Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein dissect the censorship crisis, exposing how Senate hearings revealed Mark Zuckerberg's "Tasks" platform coordinating with Google and Twitter to suppress dissent under vague "foreign influence" labels. They critique Jack Dorsey's refusal to address climate misinformation policies, arguing this collusion between crony capitalists and the state creates a totalitarian slide where private gatekeepers enforce government agendas. Ultimately, the episode warns that allowing tech giants to define truth without accountability threatens free speech and accelerates the concentration of power in dangerous hands. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Heshy Socks Holiday Special00:01:49
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gas Digital Network.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is, of course, Heshy Sox.
The holiday season is here, and this is the season of Heshy Socks.
Their brand new product is available for purchase right now on their websites.
Heshy has added invisible liner socks with cushioned soles and non-slip gel inserts.
They've added more ankle socks, they've added more fashion socks, more colors, they've added more basics, and they've just released a collection from Bassmaster world champion Mike Achinelli.
I promise you, you will not find a more comfortable sock for work, boots, or sneakers.
Any listener of this podcast who has purchased these socks can attest to their greatness.
I wear them all the time, the best socks I've ever owned.
For those of you who are new to the podcast and haven't jumped on board yet, what are you waiting for?
If you're tired of your feet hurting in your shoes after a long day of work, go to Heshisocks.com.
They will solve this problem for you.
Most socks are expensive, poorly constructed, and provide zero protection, not Heshy socks.
Under $10 a pair with our promo code, all Heshi socks are cushioned in the heel, foot, and toe.
They have arch support in the center so your feet don't slosh around in your shoes.
They all have antimicrobial properties to kill the stink, but best of all, they're designed to stay up so you don't have to tug up at your socks all day long.
So, whether you need socks for yourself, your secret Santa, your stocking stuffers, or for a kick-ass life, go to Heshisocks.com, H-E-S-H-I-S-O-C-K-S dot com, and enter the promo code problem30 for 30% off your entire order.
Heshisocks.com, heaven for your feet.
The Fake News Problem00:11:26
All right, let's get back into the show.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of part of the problem.
I am the most consistent motherfucker you know, the libertarian Tupac.
He is the king of the caulks, the fire.
Robbie Bernstein, what's up, my brother?
How you living?
I'm doing good.
How about you, Davey Smith?
Doing very good.
Can't complain.
Cannot, will not, won't stop, can't stop.
Rockefeller records.
All right.
So for today's episode, I wanted to talk about big tech companies, tech censorship, and other issues related to that.
Of course, there were, if you didn't see, there were some hearings in the Senate yesterday.
They had Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey both testify.
You know, they do like the remote testifying thing, but they're both, you know, under oath.
And I thought they were interesting, a bit more interesting than the typical hearings on this subject, where it's usually just a bunch of old people who don't understand technology grilling these kind of tech geniuses about what's going on.
And they have no, it was a little bit more interesting than usual.
I should say, now, obviously, we've talked about this topic before on the show.
And I think pretty much no question we will talk about it again on the show because it really is that important.
This is a really, really central issue.
And it's one that Free thinkers and particularly libertarians are going to have to grapple with going forward because it's just too important to not thoughtfully consider.
So, well, I'll just say, like, full disclosure before we start this, because obviously, you know, I have like I'm biased as always.
You know, I have my views on these things.
And I have, so personally speaking, I will say, number one, I'm pretty pissed off at Facebook because they fucking banned our private group and they've that bothered me quite a bit.
We will announce in the next few days the relocation of the group.
I apologize that we're going to space.
We're going, we're going Space Force group, part of the problem.
We're going to Mars.
That's where we can talk about radical Rothbardian and Kapistan.
But, you know, I apologize.
I thought I'd have that figured out by now, but I got, you know, went out to Austin to change lives on the Joe Rogan experience.
So I got a little delayed with that.
But we will figure that out in the next few days and we'll have a new home away from Facebook.
But I would also say that I do like I've benefited a lot from social media companies.
I mean, I've, you know, like this is kind of a big part of how I have a career is my internet presence.
Pretty much the whole thing is the internet presence.
And we live in a world where things have become so politicized, everything has.
And believe me, Robbie will tell you, and pretty much any other comic will tell you, the comedy scene is no different from that.
And obviously, the big networks and stuff like that, it's going to be almost impossible in today's climate for someone like me or Rob to get like a big network gig or whatever the kind of traditional routes that comedians would take.
That's not really on the table anymore, but the internet is ours for the taking, you know, and we can make careers this way.
And so I'm really, I'm grateful for the services and what you can do with them.
I think it's like the best weapon that the truth has that people can communicate online and kind of, you know, at least for a little while there, we could do it without gatekeepers in the way that, say, like the, you know, the just television or, you know, like the corporate press or anything like that has you deal with.
So true ideas can get out and be spread.
And of course, the corporate press and the government and all of these other, you know, groups, they make a big deal about how much fake news is spread through the internet.
But from my perspective, it's like that's that's kind of missing the forest for the trees.
Like the real story is that true news can be spread through these outlets.
And of course, fake news can also, but fake news being spread is nothing new.
You know, like Americans were lied into World War I. You know, it's the fake news has been going on for a long time.
So anyway, so that's just kind of full disclosure.
That's where I'm at.
I'm very frustrated with the censorship aspect of it, but I do really love the positives of a lot of these social media companies.
So I'm in some ways conflicted on that.
And I think that far too often, people who are critical of the social media companies are guilty of being somewhat ungrateful for the positive aspects of them.
And I hate that.
I always hated this when leftists would do this with big corporations in general.
And so I don't want to be that person.
I don't want to be the person who's just complaining about something that somebody else built that I benefit from.
But I'm also, you know, like very upset that fucking, you know, my group has been banned from Facebook.
And I'm very upset that it really bugs me that we all kind of have to live with this ever-present silent threat that's very real, that you could say the wrong thing and lose access to communication, which is really what it is.
And, you know, there might be, I don't know, you know, forgetting even like the pure libertarian theory of it, there hasn't really been a situation quite like this before.
And so it's important to approach it thoughtfully.
Like it's not, you know, if the phone companies were privatized, you know, which they largely are, but I'm saying like back in the day, but they were kind of then like zoned by the government.
And so it was kind of quasi, but let's just say hypothetically they were, you know, and you having the wrong political opinion could get your phone shut off.
So it's just straight up like you can't communicate with the outside world anymore.
And also the post office just won't send your fucking letters anymore.
And, you know, whatever, I know the post office is the government, but let's say like FedEx and UPS are also, you know, colluding together and they're both not going to ship your packages anymore.
I mean, that would be a real serious problem that you now lose communication to the world if you say the wrong thing.
And this is more or less what we're creeping toward with the internet.
And this is a really serious problem.
And it's something that, you know, I think from what I've seen, outside of the Beltway libertarians and the and some random libertarians without much influence, most of the libertarians who have big platforms have been pretty good about taking this, you know, this threat seriously.
The Beltway libertarians seem to do nothing but just kind of poke holes in what every government solution would result in, which is, you know, somewhat reasonable and it's important.
If you're advocating the government do anything, it's pretty important to think it through and see where this might actually lead.
But sometimes, you know, again, I think they're missing the forest for the trees.
And it's like, okay, yes, you know, like you can get into how repealing Section 230 may not actually solve this problem.
And in fact, I don't think it would.
But there's a bigger issue here that you're kind of ignoring.
So I think about when Reason Magazine, who, you know, I've got a lot of friends over at Reason Magazine and I like them.
They do a lot of really great work.
But when they, if you remember, they wrote this article about cuties, that disgusting movie that was on Netflix that is literally a movie where a director is auditioning 11-year-old girls to twerk in like, you know, skimpy outfits where they're like, 11-year-old girls are like grabbing their genitals like on screen.
It's like really disgusting, creepy shit.
And Ted Cruz came out and Said that they should be prosecuted under child porn laws.
And so, Reason Magazine writes this whole article that's like, no, Ted Cruz, you know, child porn laws don't actually mean this.
And they're very specific in these laws that there has to be nudity and XYZ.
And now, technically speaking, they might be right about that legal argument.
I really don't even know.
You know what I mean?
But like, but don't you kind of see where, like, when you get all of these people online basically calling you a pedo-apologist, do you kind of get where it comes off that way to a lot of people?
Because even if you are right in the technical argument, and I'm not saying you can't point this out, but aren't you kind of missing the bigger picture here?
That's like, yeah, but a lot of people are saying this is like really poisonous shit and we shouldn't be sexualizing children.
And that people saying that and being disgusted with Netflix is also the market.
That's also the free market.
That's the consumers of a product voicing disgust for the product, which I think is a very healthy thing to have happening.
So in that same sense, where it's like, okay, so like at best, you're missing the bigger picture.
And at worst, you're kind of apologizing for the perpetrators of something that's really ugly.
And in this case, really, and in both cases, I should say, really a threat, a very serious threat.
And here's the problem for any of the libertarians out there who are like, well, you know, it's a private company.
They can do what they want.
Or, or even worse, the ones who I've seen, you know, arguing that like, well, this is the free market taking care of the problem of, you know, fake news or bigots or whatever it is you're saying.
It's like, okay, well, here's the thing, right?
Over this year, and I know me and you have talked about this before, Rob, but the real turn, I mean, obviously this stuff's been building and building, and there's lots of different, you know, examples, but the real turn, at least on Facebook, came with the COVID shit, where if anyone was posting information and sometimes maybe not great, but sometimes really good information about how lockdowns are bullshit, COVID's being overplayed, you know, overhyped, just lots of things.
Sheath Underwear Comfort00:03:06
Like there's really no evidence that lockdowns mitigate the virus.
There's no evidence that masks do too much to mitigate the virus.
Like all of these different articles, things like where it's a doctor telling you that ventilators are killing people.
Now, of course, in April, this was considered fake news, except it was true.
And now everybody acknowledges it.
And in fact, the fake news was fucking Governor Cuomo saying that we need 50,000 ventilators or whatever.
That was actually bullshit.
We didn't need that many ventilators.
New York got a fraction of them and didn't end up using them, ended up giving a bunch away.
So it's not always so obvious what the fake news is and what isn't.
But this was this COVID thing is where they really decided to make a targeted effort to bust fake news.
They're straight up removing posts, even from within our private group at the time, rest in peace.
They'd be removing things that criticized the lockdowns.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our awesome sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear.
Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn in my life.
This is not something I'm just saying.
I only wear Sheath underwear at this point.
You'll never put on a more comfortable pair of boxer briefs.
If you're sick of your boxers that are too loose or briefs that are too tight, Sheath is for you.
Here's what makes Sheath unique: their stretchy fabric is made out of a moisture-wicking technology.
They feel super soft, keep everything cool, comfortable, and in place.
It's the perfect underwear for working out.
Plus, the most unique thing about Sheath underwear is they have these dual pouches that keep your man parts separated, keeps everything where they're supposed to be, not sticking together.
It's huge for working out or being in hot environments.
I will admit, I was a little skeptical about the pouch going in, but it's a game changer.
I love it.
And with the holidays coming up, Sheath is the perfect gift for you or the man in your life.
No more chafing, no more sweat, just comfort and support.
Now, for some of you guys, you may not be interested in using the pouch.
It doesn't matter.
You don't have to use it.
You can just wear it like a regular pair of underwear, and it'll just be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you've ever owned in your life.
Plus, the founder of Sheath Underwear is a big fan of this show and a libertarian.
So make sure you go support them.
They're supporting this show.
A great company, a great product.
Go to sheathunderwear.com, get the most comfortable pair of underwear you will ever own.
And if you use the promo code problem20, you'll also get 20% off your entire order.
One more time, that's sheathunderwear.com promo code problem20 for 20% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
The government has taken, I mean, I hesitate to use the word, but I think it's the right word: totalitarian powers.
I mean, I don't know how else you could describe the government literally telling you where you can, like how you can have Thanksgiving, where you need to stand during Thanksgiving, and under what conditions grandma can use the bathroom.
I mean, like, if that's not totalitarian, what then the word has no meaning and it's never existed.
It's the closest to totalitarianism that this country's ever seen.
Government Overreach Concerns00:15:12
So the government is doing that, right?
And now you have these tech companies silencing anyone who dare criticize that.
So you start to see where this thing, and I've always said for years, like my biggest issues are the wars or the Federal Reserve or the war on drugs or all these other things.
And they still are.
They're still the most important issues.
And now throw in, you know, the lockdowns and fucking all this shit.
But don't you see where this in some way becomes the central issue?
Because all other issues flow through this.
If we're not allowed to talk about these things, if when you do talk about these things, you lose your ability to communicate with others, then that's the whole game right there.
So that's kind of why I've been taking this very seriously.
And I am, and I'll say this: I'm open to anything.
Like I'll hear out any proposed solution for how we make sure that we're still able to communicate and to talk about all of these issues that matter so much.
So that's more or less my opening overview of it.
Rob, I know you, you know, this is something you've thought about a lot and seeing a lot of people censored and kicked off these social network sites.
So I don't know.
Anything, any thoughts?
Yeah, I think, I mean, you laid out the importance of it beautifully.
I still just am really reluctant to advocate for government legislation in any way.
I feel like if anything, a lot of what's going on in these social media platforms is that they've somehow been infiltrated by the left and they seem to be vehicles for pushing those agendas.
And I don't think that that will become any better if for some reason we create government legislation or groups to actually watch over them.
With that being said, you know, there is something to be said for just like government consumer advocacy.
So I think the fact that the Republicans are just bringing them in and making a show of what's going on without necessarily calling for additional legislation, but just really kind of consumer market advocacy that's almost like a public good by government.
So I don't really have a problem with that, especially if they're just exposing what's not fair about a company.
I think any talk about them being monopoly is not really true.
I do think new technologies will come.
And I saw an article that after the election, parlor, like new user engagement was way, way up.
Yeah, they were number one in the app store for a little while.
Right.
Now, I got to be, I went to check out Parlor Once and just everyone says that it's like the more free speech platform, but just that first page for signing up just looked intimidating to me where I was like, this looks worse.
And I just kind of wasn't now, that doesn't mean I'm reluctant for new technology.
And I already like, I don't like social media.
I hang out there because you need it for your comedy career.
And so, like, every time I got to sign up for a new platform, it's like, fuck, I got to, I got to deal with this one.
That, like, it's not, it's not what I like to do.
It's not me.
It's just kind of what you need for comedy careers.
So I'm not really looking to be addicted or into some new social media platform.
But just to go, I think this is, it's very interesting to explore what's going on with Facebook, especially what you laid out that they were censoring like a lot of the science information, which is now turning out to be true.
And that's really creepy and scary.
But I don't know that I have a quick solution off the top of my head because I really just don't want to see any increased government power legislation.
Yeah.
Look, so I agree with all of that.
I'm really skeptical.
And I want to really, you know, think through how this is actually going to work in reality for any proposal that involves any government intervention.
However, I will say that it's, you know, it reminds me of this wasn't my example.
Someone, I can't remember who.
I apologize to whoever did post this at me, but someone used this example and I mentioned it on the show when we were talking about the riots and talking about government.
You know, if we're in a situation where that's the only weapon to use against the riots, and I made clear that I'd prefer that people be allowed to defend their own property, that private militias, private defense organizations be allowed to do what they do.
But of course, the state is prosecuting those people and not allowing that to happen.
But they were talking about with the riots.
And the example that this person used, who I can't remember, was what, you know, would a libertarian have been on the side of the czar putting down the Bolshevik revolution.
So putting down the communist revolution.
Now, at the time, the commies were private actors and the government was the state.
But you could see where if the state had put down that movement, it would have resulted in much less statism in the long run and probably something like 100 million dead people between what happened in the Soviet Union and Mao's China.
And all of this stuff doesn't happen without the Bolshevik revolution.
So again, I'm not now that's not like a proof or a rule that can be applied everywhere, but it is kind of an interesting thought experiment to go, yeah, look, there are probably examples, probably some cases where a state action could be used that would violate some degree of libertarian, you know, philosophy or principles that would result in more liberty in the long run.
And I think that that's something, even though that might make libertarians uncomfortable to think about, is something that you have to think about in some areas.
And that doesn't mean you start advocating for statism.
I mean, you have to like think it through and you never know exactly how things are going to work out in the long run.
So it's a dangerous game to play.
But I'll say this.
If there was a situation where some type of state intervention could, you know, hold off a greater expansion of the state and it could hold off, say, like, you know, more big government lefties getting in control or something like that.
Like if some, if there was theoretically some action that would violate libertarian principles, but would result in more liberty for more real people in the long run, I'm okay with taking that.
I'm not like, and this is maybe where I've changed in the last decade or something like that.
Part of it's probably, you know, getting married, having a kid, being successful, like these things do affect your perspective a little bit, but i'm not so interested in being able to say i'm the purest libertarian ever.
What i'm interested in is actually seeing liberty in real people's lives.
That's more important to me.
What i'm actually interested is a peaceful, prosperous society that I can raise my daughter in, not in going down on the Titanic, but as we go down saying, but I never compromised my principles.
Now i'm again.
I understand, I recognize this is a dangerous game to play and you got to be really, really careful when you go down that road.
But i'm just saying in theory, like that's where my head is at i'm.
I'm more concerned with what really helps people in real life, and so if there is like i'm, i'm getting more and more comfortable with the idea of, if there are these huge which you know, let's get real like this is the public square in 2020.
It's, it's online, it's it's social media.
This is where people communicate, especially when the government's got you locked in your house.
Um, this is how people communicate.
And if those um uh, you know companies like a handful of companies who, by the way, are cronyist.
They're all in bed with government and have been from the very beginning.
So if these crony capitalists have incredible control over the public square and how people communicate and they're going to say things like well, you can't criticize uh, government totalitarianism, you know, you can't uh, you know whatever.
And and it's not really that slippery of a slope to imagine them saying oh, you know, like you were talking about earlier uh, a few episodes ago, how the FED is talking about, you know, taking on systemic racism and all this.
So is it really global warming too?
Now right well, so so is it that big of a of a jump to say well now, you can't criticize the FED because that's racism too, or that's client climate denialism or whatever?
So if there were these tech giants saying you can't criticize the government, you can't criticize the FED, maybe you can't criticize the wars, all of these, and there were any way to say no, you're not allowed to do that.
I'm kind of okay with you not being allowed to silence these people again.
By the way, that's not i'm.
I still agree completely with what you just said a minute ago rob, like i'm very skeptical of any of these policies.
I also hate hearing these Republicans rewrite the history on what antitrust legislation has done.
Those laws were stupid to begin with.
They never did anything to break up monopolies.
There's never been a long sustained monopoly in the free market anyway.
Um, i'm sorry.
Anyway, go ahead, all right.
So I agree 100.
We got this real problem right now where they can claim that certain topics are dangerous or certain topics promote violence or violate the community standards, and then they're completely removed.
And what you're pointing to are really good examples that, all of a sudden, if tech companies are on the side of global warming, anything that says hey, we shouldn't be getting rid of our cars or you know, doing crazy things that wouldn't be good for economic growth, that all might be censored and that's really scary and insanity.
To go to your example that you were mentioning of um mail like the mail no longer sending your letters or the phone line, okay.
So I think the only case that that would really happen is if government's In bed with, for example, your phone, your internet, your mail company, and they see you as a political threat.
And so they go, listen, we want to cut off all communication channels.
And so that, in that case, it's more of a government problem that why does government have the ability to kind of coordinate with companies and be able to do this.
If you just look at those as being private companies, let's say your mail company, your cable company, let's just go with FedEx.
FedEx decides for whatever reason they don't like Rob Bernstein and they don't want to take my letters.
So should we, I don't know, should FedEx have the right as a private company to just go, hey, I don't like Rob.
I don't want to take his letters.
I would say, yeah, I would say it's weird.
I would think over time they might lose market share.
I might be able to go out and go, hey, why is FedEx, you know, but like at the end of the day, should there be a law against FedEx telling me, hey, I don't like FedEx, we don't like bald people.
We're not going to send the mail for bald people.
Like, would we advocate the government?
Like, that should be the right of FedEx to decide, hey, I just don't want to cater to someone.
Like, I'm saying, if you separate the two-page steps, I agree.
Look, I think that what's important to keep in mind here, and this to me is like what libertarians' role is in this whole conversation, is to point out that the problem here is the government.
And it's right at the center of the problem.
All of these other problems are, you know, like derived from the central problem, which is the state.
That's where it all comes from.
I mean, look, if you look at, say, the thing that everyone's so freaked out about, like what this huge ramp up in tech censorship, right?
It's like, well, what were they censoring?
They were censoring a New York Post story about Joe Biden's corruption.
Well, why were they censoring that?
Because there was a big election coming up and they wanted Joe Biden to win the election.
The problem all goes back to the fact that this is being done to secure political authority for one group over another.
The problem is all related right back to the state.
This isn't like me trying to force my libertarian narrative into the situation.
It's blatantly what the situation is.
Oh, what is Facebook censoring?
They're censoring anybody who's against the lockdowns.
Well, what are the lockdowns?
The lockdowns are the government locking you in your home or pretty close to that.
So the problem all goes back to the state.
And so, of course, in your example, where you're like, well, if there was a free market, right, then right, we wouldn't have this problem because even if FedEx decided, oh, we're not going to mail things for bald people.
Okay, well, and this is the beauty of the free market in a lot of ways.
Well, what would they do then?
Well, they'd just open up a market for a competitor because now there's all these bald people who need to get their shit mailed.
And so, you know what I mean?
Like now, there's a big opening for another entrepreneur to come in and take that business and all of this stuff, right?
So the question isn't, and this is the fucking complexity of it that libertarians have to deal with.
The question isn't, would a free market solve all of this?
Yeah, it would.
A free market would solve these problems.
And the question isn't even, is it morally legitimate for the government to tell a free company what they can do?
Like, no, it's not morally legitimate.
The problem is that we don't live in that free market.
We live in this big government crony capitalist, quasi-fascistic state.
And in that state, if anybody is criticizing the government, they can now be silenced for doing that.
So here's where the problem comes in: it's that if you, the people who are pointing this out can now be silenced, as well as people who are pointing out some other, you know, like dumb opinions.
But, you know, it's, it's not like, first off, libertarians haven't been immune to this.
Libertarians have been silenced on a lot of major platforms.
I mean, fucking YouTube was flagging Ron Paul Institute videos, and as well as a bunch of libertarian groups, we're not the only ones have been shut down on Facebook and Twitter and all this stuff.
But, you know, just imagine, right, if libertarians ever got our numbers up enough to be a real threat to the status quo.
Well, then we know what they would do.
And again, like I said, if you, you know, again, to the point I was making before, the slippery slope is not really just a theoretical anymore.
It's happening in real time.
We're watching Twitter lock the account of one of the top five biggest newspapers in the country and ban the link and kick people off.
We're watching them silence the president of the United States of America.
So we've seen this all happening.
And then as you're watching this slope, like you're watching this slippery slope go down, you start to wonder, well, how much further is it going?
What is the next stop on this slope if we keep going in this direction?
And it's just not that, you know, unreasonable to project out on this trajectory what the next stop might be.
And we could see, you know, like we were just talking about.
Okay, well, climate denialism.
You know, I don't know, anything that, you know, is it really like advocating for gun rights or something like this?
It's very easy once you accept dangerous, extremist, you know, hate speech, all of these like words, it's very easy to apply them to all of these other views.
I mean, if you believe that gun rights are killing people, then it's pretty dangerous to advocate for gun rights.
If you believe that climate change is an existential threat, then it's pretty dangerous to argue against climate change, you know, like all of these things.
And is it really that big of a jump when we've seen this happen already?
People have been banned off PayPal, they've been banned from credit card services.
Like, how, where is this going?
Climate Denialism Risks00:10:01
And that is, you know, that's what you have to think about.
So let's go with you and I are in 100% agreement here that limiting the ideas of the information that we can have is dangerous.
And particularly the tool that they're playing here is that us seeing information will cause violence or will cause health.
You know, that's the play here.
Like, for example, there's more and more information coming out that the lockdowns didn't work.
Not only the lockdowns didn't work, but that herd immunity thing, which was if you said the word herd immunity, that meant you were looking for people to die, might have been the best way to go about it because healthy people that weren't at risk, we would have gotten the immunity and then there would be less risk for the at-risk populations.
It might turn out to be true.
I'm not saying that as an absolute, but that information would have been helpful for us to see.
The global warming is a perfect example that if they want to take away all of our cars and all the fossil fuels and any other ideas dangerous to even explore, we're going to end up with the poorest countries in the world dying of starvation.
That will be the end result.
And they'll tell us that they're promoting safety by outlawing fossil fuels and that anything suggesting otherwise or exploring even the concept of financial growth is dangerous.
So you and I are agreement.
The idea that they can take away information because they can label anything as dangerous, that in itself is dangerous.
Now, you and I would also agree that a business really, they shouldn't be racist.
Like if you had a restaurant, you shouldn't put up a sign, whites only.
You shouldn't do that.
You and I would agree.
We wouldn't go eat at that restaurant because that's absolutely not.
Wait, are Jews considered white?
Yeah.
I have a feeling the person who puts up a white only sign doesn't consider Jews white.
But we don't, we sound too, as long as we don't talk that much.
And we don't sound that too.
We sound a little more New York.
But anyways, that's pretty funny.
It's just like we're sitting there eating and it just comes out and something like, Rob, could you hand me a schmeckle of Jews?
What did you say?
No, no, no, no.
Is it just a little bit?
No, it's this bagel is underdone.
Do you?
Where'd you guys learn how to make bagels?
I can show you.
The second you try and send something back or ask for something.
They're like, are you fucking Jews?
Get the fuck out.
Didn't you see the fucking sign?
My soup isn't that hot.
Right.
Okay.
So you got this business and it has a big old sign out front, whites only.
Okay.
So if they've got a customer base of all whites that want to eat in their all-white restaurant, I think a lot of people would come around and go, you're not supposed to do that in society that shouldn't exist.
And they would turn to the government and say, you absolutely need to change this.
And I understand that point of view, but I don't think that's yours and I's point of view.
I think if you're a business and that's the way you want to operate and there's a market for that, God bless.
I don't understand it.
I don't think it's going to last.
And I think people are going to shame that away.
But you see what I'm saying?
Like, there's still just something to, it's your business and you should have the freedom to operate that, operate it in the way that you want.
And I guess Facebook and Twitter, the more interesting thing to look at would be maybe to what extent I guess government's allowing them to have the power that they do in the market, in which case you got to attack the power source.
But the idea, like if on Twitter, I'm just saying, is it theoretical?
If Twitter purged all of us off of Twitter and then they had this new marketplace of all these leftist people and they liked being there without us all there and now Twitter's making its money and that group of people is more happy not having the discourse and the open environment of all of us on there.
Do I think that's good for society?
No.
Do I think they should run that business in that way?
No.
Do they have the right to do so?
I think they should.
Yeah.
Well, listen, I do agree with you.
Look, I believe in the right to discriminate.
I believe in freedom of association, all that shit.
But you can believe that and still see this and go, this is going in a dangerous direction.
And I'm just that, that's basically, I think, the central point that I'm trying to make.
That is like, this is really fucking dangerous.
And the problem and the thing that's a little bit different about this example than other examples of discrimination is that we are, you know, the hope, from my perspective, at least, the hope for society is that more people, more and more people get red pilled, that more and more people wake up to the true nature of what's going on here, the true nature of the state, the true nature of the culture, the true nature of the suicide mission that this country has embarked on.
And in order to do that, you have to wake more people up.
They have to be presented with compelling arguments, with interesting information, with compelling narratives, you know, all of this stuff.
And right now, what they're able to do is stop a lot of people who otherwise would be red pilled from seeing the information that would redpill them.
And that to me is a whole different dynamic than what exists in other forms of marketplace discrimination.
So the fact that America, now I don't know, you know, there's no way of knowing.
I don't even think they know how many people who would have been persuaded have been stopped from seeing this stuff.
But what would it look like?
What would the country look like if all of the information that exposed these disastrous lockdowns had been seen by way more people?
I mean, I don't know.
I don't know that it would make a difference, but it might.
They're not doing it for no reason.
They're doing it specifically so that less people see this information.
And if a lot more of them saw the information, whatever the numbers are, there's a percentage of them who would be influenced by it.
And maybe this saves real lives.
Maybe this really stops, you know, like maybe it's enough.
Maybe not.
But if we have any hope at all, we have to be able to get this information out to people.
So that's the different element to all of this stuff.
There's also a lot of complexities to what these companies are actually doing, how it affects the psychology of individuals who are consuming this stuff, and just a lot of secrecy around what's really going on when you use these social media companies.
And that was explored a little bit in the hearings.
So I wanted to play.
Sure, go ahead.
That one thing that I was just thinking of while you were talking is that from a public relations standpoint, even the idea of addressing herd immunity was unallowable.
I mean, you could go anywhere and try and mention the word herd immunity and, you know, people would be in an uproar.
Hey, you're talking about people dying.
Part of why that is, though, is the fact that our government is so large and so socialized that we essentially said we were going to mail people checks.
If you removed that and you removed the entire amount of bailout money that existed, I promise you, it would have been a different conversation about, hey, we can't afford to shut down.
So what are our other options here?
And that wouldn't have looked like Looney talk.
No, that's such a good point, dude.
That's such a good point.
It's a really important thing that can't be overstated enough.
Throughout this whole year, look, there were some third world countries where they tried lockdowns and the people just revolted.
And they just like, we're like, no, we're not doing it.
And it was like, oh, okay.
Because they're like, no, we'll starve.
We're not doing this.
And in the same way, you know, and there's evidence of this, right?
Where you'll see if you go ask your average politician or your average public school teacher or something like that, how they feel about lockdowns, they're very likely to be like, yes, yes, we have to be really careful.
We have to lock down.
The teachers were protesting the opening of schools because they're getting paid either way.
It doesn't matter.
You know, it's that same with like, you know, CNN news anchors or something like that.
They're making millions of dollars whether or not they open up.
They're fine.
But if you go ask small business owners, they're dying for the opportunity for things to be opened back up because they're losing everything.
So obviously incentives matter when it comes down to this stuff.
So if you just didn't have a Federal Reserve that could just print up all of this fucking money so that everyone gets bailed out, there's no question way more people would oppose the lockdowns than do when they can be bailed out.
There's just no question about it.
And that's a really, really important point.
So I'm glad you made that.
Right.
So just the framework of this entire conversation is within the government power structure, which makes it so difficult to really analyze and advocate for.
And just, yeah, yeah.
All right.
Let's get into some of the clips.
Yeah.
All right.
So first, terrible, terrible segue there.
Well, you know, if there was ever a moment to edit, go for that.
What's funny too is you were coming off such a great point.
Like you made such a good point.
And then you could have just gone, all right, let's go into the video from there.
And we'd have been like, nice job, Robbie.
But then you got a little like gassed up.
You're like, fuck yeah, I'm making great points.
Let's go.
And, you know, whatever.
One for two, not bad.
All right, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Infinite CBD.
I'm thrilled to have them back as a sponsor on the show.
If nothing else, just so they send me more of that freezing point topical cream, which is the best.
Oh my God, if you have muscle pain or achiness, you need to get some of this freezing point topical cream.
It's unbelievable.
It works better than anything else for sore muscles.
At least for me, I can say it works better than anything else.
As people who listen to the show know, I had a pinched nerve last year.
It's driving me crazy.
I still get some pain from it every now and then.
Put a little bit of the freezing point topical cream on feels so much better.
They also have a stick where you can just put the freezer right on and you use it to kind of massage out the sore muscles with the same freezing point topical cream.
I recommend checking out the stick.
Also, a really great product.
If you've never checked out Infinite CBD before, they've been a long time sponsor of this show and other shows on the network.
They have the best CBD products on the market.
They were even ranked number one CBD company by herb.co.
Infinite CBD has a wide range of products.
They have gummies, lube, nano products.
Again, my personal favorite is the freezing point topical cream.
Make sure you check them out at infinitcbd.com.
And if you use the promo code P-O-T-P, you'll get 30% off your entire order for the holiday season instead of the usual 20%.
Content Moderation Coordination00:15:29
So that's infinitesbd.com.
The promo code is P-O-T-P, and you're going to get 30% off your entire order.
It's a really great deal from a really great company.
Go check it out right now, infinitcbd.com, promo code P-O-T-P for 30% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
So this guy, Hawley, Hawley, I think his name is, but he, this was interesting, a Republican senator, and he was grilling Mark Zuckerberg.
It's a fairly long exchange.
So we'll play some of this and then we can stop where we want to.
So let's play that clip.
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 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.
The tasks platform allows Facebook employees to communicate about projects they're working on together.
That includes Facebook censorship teams, including the so-called community well-being team, the integrity team, and the hate speech engineering team, who all use the task platform to discuss which individuals or hashtags or websites to ban.
Now, Mr. Zuckerberg, you're familiar with the task platform, aren't you?
Senator, we use the task system for people coordinating all kinds of work across the company.
Although I'm not sure if I'd agree with the characterizations specifically around content moderation that you gave.
Well, let's get into that.
And let me see if we can refresh your memory and provide folks at home watching with an example.
Here over my shoulder is an example.
It's a screenshot of the task platform in use.
You'll notice if the cameras zoom in, several references to election integrity throughout on these lists of tasks.
Again, this is shared across Facebook sites, company locations by working groups.
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.
So for example, if there is signal around a terrorist attack or around child exploitation imagery or around a foreign government creating an influence operation, that is an area where the companies do share signals about what they do.
Pause for a sec, Brian.
I think it's important to be very clear that that's the most important part of this entire thing is that line right there.
Okay.
When we see a danger within society, yes, we do coordinate and share the information.
And what's included in there, find child trafficking, terrorists.
Firstly, we already saw what government can do under the threat of, hey, terrorism and national security.
But now you've got this third category, which is foreign influence, which is clearly a lot more subjective.
What exactly falls into foreign interference?
What exactly falls into that category?
Who's making those determinations?
And so the answer is, yes, you as a private company are coordinating with three of with two of your competitors to suppress certain information that you deem is dangerous.
But the key, and this is my editor's editorializing is that it's what they want to categorize as being dangerous and who gives them the right to make those categories, like under what basis, under what, like, why does why do they get to make that determination?
And so the answer here is yes.
They do coordinate on things that they want to deem as being dangerous, which is exactly the heart of the problem.
Right.
There's so the way he answers this question is so creepy on so many different levels.
And of course, as you pointed out, there is something about that.
Like, you know, they do this thing where it's like, it's like, well, it's terrorism or, you know, sex trafficking or other dangerous things.
And you're like, wait, let's focus on that third one a little bit because that one seems way vaguer than the first two.
And it does remind me of how the war on terror would work.
Like even those, those congressional authorizations where it would be things like, we authorize the president to, you know, use force against al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-like groups.
And you're like, okay, that first one is the thing.
And the second one is pretty much permission to go after any SUNY with a rifle.
You know what I mean?
Like basically any SUNY with a rifle now can be labeled as an al-Qaeda-like group, you know?
So it just becomes very vague and very wide.
I also, on a more trivial matter, I have noticed anytime anyone opens a statement with let me be clear, it's never clear.
Oh, dude.
They always start with let me be clear.
And then it's the most convoluted thing you've ever heard.
That's a marketing thing.
I actually learned that in my last job was you can say the most complicated thing in the world.
You just have to go, let me put this simply.
Let me make this clear.
It doesn't matter what the fuck you say after that.
It's literally what you say when you're going to say something that doesn't make sense.
Yeah.
No one's ever said something like simply and then prefaced with, let me put this simply, you know, no one's ever said anything that's clear and prefaced with let me clear.
Let me put this in simple terms.
Yeah, right.
And then it's like, I didn't understand any of that.
These aren't simple terms.
And there is something else that I got to say.
It's a very unique, like there's something about these guys.
It's true with Jack Dorsey too and Mark Zuckerberg.
And this is why all the jokes about Mark Zuckerberg not being human and being a robot and all that shit, but it's just a very odd person.
It's very strange.
Something about these type of guys, these like nerds who have become multi-billionaires that it's just very strange.
And that's not, that's not a comment one way or the other.
These are brilliant people that want to be behind a computer.
They're not salespeople.
This is not where Zuckerberg wants to be.
They've gotten the coaching, which is to whatever, and this is just the lawyer coaching is you're under oath.
To whatever extent you can't, don't answer questions.
If there's ever a way to stall and not answer it, don't answer it.
To whatever extent you could say, I'm not sure about that.
I have to clarify that.
There are just certain key phrases that as long as you don't commit yourself one way or the other, you're doing okay.
So a salesperson could do it a little bit more slick than these guys do it.
They're just doing exactly what they've been coached to do by the lawyers.
And so they're actually playing it.
They're playing it smart.
It might not come all well to us, but they're playing it smart.
No, I agree with that.
I guess from my perspective, I would not like have so much disdain for these guys if there was at least just more transparency in it.
Like I really like, it's just what becomes very obvious in this line of questioning and Zuckerberg's answers.
And we'll play some more of it in a sec.
But what becomes very obvious is that he's just really full of shit and doesn't want to come out and just say, look, this is what Facebook does.
And again, I think a lot of us, a lot of people who are critical of the big tech companies, would be less critical if they would just be honest about who they are and what they do.
You know, if Jack Dorsey billions and they got stock investors.
Sure, sure.
I understand.
That's just not their job.
No, I understand.
I'm just saying we would be less critical of them.
We would have less animosity toward them.
If Jack Dorsey was just like, yeah, look, I'm a left-wing guy.
Like, I, you know what I mean?
Like, I'm a Democrat and I lean left and I don't like right-wingers there.
You know, like that, that'd be almost fine.
Be like, okay, at least he's fucking admitting it.
If Facebook was like, yeah, look, this is basically all a scheme to grab your data and violate your privacy.
And that's what we fucking do.
I know you think you're just looking at your fucking aunt's pictures of her kid or whatever, but turns out we're actually doing all.
But all of this shit, he knows exactly what is being asked here.
And he's being so dishonest about what it is that Facebook actually does.
All right, let's keep playing.
It is distinct from the content moderation policies that we or the other companies have, where once we share intelligence or signals between the companies, each company makes its own assessment of the right way to address and deal with that information.
Well, I'm talking about content moderation.
I'm talking about individuals, websites, hashtags, phrases to ban.
Is it your testimony that you do not communicate with Twitter or Google about content moderation, about individuals, websites, phrases, hashtags to ban?
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, but 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.
Well, fortunately, I understand that the task platform is searchable.
Pause again for one second.
Can you provide a list of every mention?
Here's just another.
Maybe he doesn't ask this for political reasons, but one of the best examples, I mean, now you got the coordination, but Alex Jones went down on all platforms at exactly the same time.
Now, part of if you actually have a conversation about like monopolies, part of the way like the airline industry got in trouble a couple of years ago because they were internally, I believe they were setting pricing on airline tickets where they were coordinating pricing so that they didn't have to compete with each other and they got in trouble with that.
There's something to be said for if all three platforms get rid of content at the same time, then they don't have to compete with each other that you can go to that other platform for that content.
So like even an Alex Jones, if you all get rid of him at the same time, so then you don't have to worry that, oh, there's going to be this people that are on Facebook that aren't on Twitter or aren't on YouTube because we've all gotten rid of it.
That's actually, and listen, you know, we could have a larger conversation about monopolies or industries coordinate.
Industries coordinating, I guess, would be more of like cartel kind of talk.
And so this line of reasoning, even though he's not really talking Alex Jones, because I don't think he wants to bring it up, you don't want to be the senator trying to defend Alex Jones or you don't want to be on the news for that.
In this case, I guess the coordination would be, you know, take everyone taking down the Biden story at the same time, which I believe happened.
But it is an interesting aspect that this is something that industries will get in trouble for is the coordination.
And in this case, if you start looking at it, that they're competing for people to want to consume content, everyone in agreement getting rid of content at the same time should be a violation of that coordination.
Yeah.
And again, it's just the problem here is that the government poisons everything that it gets involved with.
That's the real issue at the heart of this, which is why it's somewhat, you know, ironic that this guy who's a fucking senator is sitting here, you know, like grilling the fucking social media CEO.
But the problem, even with someone like Alex Jones, it's like, well, why are they going after Alex Jones?
Why is he getting done?
Like, who is Alex Jones?
Well, he's a guy who criticizes the government for a living.
He's a guy who's now, he may claim that everything's a conspiracy and they're lizard people and shit like that, but it's basically all a criticism of what the government are doing.
And so this is the person who they're trying to shut down.
So there's this element that's involved that is different from other market activities where companies are colluding.
And just in case you're interested, I mean, this guy's got the history of antitrust completely wrong.
And the idea that there were these robber barons who were screwing people over and colluding to keep the prices at a certain level, none of this really ever happened.
And the idea that the government came in and saved the day by shutting them down is all bullshit.
In fact, it completely backfired.
It never worked.
They never took over monopolies in the free market.
If they ever had anything approaching it, it didn't last for long.
They were never able to do it.
They tried.
They were never able to do it.
Tom DiLorenzo is a great guy to read on this topic, if you're interested.
But basically, what the government did, and this is what happens all the time when the government intervenes into the economy, is that they basically drew these robber barons into government.
So once the government comes in and can crack down your business, well, what's the lesson that you learn from that if you're a businessman?
Well, it's that you better have a senator on your back pocket.
You better have a president in your back pocket.
You better pack the courts.
You better, you know, like all these things.
Like you better get, when I say pack the courts, I just mean get, you know, judges who are favorable to you.
You're not working on product development anymore, which is a consumer good.
And you're worried about government.
So now you're in this power game where your product exists by, it actually starts to exist by the rule of force of government, as opposed to that.
And one of the examples, listen, you can hate Bill Gates all you want.
And maybe he's a terrible person and maybe this whole vaccine who, whatever, you can go as far down that rabbit hole as you want.
But he definitely like Microsoft was going to lose market share to Apple and these other companies, regardless of government.
And it would have been interesting to see if Microsoft didn't get caught up in all this legislation and that didn't eat some of Bill Gates's time and mental capacity.
If there would have been better Microsoft products that us as consumers could have enjoyed.
We'll never know the answer to that.
No, it's quite possible.
And also, look, I mean, if he's talking about the robber barons, you know, he's talking about, you know, guys like JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, guys like that.
I mean, these people did an incredible amount to help humanity before they got into the business of, you know, government and quasi-government activities like in the financial sector.
But, you know, JP or excuse me, John D. Rockefeller, I mean, he like not only he saved the whales and he gave people like light in their homes so people could read after dark, created tons of jobs, greatly expanded the economy.
Like as a robber baron, he did a lot of good for the world.
It was once he got into the business of fucking buying off politicians that it all became like evil.
Anti-Human Belief Systems00:06:18
So anyway, they're wrong about the history of all that stuff.
But regardless of that, it's kind of, you know, it's interesting to see all of the dynamics at work now and how things are different in many ways when it comes to the social media companies and companies like Google, like search engines and stuff like that.
But you know what?
We're running up toward the end of the day.
Fuck the whales.
Go ahead.
Fuck the whales.
There you go.
There you go.
So let's actually go to the next video because this was one that really stuck out to me.
And this is the other problem that I think a lot of people really do need to worry about with getting the government involved, with advocating for any solution where the government takes more power to regulate these companies.
This is straight up the example, just because at the beginning we were talking about the slippery slope and these hypotheticals.
Here you have it, right, right from a senator's mouth.
And this time he's grilling Jack Dorsey, who's also a very strange robot person sitting in front of some white China.
But here you have it right from Senator Coons, a powerful Democratic senator, and he's talking about what he thinks these social media companies should do.
Not that there's a problem with censorship.
No, according to Senator Coons, the problem is that there's not enough censorship.
Let's check that clip out.
Mr. Dorsey, have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media, against COVID-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity, but you don't have a standalone climate change misinformation policy.
Why not?
Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem.
It's hard to define it completely and cohesively.
We wanted to scope our approach to start to focus on the highest severity of harm.
We focused on three areas: manipulated media, which you mentioned, civic integrity around the election, specifically in public health, specifically around COVID.
You know, we wanted to make sure that our resources that we have have the greatest impact on where we believed the greatest severity of harm is going to be.
Our policies are living documents.
They will evolve.
We will add to them.
But we thought it important that we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.
And that's the scariest thing I've ever heard.
So let's just leave it right there.
I think that is, by the way, I missed this.
That is the scariest thing I've ever heard.
He just said blatantly: yes, we will try and suppress every category of information, but at the moment, with the resources we have, we're running the experiment on the most urgent of things.
Yes.
But believe me, when we can, we will be the full leftist agenda to ensure that the information you don't want being out there is not that's the that's really bad.
So that's so so this is what I was kind of getting at earlier in this episode: that this isn't, just so we're clear here, this idea of this slippery slope where this could lead to some really scary situations.
This isn't just like me and Rob, like two dumbass comedians sitting around telling you, oh, hey, this is where we think this could go.
I'm telling you that right here, you have a senator and the CEO of Twitter telling you, yes, this is where it's going to go.
You're absolutely right.
A senator sitting there, well, you know, you have all these policies for misinformation here.
Why not climate change?
I mean, why not, you know, that?
And Jack Dorsey is saying, well, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, we really just wanted to focus on making sure the government could lock everyone in their homes because that seemed like the most immediate thing.
But next, we'll make sure that the government can, I don't know, stop fracking or stop people from driving cars or whatever.
I mean, okay, I'm adding a little bit to it, but that's not really that different from what he's saying.
I mean, you really only have to go one layer under the surface of what was actually just said there to see how creepy the implications are.
I mean, here's this senator, Koons, just sitting there just going like, you know, but why should people be allowed to disagree with me at all?
I mean, like, why should anyone who disagrees with me be allowed to have a voice in the public?
That just doesn't seem right.
And he's like, yes, well, you know, this is a living document and we will add to it and we will make sure that we tackle that next.
Like, oh, okay.
So the next thing is now that if you and don't fucking get it twisted of how fucking wrong and stupid all this climate change shit is.
It is the most like anti-human belief system that that is publicly, you know, out there right now.
The idea that people are actually bad, that people pulling themselves out of poverty are actually bad.
People expanding civilization is bad.
All of, you know, technology, industry, all of these things are bad.
Oh, you might think it's good that you just had, you know, your second kid and that your house has heating and that you have a nice car.
You might see that as good, but actually that's bad because carbon emissions.
Because that's, you know, you might think it's like a really good thing that a billion people were pulled out of backbreaking poverty over the last 25 years.
That might sound good to you, but actually it's bad.
I know you were thinking, oh, you know, like kids dying of malnutrition at four years old.
That's bad.
No, no, no.
What's bad is carbon emissions, okay?
Which is what allows them to not die of malnutrition at four years old.
So that's, it is deeply anti-human.
And now, what?
The fact that I just said that?
Should we be kicked off YouTube?
Should I be, you know, like have my Twitter banned or something like that?
So I can't spread this dangerous message of being for people getting pulled out of poverty.
This is the creepiest, most terrifying, slippery slope, you know, possibilities being, you know, openly mused about by a senator and a CEO of Twitter.
These are very, very powerful people who are telling you what their plan is.
And I think it would be wise for you to listen when they tell you that.
Robbie Live Show Dates00:00:41
So yeah, I agree with you, Rob.
I thought that was like the creepiest thing to come out of this whole shit.
So I wanted to make sure I got that out before we wrap up, which we're going to do now.
Go check out Robbie the Fire Burnscene at Robbie the Fire on Twitter.
You got a couple live dates coming up.
Isn't that correct, sir?
November 28th in New Hampshire with the Free State Project people.
They've got a clubhouse out there.
That's going to be an absolute blast.
And then Philly, we're starting to move some tickets December 5th.
I got three other comedians on the show, Shedcast Guys playing some tunes.
I'm doing my end of year recap.
So if you live near Philly or you're up in New Hampshire, Boston area, hit me up, robbythefire.com, or just hit me up wherever.