, coerced into confirming the, sorry, certifying the ballots.
	But today they have apparently come out and claimed in sign affidavits that they were bullied in signing with the Democrats and have now rescinded their votes to certify.
	Hartman said in the affidavit that he observed about 71% of Detroit's 134 absent voter counting boards were left unbalanced and many unexplained.
	He said he voiced concerns and said if the votes don't match there should be some kind of explanation Powell said that she had spotted the same thing.
	These are the two Republicans.
	I voted not to certify and I still believe this vote should not be certified until these questions are addressed.
	I remain opposed to certification of the Wayne County results.
	She also said that she faced accusations of racism and threats to her family.
	So that's just a bit of an update on the ongoing drama of whether the Democrats can harass the Republicans into simply capitulating.
	And yesterday I expressed that I was disappointed that they didn't, and today they refuse.
	So, thanks for watching, guys.
	That's interesting, though, because my understanding was he agreed, provided there was an audit into the vote, so everything would be looked over again.
	So is he now saying that the audit won't be enough, or is he saying, I just...
	They've rescinded on the compromise.
	The audit was a compromise.
	And I guess because of the way that they've been treated by the Democrats, it seems that they've decided, no, we've been intimidated here, we're not going to sign this.
	And we still think that these irregularities need addressing, which I think is totally fair.
	Because how many votes is he looking at there?
	I think he said 71% he's certified, so that would be 29% that he didn't.
	Yeah.
	So I think up there...
	No, no, no.
	71% of the 134 absent voter counting boards, so we don't know how many votes it is particularly, we're left unbalanced and I'll explain.
	But this is the most populous district in Michigan.
	So there's something like 1.7 million people there, so it could be quite a few votes.
	That's the kind of thing the Trump legal team need to go after, essentially.
	Here's a big amount of votes.
	We weren't able to certify them.
	We're not sure if we can accept them or the procedures are wrong.
	But I don't see them going after that.
	That's what they need to go after.
	Yeah, I mean, Giuliani is going...
	This is related to the Detroit one where they were boarding up the windows.
	Giuliani is going after this.
	It's just, don't make big sweeping claims.
	I mean, the thing is, Giuliani, being like this old political dog who's been in the New York political system and that sort of...
	area for a long time when he when he starts giving the sort of rhetoric about how the democratic machine fixes these cities they control this is doubtless all true in the way that sort of like you know the underlying reality of the people on the ground you know the people in the know who go yeah yeah so and so spoke to so and so but it's all unimprovable in a court of law because a lot of it's done just by implication or by a you know verbal address unless you've got recordings you can't prove it But Giuliani is referring to that rather than to hard evidence,
	and it's frustrating.
	And I can see why the sort of legal YouTubers are like, there's no hype here.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, take Birmingham, for example.
	Like, everyone there knew it was going on for years, and they were eventually able to prove it in a court case.
	That's what you need.
	Yeah.
	But it takes a long time for whistleblowers and leakers to come out and find the evidence and things like this.
	And so Giuliani should be, in my opinion, just laser-focused on these obvious cases.
	Like, I mean, you're intimidating, you know, you dox them, harassing them.
	This is not acceptable.
	This is not a free and fair election, is it?
	It's not free if you're intimidating and doxing people.
	There we go.
	I ain't got nothing else to say.
	It's just kind of sad that he's...
	Yeah, it's annoying.
	Release the cracking, get on with it.
	Yeah, we're all waiting.
	Perseus is standing there.
	Should we do the super chat?
	Yeah, you can read some out.
	In fact, Hugo, you can read some out.
	Better read in the me.
	Hmm.
	So, Harian says, really enjoying these podcasts lots.
	Here's some money while the site's down so I can at least give some support.
	Well, thank you very much.
	That's great.
	We appreciate all the support.
	Monetized cattle is the best cattle, says Moose on the Loose.
	I agree.
	Enjoy what it lasts.
	It's not going to be forever.
	The deplorable patriarch says all four electors have been bullied into certifying by usual death threats and accusations of racism from the left.
	I couldn't find anything about the Democrats being bullied about this, so...
	I assume he means the two Republicans.
	No, no, no.
	He thinks the Democrat electors have been bullied here as well into certifying results.
	But I guess they're just keeping their mouths shut because it's their party and, you know...
	I thought they were the ones making the accusations of racism.
	We saw the video.
	One of them.
	No, no, he was on the board, the counting board.
	He wasn't an elector, though.
	But he seemed to really have something up his arse about it, didn't he?
	so so YeezDunuk says great technical work on the show lads the format and framing are tight audio is crisp and clear and the presentation material is fresh keep it up well most of the credits here go to Yep, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Matthias gives us, what is that, 10 Belarusian rubles?
	What is that?
	I don't even know what that is.
	Thank you.
	Or is that just a country code where he's given $10?
	I'm not sure, but whatever you've given us, great.
	Thanks, man.
	I don't know what that is.
	Doomhand.
	Thanks for answering my question about devolution yesterday.
	No problem.
	I assume you were the American asking what on earth it was, but good to have you back.
	Sergei says, woo, Russian collusion.
	Absolutely, tovorish.
	It's always nice to hear from someone from the motherland, isn't it, Callum?
	Yeah, you know.
	How do you say it?
	What is that?
	Spurg?
	Spurg?
	Thank you anyway, Spurgleberry Farms.
	That's great.
	Gus gave us 10 Canadian dollars.
	Thanks for that.
	Thank you so much.
	We're sorry about Trudeau.
	Ken Jones.
	Carl, sometimes you need to compare...
	Didn't we do these majestically?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I think I recognized them.
	I recognized the Sergei guy and he said the same thing.
	Oh wait, check the date.
	Yeah, it's 18th.
	Is it the 18th or the 19th?
	Yeah, these are the 18th.
	Well, they got two showers.
	Ah, there we go.
	Ah, yeah, Xerox we didn't do yesterday.
	So that's when we need to start.
	Yeah, that's the 18th.
	Yes, but that was when we missed.
	Xerox.
	After you get your website up, you need to never recommend these people who are obviously responsible for the affordable healthcare website.
	Uh...
	I won't speak in defence.
	I'm sure things have not been...
	We're not web devs.
	I'm sure things have not been easy and there have been reasons.
	But my god, we are working as much as we can do to get it up as soon as we can.
	Again, really sorry.
	Axis says, hello all, do YouTube Superchats still work?
	Yes, they do, for the time being.
	They will be gone at some point.
	The wolf of the blood.
	If there were genuine national security concerns, that's something that should be reported to the FBI. That's probably true.
	I mean, he could have still sworn to give everything that he can to the Republicans in the hearing.
	Yeah, well, he refused to commit to anything.
	So, in the last hearing, I think he clarified this, and they get their national security information from either, I think it's the CIA or the FBI. I think maybe both, because it's an international platform.
	So, reporting it to the FBI wouldn't actually do anything, because he's the one getting it.
	And I think that's what gets to the point, that it's not about national security, because national security stuff the US government will already have access to, or be able to get like that.
	It's the political stuff he's trying to hide.
	So convincing reality says that Jack actually has just a small stake into it now, and so he's not effectively in charge.
	Oh, really?
	He is still the CEO of Twitter.
	Yeah, but if he's not a majority member...
	No, he's not the majority shareholder.
	Mark Zuckerberg still is on Facebook with 51%.
	But Jack Dorsey is not the majority shareholder.
	But he is still the CEO, and he's still the guy who gets to go and talk to the Senate from presumably his, I don't know, pillar in the desert or wherever he lives on a normal day.
	So he owns 15% left over, 13% outstanding shares and 2% on Twitter.
	But he is still the CEO. Sure.
	So Gus says, is this the Corbyn re-election fund?
	Yes, you've come to the right place.
	We missed one.
	Ben Newman, scroll down one.
	We missed it.
	Good show.
	Good luck to all out there.
	Thanks very much, Ben.
	All right, go back up.
	The Corbyn Re-Election Fund.
	Nathan Brake.
	I was banned by Facebook retroactively for a post I made a year ago.
	It was the 30 days.
	Yeah, that way is it.
	All of us have been banned for like this.
	It's ridiculous.
	But this is the thing, right?
	Like, with the Silicon Valley hearings, the Senate hearings, the Republicans are doing a good job, but there are so many other small things that they can be getting on.
	This sort of stuff.
	Like, there should be a statute of limitations.
	Right.
	Well, there is on Twitter.
	That's the weird thing.
	Is it?
	Like, Jack's defense.
	So people always say, oh, you did to this one, but not to this one.
	There's a lot of other hearings you haven't heard, but probably.
	But there's, you know, they'll always bring up two, and he's like, oh, well, that one was made in 2011.
	Like, I think hashtag kill all white men, a story you covered.
	Why didn't they take that down retroactively?
	And they said, look, the policy wasn't in place at that point.
	It would be wrong for us to retroactively do it.
	Oh, I agree, Jack.
	That would be wrong.
	But Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook just don't care, I guess.
	YouTube didn't either.
	About a year and a half ago, something like that, there was a massive tightening of YouTube's regulations.
	And a bunch of just videos that have been sat on YouTube that I had, you know, hundreds of thousands of views, some with, like, loads of views, just suddenly got whacked because...
	To be honest, it makes sense, because if they're alleging that that piece of content is white supremacist or harassment or blah blah blah blah, whatever nonsense reason they want to bring out...
	Just offensive, I think, is the...
	In your case, yeah.
	But if they're alleging that's what it is, it wouldn't matter what time period you made it, surely?
	They can just make it private.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And to be honest with you, what they did, when they did their big sweep initially, they didn't actually give me strikes for it.
	So it was just like, it felt very much sort of like, well, we've changed this, we've got to get rid of it, just shush and carry on.
	But again, if you didn't feel the need for the policy, if the video wasn't offensive, or violating any of the politics, policy, sorry, like...
	It's a historical thing, you know, now that it's been there for five years, and it's like, no, smack it.
	And then you've got the expansion of it, where a bunch of history channels get their videos taken down for documenting history and things like this.
	So here's a great fact about UK law.
	So if a piece of material, I believe it's either 50 or 100 years old, it's no longer hate speech, regardless of what it says, because it's a historical document.
	So that's the reason they couldn't ban the Koran or Mein Kampf in the UK, under hate speech legislation.
	But isn't that strange?
	That's very interesting.
	Isn't it hate speech for all time?
	Apparently not.
	No, that's interesting.
	Maybe your videos will go back up in 45 years.
	I know, they've got to be 100 years old.
	50 or 100.
	I can't remember which one it is.
	So a couple of people are saying that we shouldn't close off the podcast.
	I mean, we're not closing it off.
	It's still going to be live every day at 1pm British time.
	So you've got to tune in live, like you're doing now, in fact, to watch us.
	But the members on the website will have access to the archive of the podcast.
	So when the website's up, you will be able to go back and watch them all if you want.
	But we will be uploading the segments where we're talking about particular topics.
	So you'll be able to catch the majority of what we've talked about, even if you couldn't catch us live.
	So that's, I assume, go with the 100 Norwegian crowns.
	Friend, friend, for another Belarusian $5 or whatever the hell that is.
	Don't close off the friends.
	It's a good idea.
	Same thing.
	We'll try.
	And if it doesn't work, we'll just change, you know.
	Matthew Hammond, US courts will not hear cases against tech claiming editorial decisions are protected under Section 230.
	Abolishing Section 230 should be a non-starter as it would block future competitors.
	Allow people to sue.
	If I read that correctly...
	Are you really wrong?
	Well, I don't know.
	You read what he wrote, but I'm not sure I'm taking the meaning correctly.
	But what I think he's saying is abolishing 230 would stop future social media platforms from coming up because it would allow people to sue the social media platform for libelous stuff that's been posted on there, or whatever it is, because they'll be treated as publishers, not platforms.
	But...
	I don't see why a platform wouldn't be able to just be a platform as long as it took no editorial decisions.
	No, but that's what 230 is for.
	Yeah, I know.
	So that's why I think it doesn't really make sense to call for the abolishing of 230 because you need to enforce it because the section 230 already says that if you don't act as a platform but as a publisher you should be able to be sued.
	But it's not being enforced now.
	Yeah, and that is the frustration, but I think that the Republicans are just using it as a giant threat, really.
	Sure, but if it actually happens, it's just going to benefit the big companies.
	Why did you say that?
	Well, because they are the big ones.
	They're going to be able to afford the AI that you need to separate the...
	whatever you need to be compliant with the non-existence of Article 230.
	But no small site will be able to afford it.
	I'm not sure that that's the case.
	I mean, like, if Facebook's got 2.5 billion users and a bunch of them start suing Facebook over what their neighbor has posted...
	Exactly, but that's going to...
	Then even Facebook can't survive that.
	It can, because it can censor anything that gets complained against.
	My understanding is it's not necessarily abolish 230, as in get rid of all protections for any kind of platform.
	The phrase has just become the standard bearer, but the thing is to reform it or to basically, you guys don't get this anymore.
	And that was what Lindsey Graham had started with in the Senate hearing.
	They're actually not about abolishing 230, but it is about reforming it, changing it.
	Get rid of 230 is sort of a meme in the sense that it's get rid of it for you guys, because you guys are not platforms.
	Yeah.
	Fair enough.
	I'm just worried about reform of something that works.
	It's actually a good idea.
	Yeah, it's written.
	The way it's written actually should work, but it doesn't because...
	I don't know.
	I don't know who the conservatives or the Republicans.
	No one is enforcing and no judges.
	So it's not being enforced, but it's on there and it's pretty much as it should be.
	But it's the enforcement, right?
	And so I'm just worried that if you try to change it, the input that you will get will be from these big companies.
	So they will change it to their image and not...
	But on the plus side, the Republicans who are opposing the big tech companies, I'm sure they're not just going to roll over to them.
	I mean, they seem to genuinely be quite annoyed at the big tech companies.
	It's just cost on the presidency.
	Yeah, but Lindsey Graham is still fist bumping Kamala Harris.
	That's a good point.
	I can't explain it.
	I don't want to just describe motive to that when we don't really know.
	It could have been a silly joke or something.
	My kid walked five steps or something, like a human thing.
	I'm just worried that it's a dangerous thing to get into.
	It is, but it would be preferable to threaten to remove those protections from them rather than get rid of 230.
	And if they could just one day say, right, okay, Facebook, YouTube, you just don't have these anymore.
	Good luck.
	This is what you get for making editorial decisions.
	We've got evidence of editorial decisions.
	We subpoenaed your tasks platform.
	We found all this stuff.
	No, you're done.
	See, this is the point you made because I asked, well, you know, they've had four years.
	Why have they not got on with it?
	And it's because you have to build up...
	Well, they have had lots of Senate hearings.
	Yeah, but you have to build up this case.
	Like that one from that guy you showed saying, well, you guys coordinate.
	That's a perfect point.
	And if you were going to get rid of their protections, that's what you need in the courtroom.
	Ted Cruz being like, look, this is editorial.
	Your decisions here are the decisions of an editor and a publisher, therefore.
	Where did we leave off?
	Is it Honey Badger?
	Yep.
	So Honey Badger.
	Thoughts on Bojo pursuing freedom of movement with Australia?
	I thought Brexit was supposed to end free movement to the UK. It's an interesting one because there was this debate immediately after leaving the EU from types who...
	I'm not sure how to put it, but they wanted to kind of change the EU with Kanzuk.
	And Kanzuk is Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
	Because one of the issues with being in the EU and freedom of movement is vast disparities in wealth and vast cultural differences.
	So the fact that a lot of people couldn't speak English.
	So you have a large amount of Polish immigration, for example, and then you end up with...
	Or they come from impoverished countries where they come over here and prepare to work for less than minimum wage under the table.
	So the argument went that, you know, the main issue was mass migration.
	You're feeling really attacked now, aren't you?
	You can speak English.
	But the argument went that, okay, they'd be culturally similar, because it's only 100 years ago that they were back in the motherland and not in the prison colony, and the wealth disparity is smaller to the amount that it wouldn't encourage mass migration.
	I asked my parents about this immediately afterwards, and they were like, no, because they voted on immigration.
	They were like, look, we've had too much, we need to have nothing for a while.
	Too many Australians...
	Yeah, we don't want the prisoners back, but I don't know.
	What do you make of it?
	Would you accept an open border with the Kansak nations?
	No, because the thing about open borders, and we learned this from Angela Merkel, is that, okay, you might have an open border with, say, Germany, and Germany might then have an open border with the rest of the world.
	And Justin Trudeau certainly would have an open border with the rest of the world, wouldn't he?
	You know, what's the Jacinda from New Zealand one?
	Jacinda...
	Socialist, yeah.
	Yeah, the commie from New Zealand.
	I don't know that she would have open borders if the coronavirus didn't exist and turn her into a fascist dictator.
	So, no, I mean, like, I don't really want open borders.
	I'm not against immigration from, like, you know, high-skilled, high-earning, English-speaking countries.
	Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
	That's all fine, you know, but I don't see why we'd have open borders full stop for any reason.
	Yeah, you want to make it like super easy for those types because that's much more preferable than other places because of the...
	Various cultural continuations and, you know, they've got the same skill sets and language and values and...
	It's all normal reasons.
	The same way Russia does.
	But if we say, right, we're just going to have an open border, and then Justin Trudeau gets in and just like, great, we're going to have an open border with China or wherever, and it's just like, okay, but we don't have control of that now.
	It would just be nice to have control and say yes or no, as is in our own interest.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You convinced me.
	I didn't actually know what I thought on it.
	That sounds right.
	It's just sensible.
	What do you think, Varner?
	Shut up, Russian.
	Should we go on?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Carry on.
	So, Night Goblin Shaman, five pounds.
	Thank you very much.
	President-elect Svatnick, four more years.
	Yes, we're definitely hoping to keep this up for four more years.
	Springleberry Farm.
	Here's mine for today.
	Tip your commentators' voice for the juicy, vetted information they've brought to the table.
	Thank you.
	We are working very, very hard.
	I do hope the podcast is as good as you're telling us it is.
	Mr.
	Flange, I have proof of the Democrats' data exputed.
	Don't get yourself suicided.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, Mr.
	Flange, you tried your best.
	JGJ, great to see you online, Sargon.
	Been a fan.
	Hope you were happy to talk to Michael Nose last year.
	I'm in Georgia, USA. Check out Eric Erickson's for coverage.
	Oh, thank you very much.
	And yeah, I loved hanging out with Michael Knowles.
	He's a really, really nice guy.
	Really nice guy.
	Really funny guy as well.
	Yeah, I heard he convinced you a little bit on abortion, was it?
	Well, I've never really liked abortion as a subject.
	I mean, I've always found the pride in abortions to be vile and something that feminists should be deeply ashamed of themselves about at the very minimum.
	But I think abortion is something that will happen.
	I mean, I was totally on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon of Save Legal and Rare.
	I agree.
	Bill Clinton?
	No, no.
	Well, Hillary Clinton also said the same thing.
	Did she?
	No.
	Oh yeah.
	Honestly, it was a great position.
	She made quite a good argument, saying, basically the same one I'm making.
	Look, these are going to happen.
	We don't want back-alley abortions happening.
	That's pretty inhumane.
	And I agree, that is inhumane.
	But conversely, there has to be a level of social shame attached to abortion, because it is a...
	An obvious personal failing if you have to go and kill the fetus that you've created?
	You've done something wrong there, and you're doing something wrong in order to fix the previous wrong, so have a bit of decency and a bit of shame about it, because, you know, you fucked up.
	Especially in the West, because, I mean, you've got condoms, you've got the pill, you've also got the morning-after pill.
	And all of these are, what, 95%, 99% effective?
	Really, yeah, very effective.
	Yeah, like you hear the people arguing about Ben Shapiro, well, there's no birth control.
	There's loads of birth control.
	What are you talking about?
	What are you talking about, man?
	It's not even expensive.
	Anyway, Yorkie won.
	It's called abstinence, I think you'll...
	Not in favour of that.
	Yorkie1, I hope you pay these interns food money, Sargon.
	When the website's up, I will.
	We have unlimited supplies of tea, so that's fine.
	Yeah, that's true.
	That's not, I had to bring my own tea.
	That's true.
	But we actually placed an order for tea from the East India Company yesterday.
	It will be with us soon, and we'll have to get a teapot, and we'll sit and try it out.
	This is actually the East India Company that conquered India.
	It's still in existence, and the little royal insignia on it looks brilliant.
	So I'm going to do some shilling.
	Not because they're paying us, but just because...
	They're not paying us, but go buy tea from the East India Company.
	So you can get tea, you can get coffee, you can get hampers that have champagne and whatnot in them, you can get biscuits, and you can get chocolate.
	And if you're from the East India Company and you want to sponsor us, we'll take that sponsorship!
	It's just, you know, a bit of pro-imperialism.
	Like you said about, what was it, advertiser standards for this show.
	They reach all of them.
	Yeah.
	It's the funny thing as well.
	You can argue about the British Empire having slavery and whatnot.
	My understanding of the East India Company didn't have it.
	And also, you know, the worst they could possibly be accused of is maybe a couple of famines.
	A couple of massacres, probably.
	Yeah, probably about that.
	But in the grand scale of history and how many years they're operating...
	Germany was worse.
	Germany was worse, and they'll do it again.
	So, let's go on.
	How on earth do you say that?
	Stinking ape?
	Yeah.
	Ah, there we go.
	Okay, stinking ape.
	Have you guys noticed the push for diversity in all UK TV ads at the moment?
	It would be good to discuss this, reasons, public reception, etc.?
	Yeah, we can definitely look into that and do a podcast on it.
	There's always a push for diversity.
	Is there a renewed push for it, though?
	Well, I don't...
	Yeah, when is it stopped?
	Revolution never stopped commerce.
	Presumably they're talking about the...
	It wasn't Sainsbury's, was it?
	Which one was...
	The Sainsbury's.
	It was Sainsbury's where they had a black family on there.
	I actually didn't find that particularly objectionable.
	Yeah, I mean, a lot of those things are more or less okay if it wasn't in the context of a lot of different weird things.
	So just because we get sensitive to these things, it's just like...
	It just signals other things to come that we're kind of opposed towards.
	So if it's just a black family, I don't care.
	The best example of where you can obviously see it being pushed is that Swedish advert.
	I think it's for juice.
	And this guy has to come rushing in because he's trying to get to the waiting room.
	And he bursts in and it's his wife giving birth and the baby's brown and then there's the brown family friend, I guess, who impregnated her there.
	And it's like, buy our juice.
	Really?
	What has this got to do with Juice?
	I don't even understand.
	What the hell is this?
	It's obviously like we wanted to do a diversity advert, but we got paid to do a Juice advert.
	Jesus.
	Okay, yeah.
	But yeah, I can understand why there are people who are upset because they've been bombarded left, right and centre by diversity stuff.
	And I think that the Sainsbury's advert is actually a bad thing to go after because it's kind of its own context.
	Here's a Christmas family in Britain and there are black families in Britain, obviously.
	And so it's like this is not...
	If it's like the new James Bond is a black woman, that is a plan, isn't it?
	Really?
	Yeah, I believe so.
	I'm sure I saw a headline in it.
	It's not that James Bond is meant to be an Englishman or something.
	I was annoyed enough when it was Sean Connery playing him.
	You know, but like, you know, it's not the sort of progressive skin mask where, you know, we've torn it off and we're wearing it now.
	Don't you love the diversity that we're presenting?
	You're like, God, this is creepy.
	But the Sainsbury's advert, I didn't feel it was the same thing.
	You know, it's just a family living in Britain who, you know, and that's fine.
	I'm happy to promote family values.
	So I had no particular problem with it.
	But so like we said, in the context, we can understand why you'd be sensitive to it.
	The R Heretic.
	What are your guys' thoughts on the fact that Giuliani's actions are intended to move the cases to the Supreme Court, as well as stall for more time?
	Giuliani did say, in fact, in the CNN article, he was quoted as saying how they've pretty much come to the end of what they can achieve in state courts, and they achieved very little in state courts, as far as I can see it.
	So let's hope that there is something useful that comes out of going to a Supreme Court.
	Surely it depends on what he's alleging, though.
	Like Ben says, if he's just alleging thousands of miscast votes or improper procedure, even if that gets to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agree, because it's majority Republican, let's just say he's being cynical, that would still only change a few thousand votes.
	It wouldn't change the 100,000 odds that he needs to actually go after to make his case.
	So...
	It depends whether they...
	I mean, the Supreme Court can invalidate districts.
	Can they?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So an entire district's votes could be thrown out if they felt that there was...
	So he could say Detroit district...
	Well, yeah, like the 130,000 mail-in ballots that turn up at 4am in Detroit could invalidate that district.
	It's Pennsylvania, but a similar thing happened in Detroit.
	Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, like just tens of thousands of them turn up in the middle of the night.
	So, Pick says, Stay determined, guys.
	The Commonwealth needs people like you to keep being sane voices of opposition.
	The apathy that has allowed bad ideas to take root.
	P's will be...
	P.S. Will the new site have mugs, merch, etc.?
	Yes, we will set up a merch store.
	So if you'd like to get a lot to see too much, you can do it.
	So Mercury Digicom says, look into Dane County vote counts comparing the last four elections.
	I believe it is being recounted 20k plus votes with a...
	Me thanks.
	Me thanks.
	Can you just make a note of that Dane County?
	Yeah, I've already made a note.
	So I'll look into it once we're off.
	Cool.
	Cro Crocs.
	German press is angry that Croatian police is beating and sending away male Middle Eastern economic migrants from our borders in Croatia.
	I bet they are angry with it.
	Yeah.
	Apparently that was, I think it's Douglas' most strange death of Europe that he mentions that one of the big, weird conversations that happened around the migrant crisis was in Germany when they were discussing, well, what if we get, what if they get to Austria and we see German men throwing men back over the border and it'll invoke visions of the Second World War.
	It's like, what?
	That's the opposite of what happened.
	The opposite, you moron.
	Like, in the Second World War, they wouldn't acknowledge the borders.
	What?
	But, uh...
	Brian Tomlinson?
	Yep, keep up the good work, chaps.
	Nice to be able to contribute.
	Thank you very much, Brian.
	Really appreciate it.
	Convincing Reality says, A dark winter in the USA, mandatory vaccinations in Europe, and the possibility of Christmas being cancelled in the UK. What can regular people do?
	Yeah, that's...
	I'll probably talk about this tomorrow, assuming nothing major happens with the US elections, because I'm really concerned about the sort of tyranny we seem to be just sliding under with no protest whatsoever.
	What, you mean in the UK or in Germany?
	Well, everywhere, but in the UK particularly, because I live here.
	I mean, in Germany I'd expect tyranny, but like...
	I'm not joking.
	No, you're not right.
	I was not a joke, but yeah.
	But right, should we go for a couple more?
	I think we're towards the end.
	So Zenith gave us five bucks.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	CaptainMeta, Ruckus doesn't censor user...
	Sorry, Ruckus...
	It is Ruckus, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Ruckus doesn't censors users like Facebook or Twitter.
	You guys should get on there on Ruckus.
	Do we have a Lotus Eater's presence?
	Does he mean Rumbler?
	No, no, Ruckus.
	Ruckus?
	Okay, I didn't know.
	If not, I'll speak to Vicky and see if we can get on Ruckus.
	Yep.
	Shakespeare says, Problem with 230 is that the good faith clause to allow platforms to moderate content that is objectionable, porn spam, it's been stretched too far.
	Yeah.
	Might be, yeah.
	So the reform that we might like to see might be something like an interpretation of 230.
	Yeah, or some sort of restricting of the term good faith by some sort of legal definition.
	Because, yeah, like, what was I saying?
	Content that is objectionable.
	You know, I mean, okay, they might find Alex Jones objectionable, but I think he's hilarious.
	So, you know, what now, Facebook and Twitter?
	Yeah.
	No, but that's a good point.
	It might be in the legalese somewhere in the interpretation of the law.
	That's the thing that might have to change.
	Like Brian Hartwig's screenshot showed us they banned, what was it, white supremacy and white separatism, but they didn't ban it for black separatism or communist.
	The next one is for you, I think.
	Mr Anderson.
	Carl, I've been listening to you from the beginning, although I don't agree with all of your positions.
	I'm very glad that you make the effort to try and be the voice of sanity.
	Wish you would cover more current trans insanity.
	Thank you very much, Paul, and I'll do my best.
	I'll see what we can do.
	Captain Meta.
	We need to reform 230, not abolish it.
	Agree.
	I think we just talked about it there.
	But thank you.
	Wesley Richmond.
	Big fan of your work, and especially your new project.
	All the best for the future.
	Love different perspectives compared to my friends.
	Keep me thinking.
	Mikey Bueno?
	Sounds Spanish.
	Yeah, that means good in Spanish.
	What was the last book that you read?
	Well done on the podcast.
	Keep up the good work.
	The format is growing on me.
	I'd love to be able to tell you, but I really feel that we should be keeping it a secret for the book club on the website that doesn't exist yet, but will.
	The last book I read, Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest, but I'm currently reading one on the French Revolution.
	I can't remember what it's called, though.
	What was the last one you read?
	I think it's We Have Nothing to Envy about North Korea.
	What about yourself?
	Well, I'm reading...
	The Dictators one.
	Yeah, I'm reading that for the book club, which is going to be a premium content.
	Yes.
	It's quite a bit.
	It's a good read, isn't it, that Dictators one?
	Yeah, it's very readable.
	It's a nice book.
	Apart from that, I'm reading Paul Johnson, the history, modern world history from the 20s to the 80s.
	It's a great book.
	I'm like a third of the way through and it just explains a lot of things that were happening throughout the century, so I recommend that.
	Alright, okay.
	I'll have to read that myself.
	Galecta.
	Hey guys, great show with great content.
	Gamergate vet here and MOD civil servant.
	Thoughts on Boris's defense budget increase?
	Cheers lads, keeps it up.
	Yeah, I saw Boris was announcing this, but I don't know how much it's by.
	So, I have some vested interest in this, which is that...
	He cut foreign aid by, it used to be 0.7%, now it's 0.5%.
	That should be, if my pocket calculations were right, about £4 billion.
	And he's pledged to increase MOD spending by £16 billion.
	£4 billion of it going to the UK Space Command or Space Force, which I'm all for.
	Love it.
	I love having a Royal Space Marine Corps.
	I mean, we're not actually going to have that, are we?
	Why not?
	You were telling me earlier we put satellites in space.
	Yeah, so the UK Space Agency builds satellites.
	We also have, I think it's a private company that produces them for telecoms and all this sort of thing.
	But we are going to have to do it because the...
	So we used to be in the European Space Agency, and my understanding is we don't use the American GPS, we use the European Space Agency GPS that we mostly funded, and now we're leaving.
	That's why they were saying we're not going to tell you if an asteroid's going to come and blow you up.
	Yeah, and we were leaving, and they were like, yeah, we're just not going to let you guys use it.
	Shut up, we paid for it.
	No, literally, if there's something incoming, you know, what I'm going to tell you, it's like, dicks.
	It's so petty.
	It's so petty.
	Still let millions of people die just because of Brexit.
	We're going to be expanding the UK Space Agency, and also when I was doing my project on this in university, we were looking at where to put spaceports in the country, and there are a bunch of locations that are viable, and it's a great industry.
	My understanding is for every pound we put in, we get £10 back in revenue, so why not?
	Give it more money.
	It's going to be difficult to orbitally bombard Germany and France without them, I suppose.
	Yeah.
	Last one.
	Real Every Day 504 PA Washington Post covered the mashup you showed.
	They're local stations owned by the Sinclair Group that were forced to do must-run sections.
	Find on YouTube.
	Thank you very much for the update.
	So it's not just MSNBorg, but Sinclair Group that you should Google.
	Yes, Sinclair Group.
	I'll have a look at that.
	But anyway, thank you so much everyone for watching.
	We will be back at the same time tomorrow, 1pm UK time.
	Do we know what we're talking about yet?
	We're going to be talking about the UK bill that's proposed.
	Well, that's going to be part of it, which basically grants secret agents the licenses to kill.
	That's right.
	That's right, yes.
	Okay.
	But any idea what you'll be covering tomorrow?
	No, I'll find something.
	Right, okay.
	We'll find something.
	But anyway, we'll see you at the same time tomorrow.

▲