Ezra Levant critiques vaccine passports through 10 key questions, citing AAFP studies on healthcare worker hesitancy and Fauci’s staff defiance, while exposing inconsistencies like CBC’s Catherine Tate traveling unquarantined. He warns of Canada’s Pfizer booster stockpiles (35M in 2022, 30M in 2023) under Trudeau’s potential misuse and legal battles over privacy rights. Levant also reveals Facebook’s censorship ties to U.S. government pressure, with whistleblower Ryan Hartwig detailing suppression of dissent—from Venezuela’s Guaidó to Singh’s election posts—and advocating Fifth Amendment lawsuits. The episode underscores systemic erosion of free speech and autonomy through mandates and digital gatekeeping. [Automatically generated summary]
You know what that is, man on the street interviews about vaccine passports?
And I thought it was interesting.
So I put my thinking cap on and I came up with 10 questions that I think we should ask anyone on the street or in public office about vaccine passports.
10 basic who, what, where, why, when questions.
And that's my show today.
I hope you enjoy it.
Before I let you listen to that, let me invite you to subscribe to the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, not much.
You get the video version of this and Sheila Gun Reed's show, David Menzies' show, Andrew Chapados' show.
And you get that just by going to RebelNews.com.
You can get the whole year in advance too for just 80 bucks, so that's a savings.
All right, here's to the show.
Tonight, I have 10 questions about vaccine passports and a new petition against them.
It's July 19th, 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 don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have is in the government.
But why?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Here's the website of the American Academy of Family Physicians, about as mainstream as you get.
Vaccinated vs. Non-Vaccinated00:15:58
And look at this study in their journal published just a couple months ago: Four Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers and ways to counter them.
Isn't that a funny little story?
People in the healthcare business, people closest to the pandemic in real life, they don't want the vaccines.
They cite lots of stats in this journal entry from different countries showing that this is true.
Isn't that odd?
That would be like a waiter refusing to eat at their own restaurant.
I just keep thinking of that analogy.
Seems strange to me.
This Harvard study says only 37.5% of nursing home staff have chosen to get vaccinated.
Wow.
I have a theory.
My theory is that they see that the virus is being blamed for the deaths of some very old, very sick people.
Remember, the average age of death is over 80.
The average deceased has three or more serious underlying conditions.
I think these staff remember that people died before the pandemic and it was called dying of old age.
And now they're saying, okay, you're just reclassifying those deaths.
I'm not going to take an experimental drug.
That's my theory.
The AAFP cites four pretty good reasons for vaccine hesitancy.
Remember, these guys are for vaccines.
They're trying to understand why no one's taking them.
The first is concerns about safety and efficacy, as in, will the vaccine actually make you sick and will actually protect you from getting the virus?
That's a live question in that in the UK in particular, cases are surging amongst people who got the jab.
Same in Israel.
In the UK, their Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who first of all actually got sick from the virus and recovered and then had two jabs.
Well, now he's quarantining again because he thinks he might have caught it again from his health minister who also had two jabs.
It's confusing.
Look at this.
I don't know if you saw this news.
A bunch of Texas Democrats who all had two jabs flew on a private jet to Washington at some sort of political protest.
Now it turns out that some of them got sick too with coronavirus again.
None of them are getting very sick, but it does sort of raise the question: do these vaccines work?
And even if they don't work, is that the sign of a big problem?
Since for the majority of people, it's actually not much worse than getting a cold or a flu.
I'm not sure who to trust.
Here's Toronto's creepy mayor saying the vaccines are completely safe and effective.
But that's not actually what the companies themselves say, and it's not what the FDA says.
These drugs are not approved.
They're just authorized for emergency use, and there are all sorts of publicly known side effects.
Why is he lying here?
If you've received your first or second dose of vaccine, keep scrolling.
But if you haven't received your vaccine, your first or your second dose, what are you waiting for?
It's proven to be safe and effective.
It will help with this pandemic behind us.
And I promise, if you go and get your first and your second vaccine, I'll stop doing TikToks on COVID-19.
I don't get it.
I suppose listening to that goofy guy is persuasive to some people, but if you're saying manifestly untrue things, easily checkable falsehoods about these vaccines being completely safe and completely tested and effective, don't you think that's going to actually raise more alarm bells?
Why don't you tell the truth?
These vaccines may well be safe, but it's just not true that they're perfectly safe.
So why say so?
I mean, all these vaccines are very good for the vaccine tycoons.
I see the president of Moderna, which until these vaccines never actually sold a product before in their entire company history.
I see he's now worth $5 billion himself.
So I know why he wants to make this thing a perpetual thing.
But if the vaccines don't really work that well, and if, you know, and that's not really a crisis for anyone other than narrow, vulnerable groups, if you don't really need them, do we have a real crisis?
Do we have an emergency?
Do we have a problem?
Well, Trude thinks we do.
It sounds like he's bought booster shots for this year and for next year and the next year and the next year.
Seriously, for four years.
Look at this.
While more and more Canadians are getting vaccinated right now, it's also important to plan ahead for the future.
We've reached an agreement with Pfizer for 35 million booster doses for next year and 30 million in the year after.
This deal includes options to add 30 million doses in both 2022 and 2023, and an option for 60 million doses in 2024.
Pfizer has been a solid partner for Canada in this fight against COVID-19, and we're happy to be one of the first countries to secure an agreement with them going forward.
These boosters will be the latest version of the Pfizer vaccine based on research and testing.
They will help us keep the virus under control.
And the work doesn't end there either.
We're on ongoing discussions with other vaccine manufacturers about their plans for booster shots too.
My God, well, I know he's going to be demanding we use up all those booster shots.
He just paid how many billions of dollars for.
But back to that AAFP study, the family of physicians.
Nurses won't take the vaccine for four reasons, they say.
Safety and efficacy concerns, preference for physiological immunity, as in our own body's natural defenses.
And this next one, distrust in government and health organizations.
That's quite something.
We all distrust and hate the government, but I think you probably have to work for a big health organization to really realize it's a kind of government too.
In the UK, they have fetishized their National Health Service, their Medicare, even more than we have done here in Canada.
From the outside, they're all saints, but it sounds like people who work on the inside of health organizations, on the inside of hospitals, like AFP members, they don't trust their own health bureaucracies any more than we trust politicians.
I mean, fair enough, half of Anthony Fauci's own staff won't take the jab.
Okay, this question, I'm going to go to Dr. Fauci, Dr. Marks, and Dr. Lewinsky.
What percentage of the employees in your institute, your center, or your agency of your employees has been vaccinated?
You know, I'm not 100 percent sure, Senator, but I think it's probably a little bit more than half, probably around 60 percent.
And the fourth reason the AAFP has is autonomy and personal freedom.
Here's how they phrase it, which is a little weird.
Healthcare workers and rural Americans report that a sense of personal freedom informs their attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccines.
That rural part is a little unusual.
I would think that people in the cities care about their freedoms too.
I do.
Well, the percentage of people who have taken the vaccine has pretty much peaked.
Some places are doing weird things, like Alberta is offering huge cash prizes if you take the jab in a lottery.
I think that's a pretty strange disease with a pretty odd medicine that you have to bribe people to take their medicine.
I just think that's odd.
I'm not sure if it's ethical either.
Sure, there's a lot of pressure on poor people to do something they might not want to otherwise.
It's like that U.S. judge who said to a convicted criminal, take the jab and have a one-year sentence, or don't take the jab and have a five-year sentence.
Is that an ethical way to make someone take medicine under duress like that?
Common Police Court Richard Fry tells me he started using the COVID-19 vaccine as a term of probation in his courtroom last week, but not for everyone.
He ordered it three times out of 20 different sentencing hearings.
I did talk to one of those three offenders today, and he tells me he feels very strongly about this and feels that this order violates his civil rights.
What happened?
One week to the day.
The case was about a gun charge and some drugs.
Franklin County criminal offender Sylvan Latham tells me he stood before Common Police Court Judge Richard Fry.
I know Judge Fry's reputation.
I know he's known for giving people max time, jail time, all that.
I don't want to go to jail.
I don't want to have five years probation.
Latham thought his attorney struck a deal with prosecutors to three years probation.
But during his sentencing hearing.
I was stressed out right then.
I didn't know what to do.
I was kind of, I was very much so put on the spot.
Latham said the judge told him he'd give him the five-year max unless he got a COVID-19 vaccine.
With this shot, Latham said his probation would be cut down considerably to just one year.
Even worse is the weird bribing in Toronto where children are allowed to consent without their parents present, children as young as 12, and the city was giving away free ice cream to kids who did.
Well, look, as Canada slowly opens up, Ontario restaurants are open for the first time in months this weekend, and as things normalize and as the disease naturally wanes during the summertime, as all flus do, the sky is falling, lockdownists need a way to keep the feeling of crisis going.
So they're focusing on vaccine passports, mandatory requirements to prove that you've been jabbed or you'll be banned from areas of your life you once enjoyed.
Manitoba now has its vaccine identity cards.
Quebec has announced its decision to have QR codes.
Trudeau now has two-tiered travel rules depending on your vaccine status.
Those are all little test drives for vaccine passports.
And more importantly, none of them have banned vaccine passports in the private sector.
Imagine if both WestJet and Air Canada announced vaccine passports on the same day with lots of nodding and winking from Trudeau to do it.
It wasn't forced on them, they'd say.
It's not a government law, they'd say, but what if they both decide to do it at the same time?
Then you can't really fly in this big country of ours, can you?
Now, flying is a luxury for most people, but what about regular public transit, buses, subways, trains, taxis?
Easy to see how they would do the same.
Uber has a very harsh mask mandate.
I don't doubt they'll bring in a vax passport too.
Seneca College here in Toronto has brought in vax rules for all students.
And who's going to stop them?
No one.
Why would they?
No one has stopped any of this so far.
Not governments, not opposition parties, not courts, not the media.
In fact, the media has been egging it on.
A gym called Good Life simply announced that they're not going to invade their members' privacy.
They're not going to grill their members about private health stuff.
It's not going to vax passport them.
And immediately, the government comedians at Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster jumped on them saying Good Life Fitness will not require proof of vaccination because it's not like it's their job to give a crap about your health.
So that's a giant government propaganda agency mocking a private company for, you know, respecting privacy rights and non-discrimination.
By the way, the CBC wants you and me to be locked down and vax passported, but their own CBC president commutes weekly from her home in New York City to her job in Canada.
It's a scandal that the CBC's president, Catherine Tate, lives in America to begin with.
What's she doing?
But she commutes weekly without quarantining while demanding that the little people lock down.
Tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?
And on the weekend, the CBC was in full public relations mode for a website set up by some odd lawyer listing every company he could find that's going to implement a vaccine passport on their staff or customers.
The CBC does this all the time with their pet projects.
They give a million dollars in free publicity to some homemade website or petition or GoFundMe that their friends put up.
In this case, some lockdown vigilante who wants to enforce vax passports on the world and thinks that every shopkeeper and gym owner and waiter should be able to ask you about your private health information and discriminate against you if you answer it wrong.
I think this is the next big battle.
You've been softened up for a year by being forced to wear masks, which is the most unhuman, anti-human thing to do.
And now some people love wearing masks.
Well, now let's see who goes the next step of the way.
Over the weekend, we published a few video streeters, as they're called, just people on the street in Toronto and Montreal, talking about vax passports.
Would you be in favor of government mandated vaccination, mandatory vaccination for people?
Absolutely.
I feel like there's so much misinformation out there right now, and people are going to make their wrong decisions.
And it's a public health issue, right?
So I feel like unless you have a legitimate medical reason not to, I think you should be obligated to get a vaccine for the good of your fellow man, you know?
I think it's just another form of discrimination.
I don't think people really, you know, seeing what the long-term effects of that would be.
Because, I mean, at the end of the day, if you're going to deny people the right to work, the right to shop, you know, and feed themselves and feed their families, you know, we're descending into chaos.
Like, you don't even see it yet.
Yeah, if I'm going in a plane, I want to know who is vaccinated and who is not.
I don't want to say, like, okay, let's say there are 50 people.
I want to hear that, okay, 49 are vaccinated.
Only one person is not vaccinated.
And the person who is not vaccinated is sitting 10 feet from everyone else.
So I'm good with that.
So that's from Toronto.
And here's Alexa Lavoie in Montreal.
I think vaccination is a very credible and essential solution.
I don't want to have to do something if I don't want to, but now I'm stuck in this thing where even if I don't want to, I want to so that I can get back to real life.
It's because there's going to be a lot of repercussions that we can divide the society in two, vaccinated and non-vaccinated, and more divided than what we have already.
I can't take the vaccine, but the fact that they force people to take the vaccine, they don't force people directly to say yeah, they need to take the vaccine and all that kind of stuff.
But it's all true.
Some excellent answers and some terrifying answers.
Some people really do want to live in chains, or maybe they think others will be in chains.
They'll still be free.
I sent a note to our team with some potential follow-up questions for the next time we do streeters about vaccine passports.
I'm just going to read them to you as I send them to this team.
The reference is pretty basic in terms of questions.
I got 10 of these.
Do you think people should have to prove they're vaccinated before they're allowed to do things in society?
Okay, it starts the conversation.
Number two, if the answer is yes, let's see what that means.
Should proof of vaccination be needed to ride a bus, go into a store, eat at a restaurant, go to school, go to work, travel, rent an apartment.
Let's really think this through.
What should people who are excluded do?
Where should they go?
Should we publicly shame people who aren't vaccinated?
What if people can't take vaccines for a medical or another good reason?
Should people who have already recovered from COVID and who have a natural immunity, should they be forced to take vaccines too just to get the passport?
Are there other diseases we should also grill people about, like, I don't know, AIDS?
Section 230 Controversy00:09:43
If not, what's the difference?
How about people who are alcoholics or really fat?
Should we shame them too?
Ban them from things?
If vaccines work, why are you worried about non-vaccinated people?
And if they don't work, same question.
And lastly, COVID isn't even in the top 10 list of reasons why people die in Canada in any given day.
Heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and those are all much more deadly, and all of them are connected in part to our health choices.
Diet, exercise.
Should we have the ability to grill people about those private things too?
People have already been banned from school, from work, from dorms for not being vaxed.
That's a vax passport and everything but name.
I think this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
I got five billion reasons to think so.
I want to tell you what we're going to do about it here at Rebel News.
First, we're going to keep telling the other side of the story from the freedom perspective, not the lockdownist big pharma government perspective.
Second, we're going to try to collect the biggest petition we've ever done, which would mean 200,000 names if we did it.
Can we get 200,000 names on a petition at novaxpassports.ca?
Let's try.
And third, we're going to try to find a great test case to challenge the legality of these vax passports from a privacy and human rights point of view.
So, number one, journalism.
Number two, the petition.
Number three, a legal challenge.
I want to find the best case, though, for that.
If you're interested in this, go to novaxpassports.ca and sign your name, and we'll keep you posted on what I believe will be the big struggle of 2021.
Thanks.
So about, I think this was a question asked before, there's about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms.
All of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including Facebook, ones that Facebook owns.
Third, it's important to take faster action against harmful posts.
As you all know, information travels quite quickly on social media platforms.
Sometimes it's not accurate, and Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful violative posts.
Posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days.
That's too long.
The information spreads too quickly.
Finally, we have proposed they promote quality information sources in their feed algorithm.
Facebook has repeatedly shown that they have the leverage to promote quality information.
We've seen them effectively do this in their algorithm over low-quality information, and they've chosen not to use it in this case.
And that's certainly an area that would have an impact.
So, these are certainly the proposals.
We engage with them regularly, and they certainly understand what our asks are.
That's Jen Sackey, the spokesman for Joe Biden, saying the quiet part out loud.
The U.S. federal government is now telling the big tech giants what are or aren't problematic ideas, not criminal ideas.
I believe there should be some regulation of the internet in the same way there's some regulation of real life.
If you commit a terrorist act, if you utter a death threat, that could be a crime in cyberspace as much as it is on a telephone or in person.
But these aren't crimes, this is a call for censorship.
The modern town square is owned by a handful of oligarchs in Silicon Valley.
That makes it easy for censorship to be done at a stroke of a key on a keyboard.
It's like living in a company town if you're a minor, except for the company town is the entire world.
Well, Facebook is a leading censor, and we know this not only from our own experience at Rebel News, but from talking to the Facebook whistleblower.
You'll recall, we interviewed him shortly after he left one of Facebook's censorship factories in Arizona, a company called Cognizant, that had hundreds of sensors working around the clock, censoring not just American news, but from their Phoenix headquarters, censoring the 2019 Canadian election.
That Facebook whistleblower, Ryan Hartwig, joins us now via Skype.
Ryan, nice to see you again.
It was a bombshell, your revelation, that Facebook actively censors politics, but it doesn't even seem controversial anymore.
Everyone's sort of acknowledging it, including the White House.
Yeah, and that clip you saw with Jen Pisaki is really shocking because she even admits that Facebook has the ability to promote certain quality content.
And that totally flies in the face of the original intentions of Section 230 because they should only be able to restrict lewd or content that's harmful.
And of course, that definition of harmful is left to Facebook's imagination on how they define it.
And what she just said, that could be used in Trump's brand new lawsuit because his lawsuit argues that Facebook is receiving instructions from the White House.
And that's even clear.
That's much more clear now.
Jen mentioned, Jen Pisaki mentioned proposals.
They have proposals for Facebook.
So in just yesterday, she said that they're flagging the information for Facebook.
So it's the difference between giving someone permission and instructing them to do so.
And it seems like the government is instructing Facebook to flag certain posts.
Yeah.
I mean, you mentioned Section 230.
I think our viewers know that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it gives publishers immunity to take down obscene material, but it's been used to give them immunity from any legal recourse.
But the whole idea was that they were a neutral platform, like a bulletin board on the wall that shouldn't be responsible for what people tacked to it.
But when they're taking instructions, when they're boosting approved content and throttling bad content, like what you were doing as a Facebook censor, I don't know how Section 230 can even give them any protection.
I want to talk about your new book because the timing couldn't be more perfect.
It's actually incredible.
The book is called Behind the Mask of Facebook, Learn How to Fight Big Tech Censorship to Protect Free Speech.
And the book is on pre-order now.
It'll be out in just about a month, August 17th.
I'm going to order my copy because I actually want to know how to fight big tech censorship, not just as an intellectual exercise, but our company depends on it.
Tell me about the book.
Yeah, so the book is basically my analysis of all the policies that I studied at Facebook.
So I studied Facebook's internal policy documents for two years, nearly two years.
And so it's, you know, some of it's really deep analysis, which is good because we want to know the details, the juicy details, but it's also fun.
So there's a chapter called, you know, Trump Pumpers and Feminazis, Facebook's slandered approach to bullying.
But it really just gives, you know, it's kind of that narrative of me, I'm going into this job, kind of kind of a naive about what I would experience.
And I grew up very religious.
And here I was exposed to the most shocking content in the world.
I had to see cartel videos, beheadings, child nudity, pornography, bestiality.
So, you know, that's one aspect of it.
But the other aspect is, you know, on a global scale, Facebook is censoring this political content.
They're having us flag trends, including in the election in Canada with Jagmeet Singh and telling us to look for hate speech about Jagmeet Singh.
And so that's, yeah, that's the book behind the mask of Facebook.
My co-author, Kent Heckenlively, is a renowned author.
He co-authored with Judy Mikovitz's Plague of Corruption.
So yeah, I'm super excited for the book.
I just really wanted to get the story out there.
And I hope it can be used in future lawsuits and battles against big tech.
Well, when you describe some of the horrific things that you, I think, properly censored, I mean, snuff videos or crimes, I don't think there's anyone in the world who would oppose that.
But it's quite a journey from some of the grotesque and obscene things you described to proactively hunting for criticisms of Jagmeet Singh that are extra mean.
And I don't recommend meanness, but being mean, being offensive is actually the right, a right that a citizen has to respond to their rulers.
I mean, the whole idea of a democracy is we don't just have to be nice to our political leaders.
We can actually, frankly, we have the right to be rude to them to the point of a crime.
Again, we don't want death threats or anything like that.
I recall when you talked to us the first time, it was rather incredible to me that you and all the other Facebook censors in Arizona who were in charge of censoring the Canadian election, you had a handbook that said what Canadians could or couldn't say.
Being Informed About Censorship00:06:24
And you were down there in Phoenix.
I don't know if you've ever been to Canada in your life and you were censoring our election.
Yeah, and that's what's really shocking about Facebook's global policy is you have censors, you know, that could be anywhere in the world, and they're interfering in elections.
And, you know, I saw we had a post about Venezuela where we had a couple years ago, Juan Guaido was trying to become the president, and people were making calls for an armed revolution.
And Facebook told us to delete those posts.
Just over the holiday, the holiday weekend, July 4th here in the U.S., Facebook was banning the hashtag revolution.
And something shocking, something also new that I wanted to let you know, Ezra, I was going through some footage of when I filmed it with the hidden camera, and there's something I missed that's new that is going to is abhorrent.
So there was a post, there was guidance given on January 30th of 2018 to us as censors, and this is straight from Facebook.
And there was an album, a music album of a children's band in Brazil, and the children were naked on the cover, fully nude toddlers.
And Facebook said the album cover does violate our child nudity policy.
However, given the artistic value of this album cover, as well as the public interest value, Facebook has decided to make a newsworthy exception.
So it just shows once again that clear bias and the fact that they're giving exceptions for child nudity.
One thing they should not allow, they're giving an exception for.
Yeah, I tell you, there's been so many high-profile cases of pedophilia, whether it's Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, you would think that the billionaire oligarchs would be a little more sensitive to that stuff, but I guess they really don't care.
And I guess that's my last question for you.
I mean, you've told us what's going on, and it was shocking to hear it from you.
But now Jen Sack is talking about it in a matter-of-fact way.
She's trying to normalize this extreme bias and the fact that government is now directing Facebook and the other companies.
I guess my question is: what could possibly be done about it?
You mentioned Donald Trump's lawsuit.
All right, good luck with that.
That depends on the temperament and the politics of a particular judge.
That depends on the skill of his lawyers.
That's not going to be enough.
What can be done on a society-wide level?
And what can an individual like us here at Rebel News do about it?
What can an ordinary person do about it?
Is there anything?
Yeah, I mean, you know, definitely a first step is being informed.
You know, you can read my book and learn exactly what their internet policies are.
As far as there is a differing legal strategy, it might have some traction, which would be suing the government under the Fifth Amendment for due process.
Because since government is giving them instructions, normally we would have due process because they're depriving us of liberty and property, right?
And so Facebook has shown there's no measurable bounds.
The rules are not being uniformly applied.
They're essentially acting as a quasi-government agency.
So that would be an alternate strategy to sue the United States government itself under the Fifth Amendment.
But as citizens, you know, in our local jurisdictions, I think on the state level, we can pass legislation.
I know Florida and Texas have successfully passed some legislation against big tech, against censorship.
So, yeah, really just being informed, keeping it a priority.
I'm glad Trump launched the lawsuit because now it's forefront in their minds.
It really, you know, big tech's power is really a big part problem, and it's part of this mismatched censorship regime.
But yeah, I think on the state level, we can pass legislation, but stay informed, keep fighting, be aware.
I know Canada might have some legislation in the pipeline regarding censorship that's even worse than what we have, but here in the U.S.
But I think there's some hope.
There's a glimmer of hope.
I'm glad that Trump is leading the fight, and there's a lot of options open to us right now.
Well, I'm not quite as hopeful as you are.
I do think that it can fall to some of the states, especially Texas and Florida, who have governors who seem to be digging in on this.
Canada, I'll just tell you, as a Canadian, is lost on this.
I mean, Trudeau will surely win a majority government in our looming election.
And he has made it crystal clear that censoring the internet is one of his top priorities.
In fact, it was the number two priority in his mandate letter given to his heritage minister two years ago.
So it's actually the only surprise in Canada is that the censorship law is not fully in place yet.
Ryan, it's nice to talk with you again.
Good luck in the book.
Just one more time for our viewers.
It's called Behind the Mask of Facebook, Learn How to Fight Big Tech Censorship to Protect Free Speech.
I don't think we quite have the full answer yet, but I look forward to your book.
Thanks, Ryan.
Yeah, thanks, Censor.
All right, there you have it.
Ryan Hartwig, one of the whistleblowers who showed us how Facebook down in Arizona was censoring the Canadian election.
Stay with us more.
Hey, welcome back.
Bruce writes.
This July 16th broadcast is why I wear my fascist book shirt proudly.
The government offloads much of the censorship burden to big tech so they can honestly say it isn't their fault when people get angry at them.
Oh, exactly.
And that's what Trudeau wants to do up here.
It's so clear that Trudeau is reading from Biden's playbook.
Sharon writes, I stopped using Facebook and FakeBook, and so should everyone else, no Twitter either.
Keep up the battle until the uprising competition takes hold and they no longer have a monopoly.
Well, I have two counterpoints to that.
The first is we want to persuade people now, not in some future forum that may or may not exist.
So we have to be where the people are, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
The second thing is, anytime an alternative starts to gain traction, it's banned too.
Make your own social media.
Okay, they did.
Gab and Parlor, both are being demonized or deplatformed, kicked off of app stores, things like that.
So they simply won't let you do it.
I'm worried about things, and I don't think with Biden as president, it's going to get any better.