May 2, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
11:02
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| What do you think the United States of America, let's say, or perhaps President Trump, what should a society do to stop what Google is becoming, which is a. | |
| I'll describe it as like a Skynet type of very dangerous system of authoritarian control and censorship. | |
| What should be done to stop Google? | |
| Yeah, so there's basically Two ways you can change this thing, right? | |
| Well, actually three. | |
| You can change the laws. | |
| You can, you know, through legislation, politics, whatever, you can attack it in the courts, and you can change the culture. | |
| And I'm taking all three approaches. | |
| So through culture, it's disclosing all this information, letting, you know, you, the consumer, know that Google is this company hell-bet on enslaving you, right? | |
| So we can stop using Google. | |
| We can use the Brave browser. | |
| We can use DuckDuckGo. | |
| We can use these other services, you know, to replace it. | |
| Well, you know, I've given this information about what they're doing. | |
| 950 pages have been given to the general public. | |
| And so, you know, this is everything necessary for the people trying to change the law need in order to change it. | |
| And the last is legal. | |
| And we're, you know, we've launched this initiative called Stop Bit Burning. | |
| You know, because the fascists in history burned books. | |
| And the fascists of today burn bits. | |
| And so we want the new fascists of today to stop the bits burning. | |
| And so we've created this campaign, Stop Bit Burning, at stopbitburning.com, in order to crowdfund a class action lawsuit To stop this. | |
| And our first grievance class are the YouTube content creators that have been demonetized. | |
| And we're going to expand this to include the people that have been deranked off of the Google search engine, and then also people that have been kicked off Twitter and Facebook. | |
| Because what's happening here is viewpoint discrimination. | |
| And the only thing that allows these companies to do this is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives them a liability shield that prevents them from being sued. | |
| Well, they only get this liability shield if they have good Samaritan filtering. | |
| And this forbids viewpoint discrimination. | |
| And these tech companies have clearly engaged in viewpoint discrimination. | |
| And so we believe that this liability shield no longer exists. | |
| We believe that with the right jurisdiction and the right law attorney, and we've got some of the best that want to step in on this as long as we can secure the funding, they're going to take this on and they're going to defeat Section 230 and they're going to reverse this and we're going to make Google pay. | |
| Now, a quick question on that. | |
| So currently the courts have been throwing out these cases citing Section 230, even though your description, I believe, is accurate. | |
| When these platforms editorialize their censorship, that really it rejects the Section 230 immunity that they are supposed to enjoy. | |
| In other words, they get Section 230 immunity if they're just But the courts are so far ruling in favor of the tech giants. | |
| Why do you think that is happening? | |
| And how can a class action lawsuit overcome that? | |
| The fatal parts of all these other cases is the jurisdiction that they're being filed in, right? | |
| So you had Laura Loomer in Florida, and then her case got moved to the D.C. District Court, and then it got killed one hour after Trump said that he was going to do an executive order on Big Tech, you know? | |
| And They dismissed Laura Loomer's case. | |
| They killed it without even... | |
| With a four-page decision. | |
| And they said that, hey, we don't even have... | |
| It's so ridiculous that we don't even have to give it, you know, an opinion, essentially. | |
| And then there was a Prager University lawsuit, and that was filed under California jurisdiction. | |
| I mean, come on. | |
| Like, are the courts really not going to side with Google on that? | |
| And so I have this suspicion, and I'm not asserting it's true, but I suspect it's true, that these jurisdictions were played in order to make sure that the system was rigged. | |
| And so... | |
| We've been looking at different jurisdictions, different states where we can file this thing, and we've got a good set of candidates where we believe that we're going to have a better outcome. | |
| And I don't want to talk about which jurisdiction this is, but we've looked at them like, wow, this... | |
| The 60s wrote a bunch of really powerful laws, and we're going to use this in order to prevent additional discrimination. | |
| Well, just off the top of my head, and you don't have to react to this or anything, and we haven't spoken about this, but I would just say East Texas. | |
| I mean, if you want a jury that's going to go against the tech giants, get an East Texas jury. | |
| They're famous for that. | |
| You just got to find a company that's in East Texas that's been discriminated against by Google. | |
| That's my suggestion. | |
| Right, that's a really good suggestion, Mike. | |
| And I don't want to comment on that further, but, you know, that's a really good example of a jurisdiction that is favorable to us. | |
| And so, you know, this is, you know, I think that we can, you know, by forcing this in a friendly jurisdiction, we can force the issue. | |
| And if we really have this three-pronged approach, like, hey, like, Legal, cultural, political, then we're going to win this thing. | |
| And we're winning this thing right now. | |
| Like, Trump has said, hey, look, we need to take a look at Section 230 and possibly strip this. | |
| And if he does that for us, that's going to be the biggest gain that we're going to have is directly from the president. | |
| Sorry to interject, but didn't the executive order effectively order the FCC to reinterpret Section 230? | |
| Yeah. | |
| Yes. | |
| But that depends on the FCC, and I believe the FCC quickly after that said that they don't want to even be in the business of interpreting Section 230. | |
| So there's kind of a rejection there of what the president wanted to do already. | |
| I mean, if these federal agencies are basically going to just say, Google, you can do whatever you want, it's hands-off, then what can the president even do? | |
| I mean, here's the thing, is that All warfare is based on deception. | |
| I think that there's an information warfare going on right now. | |
| And so what you see is that you see a lot of people contradicting the president, and then the president gets his way. | |
| I'll give you an example. | |
| The president's like, hey, we need rates to go to essentially zero. | |
| And Powell's like, no, rates aren't going to fall anymore. | |
| And then they fall. | |
| This just happens over and over and over again. | |
| And so when Trump says, hey, we're going to reinterpret Section 230. | |
| And by the way, I think that Section 230 is null and void at this point. | |
| But the president is still playing in this world where Section 230 still is giving protection to these tech companies. | |
| And so I happen to disagree. | |
| I think that essentially we're one court case away from the entire Section 230 being stripped away from these companies. | |
| But, you know, you've got the FCC saying, oh, no, we're not going to meddle on that. | |
| And then what I expect, what's really going to happen is that you're just going to see it. | |
| One day you'll wake up and they'll be gone. | |
| And so I think that there's a lot of momentum carrying us forward. | |
| And we already have some big names that have come out and, you know, supported us. | |
| SGT Report, whose channel is over half a million, he came out and interviewed with us. | |
| And you, Mike Adams, have come out and interviewed with us. | |
| And I know that you're throwing your weight behind this. | |
| And we thank you very much. | |
| And, you know, what we need to do is we need to keep that momentum going. | |
| Because it's not just you guys, it's all of us, America, that is interested in seeing the preservation of the First Amendment rights and the freedom of speech. | |
| So stopbitburning.com is the website for this, and I'd like to interview you again if you're open to it in the near future. | |
| I'd like to ask you some additional questions about, for example, if Section 230 were nullified, What would that look like the very next day? | |
| How would Google internally begin to alter its own ranking algorithms? | |
| How would they even begin to re-monetize accounts or bring people back? | |
| Or would they just resist it? | |
| You know what I mean? | |
| There's so many questions about how can they even reverse this, even if they're acting in good faith? | |
| And I'm not sure they would act in good faith. | |
| Because the damage they've done, the number of businesses they've destroyed, lives they've destroyed, the demonetization, the censorship, the changes in the culture, the rigging of the 2018 midterm elections. | |
| How do you reverse all of that? | |
| Because this has been going on for years. | |
| And, you know, to me, I think, I mean, my opinion is you abolish Google. | |
| You abolish it and say that that can never be allowed to rise up again in our society, just like the Third Reich. | |
| That's just my personal opinion. | |
| I don't think you can reform Google because, as you've even said, the culture is so devastatingly authoritarian and Marxist, you can't have a government force ethics onto immoral people who are biased and bigoted themselves. | |
| That's what Google has become. | |
| This video was made possible by Brighteon.com. | |
| After being deplatformed by YouTube, I built Brighteon.com so that we can speak. | |
| All voices of dissent are welcome. |
Export Selection