Canada’s pandemic restrictions unfairly targeted small businesses and religious gatherings while exempting millionaire Toronto Blue Jays players—owned by Rogers Communications, linked to Mayor John Tory—from isolation via private jets, as revealed by Public Health Agency spokeswoman Marie-Pierre Burrell. Former Facebook moderator Ryan Hartwig exposes a "Dangerous Individuals" list, including Tommy Robinson and InfoWars, where praise triggers deletions unless condemned, and ideological double standards like allowing "Trump humper" but removing "feminazi." Amazon initially blocked his book China Virus for two months before publishing after legal pressure. These revelations highlight foreign tech firms manipulating domestic discourse, raising concerns about U.S. Congress action on Section 230 protections amid growing public outrage over censorship inconsistencies. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey Rebels, today is one of the most important shows.
Holy cow.
I have a monologue about masks and the pandemic and the special exemption for the Blue Jays.
You know, one rule for the fancy people, one rule for the rest of us.
But I think the heart of today's show is a lengthy interview with one of Facebook's censorship contractors who worked in a censorship army of 1,500 people working around the clock, each of them blocking about 200 Facebooks a day, Facebook posts a day.
That's just such a staggeringly large number.
And they had a special target painted on Canada during the election.
It's news.
It's a bombshell.
And I get into it in today's podcast.
I'm very excited.
Hey, one of the reasons you're hearing about that is because we're independent, because we don't take money from Justin Trudeau.
You're just not going to hear news like this at a media outlet that takes money from the liberals.
So to keep going, we rely on contributions from listeners and viewers.
I'd appreciate it if you went to RebelNews.com and signed up for a subscription.
It's $8 a month.
That's less than Netflix, or $80 for the whole year.
You get the video version of this podcast, plus a couple other shows, Sheila Gunread and David Menzies, and it helps us give you the kind of news I know for a fact you can't find anywhere else.
That's all at RebelNews.com.
Okay, here's the podcast with my monologue, and then a blockbuster interview.
Essential vs Non-Essential00:07:22
Tonight, you can't go to church or synagogue.
You can't open your business, but Canada's top doctor says millionaire baseball players can.
It's July 3rd and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government will watch a house is because it's my bloody right to do so.
What's an essential service during the pandemic?
Funny enough, the government says Rebel News is an essential service.
We're a media company and an internet company.
Both were deemed essential by the government a few months ago when they put everyone else under a kind of house arrest.
I appreciate the flattery, but the guy in the office next to us, he's in the clothing business.
Why isn't he essential?
His business sure is essential to him and his family and to his employees and their families and to his would-be customers.
Not that you couldn't buy clothes these last few months.
You just had to buy them from, say, Walmart or other retail giants that were allowed to open.
Funny how they were allowed to stay open as essential services, but my neighbor wasn't.
If you think that's stupid, there are places where it got even stupider these past months.
Here's a photo from a Walmart in Michigan.
The Democrat governor there said you could go to the megastores, but you could only buy items in the store that were deemed essential.
You would be right there in the store anyways, and that was apparently medically fine.
But the police would arrest you if you bought things from this aisle that weren't essential as opposed to that aisle that were.
Bizarrely, seeds for growing food were considered non-essential.
Same thing happened in Vermont.
Very weird.
Does that make any sense?
No, it does not.
Here's a sign from a U.S. drugstore.
Can you please tell me what is or isn't essential in a drugstore?
My list of essentials in a drugstore is probably different from yours.
Who gets to decide?
Well, how about the customer and the storekeeper?
Why would a politician get involved?
Why would the police get involved?
Do you doubt for a second that politicians don't buy exactly whatever they want whenever they want it?
Look, you're in the store anyways.
What's the problem here?
Is there a virus risk if you buy perfume?
Maybe you're cooped up in an apartment for two months and things aren't smelling their freshest.
I think this whole you can't buy certain things is an obvious and weird attempt to say to guys like my neighbor, hey, we're putting you out of business, sure, but we're going to suppress some of your competitors selling your stuff while they're open.
So maybe that'll make you feel better about you going bankrupt.
It's so weird.
It's so stupid.
None of it with any basis in law or medicine or science.
So here we are in July.
Ontario and many other jurisdictions declared a state of emergency on March 17th, which just happened to be St. Patrick's Day.
St. Patrick, who was credited with banishing snakes from Ireland, we could have used some of that to banish the virus, don't you think?
Instead, we let the virus come right on in.
For example, we let the airports remain open to this day.
More than a million travelers continue to come into Canada.
Flights from China never stopped.
Foreign migrant workers, foreign international students continue to come into the country, still do.
But you and I were put under house arrest.
Just for two weeks, though, just till we flatten the curve, we were told.
Two weeks, eh?
Just give us two weeks.
Well, today is the 108th day of the two-week lockdown.
And even though the actual pandemic is pretty much over, politicians are hoping for a second wave.
Here's John Torrey, Toronto's mayor, saying masks are now mandatory.
He didn't say this 108 days ago.
He's saying it now in July.
Well, good morning.
Today, excuse me, today, a city council will consider a report from Dr. Eileen Davila to effectively make it mandatory for people to wear masks or face coverings inside businesses or public facilities.
Dr. Davila's recommendation, worked out with City Legal after careful consideration of the legal landscape, would give clear direction on face coverings to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
It's a second wave, not of the virus, but of virus panicking.
That's actually what the masks are for, to keep you in a pandemic state of mind, keep you scared.
And look, everyone's wearing masks.
It's proof that we're still in an emergency.
Stop the return to normalization, condition you to obeying and conforming.
As if politicians themselves are going to wear those masks in the summer heat when the cameras are off.
But look at this.
This is actually my news for today that got me going.
It's in the Washington Post.
Blue Jays granted exemption to train in Toronto.
Public Health Agency of Canada spokeswoman Marie-Pierre Burrell said that the players and staff have been issued an exemption to the mandatory isolation order on national interest grounds.
Oh, so that's a thing, that's a medical thing.
There's essential and non-essential.
It's pretty obvious that a game of baseball isn't essential because in Ontario, and in Toronto in particular, parks and playgrounds and children's sports are banned.
So how do you say that baseball is essential when it's played by millionaires in a league owned by billionaires, but it's banned for the little people?
You have to come up with a different thing.
You can't say essentially non-essential anymore.
So you come up with this medical thing, national interest.
I didn't know that was a medical thing.
I don't know if they're teaching that at med school.
Even though it's an American-based league with many American-based players paid in U.S. dollars.
So yeah, did you get that, guys?
Your kid can't play baseball.
But foreign millionaires can come up here to play baseball because of the national interest.
Now I get it.
I'm not dumb.
It's big business.
So just say so.
Just say there's a lot of money on the line and we listen to powerful people with money.
Just say so.
Don't literally have the public health authority making the announcement.
A doctor.
It is not a medical decision.
It is a political decision.
Oh, did I mention?
The Toronto Blue Jays, which are valued at about $2 billion U.S., are owned by Rogers Communications, a TV and internet company that, oh, wouldn't you know it, Toronto Mayor John Torrey used to run?
That's a cozy little coincidence.
See, you'll be fined $1,000 for going to the park with your kids, but John Torrey's company, Rogers, will get a special legal exemption in the national interest for itself, according to the doctors in charge.
Here's the spokesman for Teresa Tam.
The government of Canada has issued an exemption to the mandatory isolation order on national interest grounds for team members and staff of the MLB, she said.
Okay, I got it.
I wonder why Teresa Tam didn't tweet that out herself.
I wonder why she just told it to the U.S. media.
Well, you know, one rule for you, one rule for them.
They're special.
You're not.
Hey guys, just a few more weeks, okay?
Just until we flatten the curve, okay?
Just until there are no more cases, okay?
Masks and Mandatory Vaccines00:02:51
Just until we have a vaccine, okay?
Just a few more weeks, okay?
You don't think a mandatory vaccine is next?
I know it is.
Look at this.
Here's the Toronto Star.
Trudeau ordered 37 million syringes.
That's enough for every man, woman, child, and baby in this country.
I say again, the average annual death toll for pneumonia and the flu is about the same for the total death toll of the pandemic.
If you take out seniors' homes, which are a problem on their own, the pandemic has been less deadly than the annual flu.
But do you doubt you'll still be on lockdown and still be fined for months to come?
The masks are not needed now.
If they were needed, and Taiwan's experience suggests that they're a good way to stop transmission in close quarters, especially indoors.
If they were needed, they were needed two, three months ago when the virus hit its peak.
That's done.
That's over.
Back then, the politicians were saying, no, no, no, no, you don't need masks because they gave them all away to China.
The masks now, they're needed for your fear, for your obedience, to keep you in a pandemic state of mind as a public marker for who complies and who does not.
Never forget the mindset of the people who are enjoying this pandemic health theater a bit too much.
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential.
You could track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
Yeah, as I say in my new book, China Virus, I got it right here, let me show you.
The real danger isn't from the bug.
It's from the tyrannical ideology that has used the virus as an excuse.
If you doubt me, explain to me why millionaire and billionaires get to play baseball and travel to and from America on private jets, but you can't play ball in a playground and you can't even go to a family funeral across the border.
Stay with us.
I have a most revealing interview for you, a bombshell exclusive, if you will.
That's next.
It's in you me!
If it's going to save the country, why not do it?
Protecting Trending Figures?00:16:01
I bet like $80 million will do a lot of that right now.
Take the money out of the country.
That's what I'm saying.
If we hand him over, our country would be sick.
Just saying.
Yeah, I mean, it's a bargain, right?
You're joking about them coming here.
I'm just saying, take them.
Y'all can keep your 80 million, or you can give it to us and we can put it in our debt.
Just save it in the U.S. Like, come on.
Yeah, that's it.
They just want one person.
Why not take one for the team?
That was a clip from a Facebook whistleblower published by Project Veritas.
As you know, James O'Keefe has an organization called Project Veritas that relies on hidden camera footage to tell us the truth about government organizations and increasingly government-like organizations, namely the massive Silicon Valley oligopolies that control so much of our speech.
Well, today, Ryan Hartwig, who worked for a Facebook comment moderating company, joins us to talk about what really happens behind the scenes.
And Ryan joins us now.
Nice to meet you.
Tell me a little bit about yourself.
You didn't work for Facebook directly.
You worked for one of the outsourced censorship companies that Facebook hired, right?
That's correct, yes.
Once again, my name is Ryan Hartwig.
Thanks for having me on.
I was a bilingual content moderator for Cognizant, but we had the contract with Facebook for content moderation.
So I started in March of 2018, and the project ended in February of this year.
So I was there for nearly two years.
And I noticed many flagrant examples of bias that would favor liberals and basically censor target conservatives.
Yes.
So when you say target conservatives, you're not just speaking metaphorically.
Just before we turn the camera on, you told me that there's a hot list or a fire list that anything referring to these people in a positive way is automatically deleted.
You mentioned that our old friend Tommy Robinson and actually a couple of other rebel alumni, including Gavin McInnes, are on that list.
What does it mean when Tommy Robinson, who has never been charged with a hate crime, let alone convicted of one?
I know his case pretty well because we crowdfunded his legal defense when he was charged with contempt of court.
What does it mean within Facebook when someone like Tommy Robinson is on a blacklist?
Yeah, so the section of the policy, which I studied and was very familiar with, I studied it for two years essentially.
The policy is called Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.
So within that policy, you have criminal organizations, cartels.
You also have terrorist organizations.
And then along with that, you have your hate figure list, which includes Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels.
So on that list, literally right underneath Adolf Hitler, Tommy Robinson is listed.
Now, this means that anyone on that list, you're not allowed to do, it's called PSR.
You cannot praise, support, or represent that individual.
So the only way I can mention him on my Facebook is if I condemn his quotes or his actions.
Otherwise, even if I just share his name or anything related to him, it's an automatic delete off the platform.
That's incredible.
You know, we heard rumors of that.
I mean, but Facebook is typically being somewhat secretive about it.
So are you saying there was an actual list provided to companies like Cognizant, a list of names?
How many people would be on that list?
You mentioned Goebbels and the Nazis.
Goebbels, of course, was Hitler's propaganda minister in the 30s and 40s.
He's dead now, obviously.
Right.
How many current existing groups?
Well, I mean, tell us a bit about that list.
I find that fascinating.
I mean, is Mao Zedong the largest killer in the modern era?
Is he or his little red book on the list?
I think I know the answer.
Who else is on the list?
Yeah, so there are quite a number of individuals, both present and past, on the list.
I would say there's roughly 200 individuals on the list.
There's also hate domains.
So websites such as there's avoiceformen.com is on that list.
There's also InfoWars.
And I was on with Alex Jones last year.
And when they banned InfoWars, it was an emergency update.
The post that the guidance they gave literally said emergency update.
So forget about the child pornography, beheadings, cartels.
Alex Jones for them is an emergency.
I mean, we haven't been banned from Facebook ourselves, but of course we're always under pressure from them.
How do they treat conservative sites in the U.S. like Breitbart.com?
Did that ever come up when you were working for Cognizant?
So there was no specific blacklisting of Breitbart news that I was aware of.
And I had access to most of the training material.
And because I would be deleting groups, pages, posts, videos on both Instagram and Facebook.
And the same policy applied to both platforms.
But I did not see any specific mention of Breitbart.
I do know that they do have a way to filter what we get.
So if something's trending, like if Greta Thunberg is trending and they're attacking her, they want to protect her, they can do a proactive poll and basically send us all the jobs related to those keywords.
So if they wanted to, they could choose to target Breitbart news simply by putting those into our queue.
So when you say protect Greta, we've done a lot of journalism on Greta.
We even published a little documentary called GretaInc.com.
YouTube doesn't seem to have censored that.
In fact, our largest videos of the last, I don't know, six months have been about Greta.
But you, of course, worked for Facebook and Instagram.
How would that let's say they wanted to protect Greta?
And I mean, you suggested that might happen.
What would that look like to you who was working as a censor?
What do they say if Greta is associated with the word liar or mentally ill or child act or that that would all be caught by an algorithm or something?
What does it mean to protect someone like Greta online?
Yeah, so there is, like I said, it's called a proactive poll, and they use their classifiers and the AI basically picks up on any phrase.
And this is kind of a developing story.
There might be some more info to come out in the next week regarding some of the things I documented.
For example, you know that she was called Gretarted, and that was something that Facebook was worried about.
A similar example in the U.S. here, we had trending Boogaloo, which is kind of a way to talk about revolution.
So that was trending during our impeachment proceedings.
So yeah, they can basically, or we had the Ukraine whistleblower as well that was trending.
So yeah, any key phrase like that, something like Boogaloo, something.
And they specifically asked us, hey, we want you to flag.
I got an email, and I've documented that.
Hey, they wanted me to flag any examples of right-wing extremism outside the United States.
So, this is something that they're actively looking for.
And this goes as far as elections.
They want us to flag any content regarding specific elections, even in Canada.
So, when in this last Canadian election with Jagmeet Singh, there was specific guidance to watch out for any hate speech content targeting candidate Jagmeet Singh with their hate speech with dehumanizing comparison.
And once again, the policies are very, very nuanced, but they don't allow political speech.
For example, if I say keep Canadians out of the United States, that's something that's not allowed.
That's a violation of the hate speech policy tier three for exclusion.
But we see them time and time and again targeting conservatives and also giving exceptions to the policy to allow for newsworthy what they deem as newsworthy.
Well, that's fascinating.
This is the first time I've ever heard that Facebook was defending Jagmeet Singh, the leader of our socialist party called the NDP.
There are a great many reasons one could criticize Jagmeet Singh that have nothing to do with his ethnicity as a Sikh.
However, there are also some legitimate reasons to criticize Jagmeet Singh that do have to relate it to his Sikhism.
Not that that's his religion, but that he supports radical Sikh groups both in India and abroad, some of which have been violent, some of which are terrorist groups.
I actually think that Jagmeet Singh is banned, if I'm not mistaken, from visiting India because of his affiliation with them.
So, my question to you, Ryan, is how does Facebook's AI, or how would someone like you working in America be able to distinguish, oh, this critique of Jagmeet Singh is racist.
We're going to ban it.
This critique of Jagmeet Singh is a real policy question about whether or not he's too sympathetic to Khalistani terrorists.
Like, that is such a complicated and nuanced thing, and 10 people might have 10 different opinions.
You're saying you, based in, I think, Arizona, are making that call every day.
Yeah, and it's like I say, it is very nuanced.
So, for example, the hate speech policy applies visually.
So, if I have a meme caricature of someone wearing clothing associated with the Islamic religion, or for example, in this example, Sikh, then simply by having an image of someone dressed like that, that counts as a protected characteristic.
So, if there's an image of anyone, since he's wearing that wardrobe, wearing that clothing associated with Sikh, that would so anything that's even referencing him or attacking him could be interpreted as an attack on his religion.
Because the thing is, he has a turban, and I think it's quite fashionable, and I understand it's not for fashion, it's a religious thing, but I think he sort of really focuses on colorful turbulence.
It's part of his brand, I think.
And I personally like it, but my point is any caricature, any cartoon, any drawing of him would have a turban because that's how he almost always is.
So, if you're criticizing him with any image, you're going to have a turban there.
And again, I'm just thinking, well, who decides whether or not it's a mean depiction of a turban or a friendly depiction of a turban?
And I can't believe that an American company is censoring what Canadians can say about a Canadian election.
That's what's weird to me.
You're in Arizona, and you're deciding what Canadians can or can't say about a political candidate in Canada.
I mean, I don't want anyone to censor, even censor mean words, but I think it's extremely news to Canadians that you, and you seem like a nice guy, but you're based in Arizona working for some company hired by Facebook, and you're deciding what Canadians can or can't say during our election.
Right.
And Facebook gave us an election training deck, not only for the U.S., but for Canada, various countries in Europe.
Of course, I wasn't working directly on content in Europe.
But yeah, no, I had the same conversation with a Spanish TV station in Spanish.
I speak fluent Spanish.
So I was with El Toro TV yesterday.
There was also some concerning content regarding Venezuela.
Keep an eye out.
There might be a new story coming out about Venezuela because I witnessed direct interference from Facebook in an armed revolution in Venezuela.
So if you think, you know, if you think that's bad, just censoring the speech, I mean, Facebook is on a global level.
This is a conversation we should be having.
You know, this is, countries should be autonomous.
Countries should be able to not have their public discourse controlled, as you say, by an American company, by some moderators in Phoenix, Arizona.
Yeah, very short.
I mean, of course, I have no racial animus towards Jack Meet Singh or the Sikh people.
In fact, I actually admire Sikhism.
And I wouldn't like if someone was hateful towards Sikhs, and I would probably feel personally compelled to rebut that.
But that's what should happen.
It shouldn't be a censored thought crime.
That's what troubles me.
It doesn't trouble me that people care about hate or care about harmony.
It troubles me that the censorship is being done by these impenetrable tech companies.
I mean, let me ask you, when you, let's say you were to delete a post in Canada during the Canadian election, would there be any record of that?
Would there be any communication of that?
Would there be any appeal of that?
Or is that just a laugh?
So I believe there is an appeal process.
If you are a user on Facebook, you can appeal the decision.
But on our end, so I roughly, I would be working on looking at maybe 200 pieces of content a day.
And of those, so let's say 1,000 jobs a week that I'm doing, are either deleting or leaving on the platform.
And I would be audited on maybe 50 of those a week.
So if it wasn't audited, then they would never be raised up to anybody what I deleted or what I didn't delete.
So there is a system in place, but it's not, you know, there are, things can slip by, slip through the cracks.
Yeah.
If you're doing 200 a day, my rough math says that's about two minutes each.
Yes.
And of course, you're not having, it's not like a trial where you have a prosecutor and a defender and you're a judge.
You're just glancing at something.
You're judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner, the whole thing.
And you seem like a fair-minded guy who obviously was concerned about it.
But I want to show a clip.
This is where you were talking to a senior HR business partner of Facebook, Leslie Brown.
We've been talking about Sikhism and a Sikh candidate.
Here's a clip of Leslie Brown talking about, well, then not quite every race or religion is equal in Facebook.
Let's take a quick look at that.
But I mean, they were able to fire him without having to worry about discrimination.
Intelligence, right, right.
Yes, because it's a white man.
Yeah, white man, so no problem.
He can't do it that easily if there are other issues.
Oh, it's easier when they're white men.
Okay.
Yeah, no protecting class.
No one's, no one's, yeah.
No one has the white man's back anymore.
You're saying because he's a white male, there's more likely to be able to do that.
If he chose to sue the company, most attorneys would just laugh.
Look, every single human being has their biases, their own identities, maybe their own grudges or grievances.
White Male Advantage?00:14:28
I'm just terrified that there are secret armies of corporate bureaucrats doing the deleting.
How many people were working with you in Phoenix?
Were you doing this from home or were you in a big office?
So we worked in the office, and because of the type of content we received, so we would look at pornography, also child pornography.
So because of U.S. laws, we had to work in an office, and some of the material was very sensitive.
But yeah, in my office in Phoenix, there were shifts around the clock 24-7, and there was roughly, I would say, anywhere between 1,000 and 1,500 people at that office.
Did you just say 1,500?
Yes.
1,500 censors, and you were working 20, obviously in shifts, working 24 hours a day.
Right.
Unbelievable.
Did you have any interaction with the Canadian government?
Or was this all just?
You were just a contractor directly with Facebook and that's all there.
That's the only.
That's the only boss there was yeah, that's the only boss.
There was one our, you know, one of our policy managers who's mentioned in the video, Sean Browder, who's a very Pro-Bernie supporter.
He he had direct contact with the client, with Facebook.
So they would, they would video conference on a daily basis and those policies, those decisions would be, would come from on high, from Facebook, as to what to allow, what to keep.
So one of the most egregious examples that we saw during during, you know, as far as our elections is in 2018, there was a kid who was a Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat and he was in a restaurant in Texas and he got attacked and assaulted and his, his hat got knocked off.
So this was a viral video in the summer of 2018 and in the video, the adult was cursing at the the minor, and so it it technically violated.
You know, it's kind of a gray area, but you could argue that it violated Facebook's policies, because we don't allow cursing at minors unless, anyway.
So Facebook made the the the broad the decision to delete this video across the platform.
It was a viral video, but of course, it showed a Trump supporter being victimized.
And on the flip side, there was another.
Another great example that shows the converse is that in Australia there's a far-right senator named Fraser Anning and he was doing a press conference and he got attacked by a minor, and so this kid walked up behind him and egged him, cracked an egg on his, on the back of his head, and so Fraser Anning turned around and slapped the kid in the face a couple of times repeatedly, and that technically violates our child abuse policy.
So so we have child abuse, clear violation.
But Facebook said hey, we're making a newsworthy exception, we're gonna allow this on the platform, and and of course, it showed a far-right senator being humiliated, being attacked.
Huh, um.
This is fascinating and terrifying.
The fact that there's a list of 200 plus banned people places ideas, groups is shocking.
The fact that I I know a few of them and some of them have worked with i'm i'm not surprised.
I mean, we had heard uh, Tommy's problems um, before.
I just never heard that the list was available, but obviously someone would have had to have had it.
Can you tell us anything more about Canada?
Because I mean, obviously that's something we care about a lot based here in Canada, other than the Jag Meet Sing protection order, was there anything that was off limits or anything you were told to boost?
Did you have any other instructions about the Canadian political uh sphere?
I know there's some guidance in the election training deck for Canada.
There was some guidance about content that was targeting immigrants with dehumanizing comparison.
So for example, if there's a picture of immigrants in Canada and the caption on the meme, or not the meme, but the caption on the photo says, look closely at this photograph.
Do these look like refugees or are they opportunistic leeches coming to take advantage of Canadian kindness?
So this would violate the hate speech policy because immigrants would be considered a protected characteristic.
Excuse me.
And so by calling them leeches, you're basically comparing them to an insect or a bug.
So simply by, to me, that's discussing immigration issues.
But for Facebook, this is a violation of hate speech because you have an image of immigrants, so they're depicted in the image, and it's comparing them to opportunistic leeches taking advantage of Canadian kindness.
It's not nice to dehumanize people, and we know that dehumanizing people by comparing them to animals is done historically.
I mean, calling people like rats or like pigs.
But again, that's part of discourse.
We do call, and I'm not saying that's pleasant.
I'm not saying I support that, but to be a leech, to be a pig, to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, to be a bull, we use metaphors.
It's interesting to me that the only metaphor being banned is one that is negative towards immigration, which is a huge issue.
Are any other images or examples?
So immigration is obviously something that the elites and the left supports and populists in the right oppose.
Were there any other countervailing things that you couldn't say?
You couldn't call a conservative a Nazi.
You couldn't call a right-wing candidate a Nazi.
That would be my analogy.
You can't call an illegal immigrant a leech.
Okay?
Is there anything you can't call a right-winger, or is it you can call Maxine Bernier, the head of the People's Party, for example?
You can call him a Nazi, no problem.
So, yeah, so that's a great question.
So we have what's called a bullying slang list.
So there's a lot of words that are used a lot, and we want to make sure we're all doing it the same way, taking action the same way.
So I'm allowed to call someone a Nazi, even though technically any attack on someone's character, temperament, mentality, disposition is a delete.
But they carved out an exception for any kind of ideological attack.
But it's interesting, so on the one side, you can call someone a Trump humper.
Like if you called me a Trump humper, Ryan, you're a Trump humper, and I reported it directly, it would still stay up.
But if you were to call me a feminazi, that would be taken down.
So Trump Humper stays up, feminazi, it gets taken down.
And of course.
So a feminazi is a word used sometimes to criticize a feminist.
But how about just calling someone a Nazi?
So, I mean, I'm Jewish myself.
I hate being called a Nazi.
I'm very pro-Israel, very anti-Nazi, obviously.
I've been to the Holocaust Museum many times, et cetera.
If someone were to call me a Nazi Nazi, not a feminazi, but a Nazi, is that kosher under Facebook's rules?
Yeah, it's going to stay up no matter what you do.
There's no way to take it down.
People can call you Nazi all day.
And because of the, yeah, they may have changed the policy under bullying, because technically it's attacking your character, right?
It's attacking who you are.
Well, it's defamatory.
So you can call a Jewish conservative a Nazi, and unfortunately that happens from time to time, but you can't call a leftist a feminazi.
My understanding is, so call a conservative a Nazi, that's okay by Facebook, call a feminist censor a feminazi, and that's taken down.
Am I right?
That's correct.
Yep.
And another example that we have is Facebook wanted things escalated.
So in the training deck for Canada, it said that if there's something that's really trending or viral going on with the election in Canada, they want that escalated.
So someone from Facebook that works for Facebook would see that.
They wanted us to identify any trends and viral posts that are related to the elections, including humorous and satire posts, any hate speech or bullying, or harassment related to the elections, any threats to political candidates.
That one makes sense.
Any attempts for voter fraud and spreading misinformation around the election and any privacy violations.
And then it says, yeah, just please follow the normal procedures for escalating content in the workflow tribe.
And it mentions people we should contact at Facebook for any escalations.
Are you at liberty to publish the Canadian training deck that you've been referring to here?
Has Project Veritas put that online yet?
Not yet.
That's something that I would have to get approval with them to give you that.
I think that's, I would love to.
And in that video, there are a lot of things that are great, that are very newsworthy, but there's still a lot that I did uncover and that I filmed that hasn't been made public yet.
But I would love to, with their permission, of course, and their blessing, share that with you.
Well, I mean, obviously, we care about censorship for the whole world.
We've stood up for free speech in America, in the UK, in Australia, wherever we operate.
We care most about our home, which is Canada, but we love the United States and we love its freedom and its First Amendment.
We're deeply interested in Facebook's Canadian censorship manual.
And if you do get the green light from James O'Keefe, who's a friend of our channel, please let us know because we will absolutely go through that with meticulous detail, perhaps with you as our guide, to teach Canadians how our election is being tampered with by foreign agents, you being one of them.
And we like you because you've blown the whistle on it.
But as you told us, there were 1,500 people working around the clock on this.
Listen, what a pleasure with an eye-opener.
Ryan Hartwig, thank you for your time today.
And I'd invite our viewers to watch other videos and other facts in this at projectveritas.com.
We've been talking to Ryan Hartwig.
Last word to you.
Is this going to get better or worse as we head up to the November election in the States?
It's hard to say.
I think this will give some impetus for Congress to act.
And here in the U.S., there's something called the Communications Decency Act.
And hopefully we can remove the protections that Facebook enjoys under Section 230 of that Act.
But it's tough to say.
It's really hard fighting against these behemoths against big tech, Google, Facebook.
But I'm optimistic.
I know there's a lot of patriots out there like myself who want to know the truth.
So I'm mildly optimistic, but it's going to be an uphill battle.
Well, very interesting.
I learned a lot today.
Thank you for your time, Ryan.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
All right.
Stay with us.
More ahead on the double.
Literally, today, as I was doing a show, the book arrived.
I'm very excited about it.
It's, I think, our eighth book that we published with Amazon.
Amazon tried to censor it.
For two months, they refused to publish China virus, saying it contradicted official narratives on the pandemic.
They finally relented.
Anyways, I hope you like it.
On my monologue last night, Sherry writes: How is it Trump supporters' fault that she was fired?
Conservatives aren't even allowed to cancel.
Try taking responsibility for your own actions.
What a pathetic display.
That's a reference to that Harvard grad who was fired from Deloitte after threatening to stab people.
Yeah, I mean, that's a little bit of karma.
You know, there's a lot of people out there who are being unfairly tarnished and canceled.
It's tough for me to muster sympathy for that gal, just like it's tough for me to muster sympathy for Wendy Mesley for being fired for repeatedly dropping the N-word in the office.
She's the one who tried to tag every conservative as racist.
It's a bit of poetic justice.
Perry writes, Today all young people want their five minutes of fame, whether it be Facebook, Instagram, whatever.
It's true, and being famous for being famous, sort of the Kardashian approach or the Paris Hilton approach, it's not substantial.
I like the idea of fame for doing something worthy of fame.
Why do we still know the name Christopher Columbus, Thomas Edison?
Why do these names ring centuries later?
Well, they were famous for achievement and accomplishment and courage, not famous for being famous.
On my interview with Manny Montenegrino, Paul writes, you don't negotiate with criminal nations.
There needs to be, needed to be, real retaliation over this kidnapping.
Now would be a great time to hit them with economic sanctions.
China's economy has been in serious trouble of late.
I read about 10 emails on that conversation I had with Manny, and I think only one of them supported Manny's point of view.
Look, I get what Manny, I think I get what Manny was trying to do.
He was saying Trudeau should confess that he's unethical and he's tainted the whole legal system, and that's why we have to do the trade to get the two hostages back.
Okay, that's an interesting thought exercise, but in real life it would be a disaster.
That would be saying, oh, you corrupted it once, so we must now be corrupt all the time.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with Manny before in my life, but yesterday I sure did.
Well, that's the show for today.
And I just want to hold it up one more time because I'm sort of excited about this book, partly because Amazon tried to stop it.
I don't know if you saw my YouTube video, but for two months, they just, we started to upload this in April, and they rejected it and rejected, and we appealed, and they rejected it, and we had our lawyers write to them, and they ignored it.
And just last week, they finally relented.
So, I mean, it's a short book, but there's lots of footnotes in it.
I bet you probably know most of this stuff from watching the show, but I know for a fact there's new details in here that I hadn't published before.
I'm really excited about this, so let me know what you think.
You can find out more at chinavirusbook.com.
Don't mind me, I'm just a little excited that this came in the mail.
All right, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here.
Well, oh, before I go, what do you think about the news about Facebook's censorship factory?
Let me know what you think about that.
Send me an email to ezra at rebelnews.com.
All right, I gotta go.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters.