Episode 1952 Scott Adams: Everything You Suspected About Twitter Was True And Worse Than You Thought
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Kyrsten Sinema quits democrats
TikTok worries 2/3 of the public
Brittney Griner prisoner swap
Bari Weiss Twitter Files report
Twitter shadowbanning
Ted Lieu's word salad
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time, that's for sure.
And I don't want to oversell today's livestream, but I feel like it might be the best ever.
I mean, I got notes.
We've got subjects.
We've got humor. We've got interesting concepts.
It's all here. And if you'd like to take it up to levels, they can only be described as stratospheric.
All you need is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, or stine, a canteen jugger, a flask of vessel of a guy, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Hello from Atlantis.
I didn't know that was still with us, but apparently it is.
I don't know where to start.
Of course I'm going to be talking about Twitter.
But there's so much in the news today.
It's like crazy.
So let's just jump right in.
I hope you're exercising or cleaning your house or commuting or doing something for which this content will raise you up.
So Kirsten Sinema, Arizona Senator, has quit the Democrats to become an independent.
So there's that. I wonder why Kyrsten Sinema would pick now.
Why now?
Interesting time.
But she's got some complaints about the Democrats being too political.
Too political, yeah.
So she'll be an independent. So I wonder if there's any related information that would kind of give us any insight on Kyrsten Sinema's Changing parties.
I wonder why that would happen. Well, you know, in a completely unrelated way, Rasmussen Polling Company did a tweet today, and I think it was last year or so they asked this poll question, but we hadn't seen it until now.
They asked Arizonans who did they vote for, In the election in which Sinema won against McSally, the Republican candidate.
Now, since we know that Sinema won the election, if you ask the people in the state, who did you vote for, it should be very close to what the actual vote was, right?
I mean, one thing for sure is that it's not going to be way off.
Like, it's not going to be completely different, like in an obvious way, from the actual vote.
So when Rasmussen asked people who they voted for, 37% of them said they voted for the winner, cinema.
And 46% of them said they voted for the person who lost, McSally.
Have you connected the dots?
Here it is. There are only two possibilities, people.
Two possibilities. One, a professional polling company forgot how to do a poll.
They just don't know how to poll.
Like, all their other polls have been fine, and they're usually one of the better ones for accuracy in presidential elections.
But maybe just this one time, even though they checked their numbers, maybe they just forgot how to do this polling thing.
Do you think that could be it? Because it would suggest that the actual election went to the loser.
Do you think that many people forgot who they voted for?
If you reproduce this for another candidate in another place at another time, would the result be close to what the actual election was?
Or would it be off by the difference between 37 and 46?
Which is pretty, pretty big difference.
Yeah, it's a big difference.
Now, of course, this is only suggestive of what might have been a problem.
It's not proof.
Would you agree? A poll is a statistical likelihood kind of a situation.
It's not proof. It's not like a direct witness saw something.
But I wonder, is anything else happening around now?
That would make you question the official narrative about things.
Just things in general.
Anything? Is there anything happening in the world that would, I don't know, influence your trust in what the people in charge have told you is true?
Anything? Well, let's talk about what else is in the news.
See if you can maybe tie it all together.
See if you can maybe find a theme today.
Is there a theme in today's news?
Maybe. Could be.
So, well, I wish I had not gotten all of my many notes out of order.
But speaking of Rasmussen...
Actually, before we speak of them...
The CEO of Coinbase, Coinbase is the big exchange, that was the big competitor to FTX, the crypto exchange that we know now was a gigantic fraud situation and bankrupt.
And the CEO of Coinbase says, I'm paraphrasing now, why is the CEO of FTX not in jail?
Is it not obvious to everyone involved that he just stole $10 billion and he's walking around like he's your barber or something?
Like it didn't even register as a crime?
Now, to be fair, here's the second theme for today's show.
This theme is important because it's going to come up with some of the other topics.
The theme is this. If you're a citizen of the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty.
So I'd like to hear his defense.
I can't imagine, my imagination is not good enough to imagine it's not exactly what it looks like.
It looks like he stole $10 billion.
That's what it looks like.
But he is a citizen of the United States.
And as a citizen of the United States, I extend to him the privilege of all citizens of the United States, innocent until proven guilty.
Now, of course I'm going to make a little exception or be flexible if it's really, really obvious what the crime was, right?
If the police capture somebody with a smoking weapon and there's a bunch of dead people and witnesses and video cameras, I'm not going to say that one's innocent until proven guilty, right?
If the news is just, like, confirms it beyond any doubt.
But FTX is complicated.
It's complicated.
It's entirely possible that he gives you a defense that says, oh, he was just stupid or incompetent.
It wasn't the criminal intent that you imagined.
It's possible. I think it's very unlikely.
Very unlikely.
But it's possible.
So, as an individual, I give him that privilege of...
of assumption of innocence.
Do we extend the assumption of innocence to our government or to big corporations?
Is it reasonable?
Is it ethical and moral to extend that assumption?
No, it's not. It's the opposite.
In fact, for big entities who have much power over you, you know, when there's a big power imbalance, like the government versus a citizen, in that case, they are definitely guilty until a proven innocent, meaning that if they can't provide some transparency about their systems, You should, as a reasonable, ethical, moral person, assume they're guilty.
That should be your baseline assumption.
And you should act like that's true, but if they can prove they're not, or they can make their system transparent so everybody can see for themselves, then revise your opinion.
But start with citizens innocent, big entities guilty.
That's your starting assumption.
To be a wise, good citizen in the republic.
Let's talk about banning TikTok and see if there are any assumptions we can make about the government.
Speaking of Rasmussen, they did a poll on TikTok, found out that two-thirds of voters are worried about TikTok and that China can use it against Americans, and they support banning it.
So two-thirds of the public bans it.
Now, one assumes that the people who are opposed to banning it would either be people who love using it, or people maybe not up-to-date on the subject, or maybe just people who are, you know, radical about freedom, I guess, even if it has a cost.
So that's about what I would have expected.
Is that about what you expected?
Two-thirds of the public would say, get rid of it?
Does that feel right? It feels right to me.
Like, that's right in the pocket of where I would have expected it to be.
So, I don't know.
I know a lot of you are modest.
A lot of the people who watch this livestream are modest, but if there's anybody who wandered in here who's not a regular, you know, maybe on YouTube you haven't seen this before, I hate to do this to my followers, but I'm going to ask you to be non-modest just for a moment.
Sort of a demonstration.
Like, if you could just take your modesty and put it on the side.
Because I want you to show off for a little bit.
You tell me what percentage of adult American voters, without any hints, you tell me, with your psychic abilities, what percentage of the public Thinks that TikTok should not be banned.
You know, every time you do this, I get more impressed.
I think, well, okay, you got lucky last time.
How do you do this?
It's 24%.
24. Yeah, you're within the margin of error.
I don't know. You just keep impressing me.
You keep impressing me.
I don't know how you do it.
Yep, that was exactly right.
And now here's the second question.
You know that there is bipartisan support in Congress Both the Democrats and the Republicans both say with full voice, some of them, not all of them, that it should be banned.
So it's a bipartisan issue.
All right, now here's the question for you.
You're all wise consumers of the news, and you know that TikTok's a big issue.
Tell me the name of a member of Congress or anybody in the Biden administration who is opposed to banning it.
Anybody. Anybody. Just give me the name, Democrat, Republican, Independent.
Now, somebody who actually said it out loud.
I'm not talking about people who you think...
Not people you think believe it.
I'm talking about people who said it out loud.
Nobody. Nobody.
Now, Harris didn't say it out loud.
I don't even need to check.
I know that didn't happen. The only people who have said it out loud...
Democrat or Republican, the only people who've even said anything out loud, said ban it.
Give me a fact check on that.
Give me a fact check.
Am I wrong? That everybody who spoke out loud, Democrat or Republican, 100% of them said ban it.
Am I wrong? Right?
I believe I'm correct.
Now, can you explain to me why...
Why, if everyone is on the same side, and it would be a fairly easy thing to do, right?
Probably, I don't know if it's legislation or executive order.
I don't know what it is. But it would be easy as long as everybody agrees.
Because there's no complexity here, is there?
The complexity is, oh, it looks like it's risky.
We don't know. But why take the chance?
So take it out of the app stores and you're done.
Could be the easiest law you could ever pass.
Give me any reason that doesn't use the word corruption to explain it.
Well, I do have two hypotheses.
So believe it or not, there are two good hypotheses.
One comes from Twitter user Unhoodwinked, who's a fun follow if you want to add somebody.
Unhoodwinked, one word.
And explains...
I always like it when people explain back to me my own opinions.
But they do it well.
So, in this case, he's doing it well.
He says, quote, People seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value.
And that quote is from Robert Cialdini, who's sort of the godfather of persuasion and somebody I speak about all the time.
And... And so when Hoodwink asked this question, you know, wisely, why would the Democrats anger their addicts, because the people who use TikTok are addicts, why would they anger their base, given that they have nothing to replace it with?
Now, they do have something to replace it with.
You could replace it with TikTok videos, I'm sorry, with Instagram videos, but you could have an American company feeding you the videos.
It's not like you would have no access to videos anymore.
The TikTokers would just move over to Instagram and it would just take off.
So that's a possibility.
I like that as a potential explanation, don't you?
That passes the sniff test.
It's something that would make their voters unhappy, and they don't have anything to soothe them or explain why they're making them unhappy.
Because, you know, national defense is not going to be good enough for a TikTok user.
There's no TikTok influencer who is going to say, oh, I sure liked being a TikTok influencer and all of the benefits I was getting from that.
But, you know, now that you mention there's a risk with China, I think I'd rather that you turn it off Nobody, right?
So it's not like a TikTok influencer is ever going to agree with the government.
Now, as Jack Murphy, also on Twitter, points out in a tweet, he says, if and when the Biden administration stops hosting TikTok influencers, which they've done, perhaps then the writing will be on the wall.
But until then, they aren't just not banning it, they're using it for their agenda.
So that passes the sniff test too, doesn't it?
Isn't that exactly what would make sense?
Is that there's no politician who wants it.
Nobody thinks it's good for the country.
But there are enough politicians who think it's good for their re-election that not only does TikTok help them get their message out, but if they took it away, it would make their voters very unhappy.
So that's the whole story, isn't it?
I don't see what else could explain.
The other possibility is they're taking bribes from China.
But I think Unhoodwinked and Jack Murphy have the superior hypotheses.
I think the superior hypothesis is not that China is bribing our politicians.
Could be. I mean, anything's possible.
But I think the better is that the Democrats know it would be to their disadvantage, and they have too much power now, so there's nothing that's going to happen.
But why did the Republicans not do it?
How about that? Remember, Trump wanted to ban it, and it didn't get done, and I don't remember who stopped it.
Now, my understanding is it's the Treasury Department who's researching it right now.
Does giving it to the Treasury Department to research, does that sound like an administration who wants it to be banned, or an administration who wants the issue to be delayed forever?
Which sounds more like what that would do.
Huh. I really want to ban TikTok.
Let me turn it over to an unrelated bureaucracy and have them wrestle with it for months.
Does that sound like somebody who wants to ban TikTok?
No. That sounds like somebody who wants to look like they're doing something, but they definitely don't want to ban TikTok.
So you give it to the Treasury Department and you say, hey, take your time.
Get a committee together.
Maybe do some research, and I'll bet you'll never have enough information.
I'll bet you'll never know enough to make a recommendation, but we'll wait.
We'll just keep waiting.
So that looks like what's happening, right?
Now, if you were on the local subscription service...
You would hear more about this topic that I won't be telling you on YouTube.
Sorry. But there's more to this story.
Here's my prediction. My prediction is that TikTok will be banned before June of 2023.
And here's the reason for the prediction.
They're definitely not going to ban TikTok before Christmas.
Everybody agrees with that, right?
So even if they were inclined to, they wouldn't do it before Christmas and make everybody unhappy.
So it's going to be after Christmas.
But they can't wait too long.
You know why? Why can't they wait too long?
The Democrats, I mean. They can't wait too long because it's free money for the Republicans.
The Republicans just have to walk up to this topic and look down at the table, and there's a big pile of free money.
All they have to do is say, well, we'll ban TikTok.
And then two-thirds of the country says, oh, okay.
That sounds pretty good.
So... Yeah, it's not literally cash.
So when I say money on the table, I mean figuratively speaking.
Figuratively speaking. Somebody says after the IPO. So there's also a hypothesis that some investors have enough money in TikTok that you have to wait for it to go public so they can get their money out.
Once they're cashed out, then the money people will allow their little pets in the government to ban it.
Maybe. That would certainly be a follow-the-money explanation.
So now you have three pretty good explanations for why there could be no politicians in favor of keeping it, and yet nothing happens.
And I think maybe it's a combination of all that.
Yeah, as long as 12-year-olds can't vote.
So I think the Democrats are going to have to take the issue away from the Republicans, because it's just too available and easy for them to just pick it up.
They have to take it away.
And they have to take it away as soon as they can so it doesn't get close to the 2024 election.
So I think before June of 2023.
That's my prediction.
Well, do you want to talk about Brittany Griner's release?
So as you know, WNBA player Brittany Griner, who plays for the popular WNBA team, the...
I'm just going to roll through in my mind all the names of different WNBA teams that I'm familiar with.
There's the... The Unicorns?
That might be a team.
How about the... The shooters?
The Mustangs?
I don't know. I don't know.
But I'm assuming that they have actually team names, right?
Does the NBA have actual teams?
And they have names and stuff?
Probably. Probably.
But anyway, we respect the WNBA, although we don't know anything about them.
I think it's basketball.
It's like a basketball thing.
I don't know. I've never seen it, but...
I hear great things about it.
Anyway, we're being told by the Biden administration that Russia gave them a choice.
They could trade for the merchant of death arms dealer who killed more people than, you know, maybe Hitler.
We don't know. But they traded that guy for, but only one.
They would only give us one person in return.
And it could either be... It can either be the ex-Marine, Paul Whelan, who's being held over there for reasons that appear to be trumped-up charges, or the WNBA player, but as Biden's spokesperson, who is, and this is important to the story, otherwise I wouldn't bring it up, spokesperson is both black and lesbian.
Now, coincidentally, Brittany Griner is both black and lesbian.
Both black and lesbian.
So when the Biden administration had a choice of who to bring back, the adult white male who served this country as a Marine, or the black lesbian basketball player, the spokesperson said that they valued her being black and lesbian, and so they picked her.
Just sort of let that settle in for a moment.
I listened to it, and I thought, well, you're not going to say it directly, right?
You're not going to directly say we favored her for being black and lesbian, because you wouldn't say that out loud, right?
And they did. She actually said it out loud.
She said that that was a variable, and if you were going to choose between the two...
They put a priority, and they said it directly, a priority on her being black and lesbian, because that made her a role model.
You know who's not a role model in this country?
A white male Marine who defended the country.
That would be not a role model.
That's the opposite of a role model.
But what you want is a law-breaking, drug-dealing, not dealing, drug-doing, I don't mind the drug part, actually, athlete who's black and lesbian, which is an advantage, two advantages.
Three advantages. She's female, she's black, and she's lesbian.
She's got three advantages.
So, of course, you want the valuable one to be let out.
Do you know what I fear?
I fear that I will someday be captured by an adversarial country.
Because I'm exactly the kind of guy that they want to pick off the street.
I think I'm just traveling overseas, going to an exotic place, and I get picked up by the country and jailed on some trumped-up charge.
And that would be bad enough.
But the only thing I fear is that at the same time they put me in jail, they also picked up a black lesbian WNBA player.
And then my embassy got a message to me, and they said, Scott, Scott, good news.
We made a deal that we can get one of you out of here.
And I would say, one of us?
What are you talking about? Oh, there's two of you.
There are two of you that have been illegitimately captured, and we're pretty sure we can get one of you out, so good news.
And I'd be like, all right, all right.
Who's the other person?
Right?
Who's the other fucking person?
All right. So let me say this as just clearly as I can.
Your government has gone full racist.
They did it right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
And they didn't pull their punch.
They didn't hide it. They said it directly, white lives don't matter that much.
And they said it in direct language with no hesitation.
Right? That the role model of an adult black lesbian was like something that needed to be protected, and this American ex-Marine, not so important.
They actually told you white lives didn't matter.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what I heard.
I heard white lives didn't matter, because I don't see anything happening to get Paul Wellen out of prison, do you?
No, they're going to let him fucking die there.
Oh, by the way, did you know that he was a Trump supporter?
Did anybody mention that?
That the one that they're fucking is a Trump supporter?
Yeah. Now, that's an impeachable offense.
That's an impeachable offense.
The administration went full racist and didn't hide it.
They didn't hide it.
And they left him there because he's a fucking Trump supporter.
If you tell me there's any other reason that they left him there, then besides the fact that he's a Trump supporter, you're lying.
Because everything you suspect about your government has to be assumed to be true.
What you believe about any one individual in the government, well, they're innocent until proven guilty, if it's one person.
But not the government.
It was the government that decided to discriminate based on race, based on political preference, based on maybe gender preference.
That was a decision.
They did it right in front of you.
And they hunted, again, another adult white male.
And they just fucking left in there.
And he's still there.
Can you tell me that we don't have any leverage over Russia?
Nothing? In your wildest imagination, can you imagine Trump leaving him there?
Now, Trump would have gotten both of them out.
You agree with that, right? Trump never would have said, oh, you're only going to let me have one.
Do you know what Trump would have done?
I'll tell you what Trump would have done.
He would have picked up Lavrov wherever he fucking is.
That's what he would have done. He would have locked up their fucking foreign minister.
Tell me he wouldn't. You tell me he wouldn't do that.
Yeah, he would. And I would support him on it.
Now, of course, we'd have to get all of our diplomats out of Russia.
But I'd do it.
I'd close the embassy in Russia.
I'd pull out every American.
And then I would grab the highest-ranking Russian I could find anywhere.
I'd put them in fucking jail.
And I'd say, you're holding a Marine.
Did you hear us? You're holding our Marine.
Red line. Red line.
Red line. Everything's on the table now.
Everything's on the table. You've got to let that guy go.
Everything's on the table. That's what Trump would have done, and he would have gotten both of them back.
And then he would have murdered the merchant of death before he got off the plane.
You want to give him a last meal that has a time-release capsule in it or something.
But I'd definitely kill that guy.
You've got to kill that guy.
But I think he would have gotten our people back.
Now, I'm not saying that Trump should be our next president.
I'm not on that team at all.
I'm just saying it's easy to see that this was a solvable problem if somebody wanted it solved.
It's clear they didn't want this solved.
Or they're terribly incompetent, one or the other.
Do you think Russia would have given up everything just to keep this one Marine?
I don't. But I would have risked everything to get him back.
Because that's just got to be how it works.
You can't send your Marines over there to protect you if you're not going to protect them.
Nothing works that way.
The world doesn't work that way.
You've got to be on their side.
Or don't send them over to kill people on your behalf.
All right.
What is currently the friendliest country in the world for adult white males, if I have to move?
Okay.
That's a serious question.
If I wanted to move someplace where an adult white male would do well, where would that be?
Poland? Romania?
Iceland? Japan?
I don't know. Thailand?
I think there are a lot of countries that can go both ways, right?
You know, they might hate you, but they'll treat you well.
You know, so they might be racist against you, but you'll still do all right.
I feel like Thailand would be a place where you would do fine as an adult white male, but maybe they don't like you that much privately.
Ukraine? Ireland?
I know. But it does feel like it's not a friendly place to be anymore for all of us.
Did you know that Twitter can read your DMs?
Did you all know that?
You know the Twitter employees that can just look at all your private messages?
You should have known that.
The reason that encrypted apps exist is that unencrypted apps...
Whoever runs them can look at them.
Have you ever put anything in a DM that you didn't want the world to see?
Don't do that. Don't do that.
You know, of course, I replayed my past history.
I asked myself, have I ever DMed something that if it became public, that would be a problem?
And the answer is, of course.
Of course I have. But not a big problem, right?
You know, it would be like one news cycle of cartoonists said this thing that surprises you.
And it would be out of context.
Because probably it wouldn't be anything bad.
I don't think I've ever put anything bad in a DM. But definitely I've put opinions there.
I've had opinions there that maybe I've not expressed in public.
So maybe those would be embarrassing, but they would be easy to defend.
It just would be something I hadn't yet defended.
So I think I'd be fine, as far as I know.
But let me give you this advice again.
There's no such thing as a private digital communication.
That is not a thing.
That is not a thing.
Not a text message, not an email, not an encrypted app.
Not Telegram, not WhatsApp.
Those are encrypted, but it doesn't keep them private because there are other ways that people can get it besides breaking the encryption.
Somebody can just look at your phone.
Or somebody can look at the phone of who received it.
Or the person who received it could just show it to a friend.
So there's no such thing as private digital communication.
The sooner you realize that, the safer you'll be.
Barry Weiss. It was her turn to do the next Twitter files drop.
So we got another tweet thread and more to come.
And we learned a little bit more about Twitter and let's talk about all of that.
And this falls into the category of everything you suspected Might actually be true.
Everything you thought people were doing to you, they were.
Just like you thought.
Let's talk about that.
Apparently, Barry Weiss has discovered, and we all know now, that there were two groups, official groups within Twitter, who individually had the ability to shadow ban or throttle or decrease the visibility.
Of various people. And we know that among those who were shadow banned were Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino and the libs of TikTok.
So those are three that we know for sure that's now confirmed that they were not imagining it when they saw that their engagement dropped through the roof.
It was exactly what it looked like.
Now, here's my first question.
Suppose, and it seems to be confirmed, suppose it's true that some of those accounts got totally shadow banned.
How bad will I feel if I wasn't?
Have you ever thought about that?
There's going to be a race now, because Musk said he would release a tool that would let you check your own account status.
What happens if I check my account status and it's just fine?
And there's no shadow banning out at all?
Do you know how embarrassed and pissed off I'm going to be?
I'm going to be like, seriously?
You're going to ban Dan Bongino, but not me?
Have you seen what I say?
I mean, just listen to me for five minutes.
If you're going to ban Dan Bongino, what has he got that I don't have?
Why is he better than me?
All right, sure. Oh, you're going to ban Dan Bongino, but not me.
Why? Why?
I'm going to be a little bit jealous of Dan Bongino, as I already am, because he does great work.
I'm going to be a little bit disappointed.
And I'm not even joking.
I'm not joking.
Yesterday I realized, what if I find out I was never important enough to be shadowbanned?
I will be crushed.
Crushed. Like, I desperately want to be on that list.
Now here's the problem, though.
As soon as Musk took over...
My Twitter account immediately began responding as though it's not shadow banned.
So in other words, I don't see any indication that I'm being throttled.
So I would imagine that when the tool is available, I'll check, and my account will look totally clean.
That's what I think. But that won't tell me...
That won't tell me if they had ever had it banned.
Because here's what I think.
Do you believe that around the time Musk took over, do you believe that somebody at Twitter went to individual accounts, such as mine, and then made an individual decision to take the throttle off of me, and then went to the next person and said, all right, let's make the decision on this next one?
That feels unlikely.
What it feels like, and there's no confirmation of this, this is speculation, what it feels like is there were a whole bunch of us on a list and that I want to find out if their so-called tool for visibility can do an entire list the same way.
In other words, can they make all people on one side disappear for a little while?
Because that's the way I would have built it, right?
Wouldn't you build it so it was list-based as well as individual?
Of course. That would be the obvious thing you do, right?
You just put it in a list. Because you want to be able to treat them all the same sometimes.
Yeah. Oh, people on locals.
This is the third thing I want you to remind me of.
So when I talk to you privately later, after YouTube is gone...
I have a Jim Baker story that I can't tell on YouTube.
It's not what you think.
All right. Here's what else we found out.
So there were several references to what Jack Dorsey knew or did.
Do you believe that, for those of you who saw it, do you believe that Barry Weiss and the information she came up with, do you believe it confirms that Jack Dorsey knew all along and was lying to the public?
How many think he knew all along and he was lying to the public and that the information we have confirms that?
I see yeses and nos.
All right. Have I mentioned...
That private citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
Now, I'm on record as saying I believe that he didn't know it was happening, that it was happening, clearly, but that the CEO didn't know because the staff lied about it.
That was my speculation.
Now, I don't know. We don't have enough information to confirm one way or the other.
But let me tell you what I think happened yesterday, which is making you think that it was confirmed that Jack Dorsey knew what was going on.
Here's what I think.
I think we're conflating concepts.
Concept number one, did Twitter have a tool, a software tool, that would allow them to shadow ban?
Yes or no? Did they have a tool that could do it if they wanted to do it?
Yes. Did we all know that that was the case?
Because they obviously had a tool for getting rid of trolls and Nazis and people who violated terms of service.
So there's no new information, no new information about the fact that they had the tools to shadow ban some people.
Would you agree? That the fact that the tool exists is known to everybody.
Now, when Jack Dorsey confirmed that that tool exists, was he confirming that the company does shadow banning?
Because he did confirm that the tool exists.
So what you read was, yes, that tool exists.
Did you read anywhere that Jack Dorsey knows they used the tool in an inappropriate way?
Now, stop saying he knew.
That's a speculation.
And I understand why you're speculating it.
It's a perfectly reasonable speculation.
But regardless of how reasonable it is as a speculation, would you agree that the evidence has not shown it?
The evidence has not shown it.
The evidence has shown that he admitted the tool exists.
The evidence has shown that the tool was used by the employees.
And that's what we know.
We do know that Twitter's official, you know, whatever their official tweeting account is, said unambiguously, we do not shadow ban.
How could that be true and not true at the same time?
Is that possible?
Is it possible that Twitter could say, and be honest and true about it, that they don't shadow ban, but at the same time, they totally do shadow ban?
Can both of those be true?
Yes. Yes.
I think that's what's going on.
They can both be true.
They seem like opposites, but here's how they can both be true.
Hey, Twitter, what is your official policy on shadow banning?
Oh, our official policy is we don't do it.
We don't do it at all.
Okay, that's your official policy.
But now, how do you explain Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, and libs of TikTok?
Oh, that's not shadow banning.
That was our opinion.
That they had created a danger for our base, and we always have a normal process, everybody does, of getting rid of dangerous stuff.
Stuff that violated our terms of service.
Well, wait a minute, Twitter.
Even in your internal communications, you admitted that the libs of TikTok did not violate any terms of service, and yet in your own writings that we can see ourselves, You banned them.
So how do you explain that?
And then they say, well, look at the same document you're looking at.
We explained it in the document.
We said clearly they did not violate the terms of service, but that they were creating a dangerous situation, in our opinion.
And so in order to decrease danger, we were responsible citizens, and we reduced that source of danger.
But that's not shadow banning.
What are you talking about?
That was good citizens having a fiduciary responsibility to their customers, seeing what they believed in their honest interpretation was a danger to the citizens, the LGBTQ community in particular, the trans community.
And we didn't want to be part of increasing the danger To a target population that is protected.
And so, yes, it's true, we did not follow our terms of service, but we did something better than that.
We acted where we thought there was a risk.
Smart people could disagree, and they could say, we shouldn't have done that.
And in retrospect, maybe you're right.
But we did it with good intentions, and we didn't break any laws.
We did it with good intentions, and we broke no laws.
How can you disprove that?
You can't. Unless there's a document somewhere that proves they knew exactly what they were doing and it was just political, and we haven't seen that.
No. They could be telling the truth that they don't shadow ban, Because they simply have to define this other stuff as not shadow banning.
They simply have to say, no, we have a different term for that.
Did we reduce the visibility of those accounts?
Oh, yes, we do that.
Are you talking about our visibility reducing?
Oh, yeah, we totally do that.
You should have asked about that.
But you asked about shadow banning.
Shadow banning would be doing it for political reasons.
Oh, we never do it for political reasons.
We do it because there are some accounts that say dangerous or untrue things, and those things we target, and it wouldn't matter who they were, right?
It's just dangerous and untrue things.
So we're just sort of doing our job, right?
I'm going to double down while also admitting that I could be wrong.
I'm going to double down Jack Dorsey didn't know that they were doing actual shadow banning.
He thought they were doing visibility reducing of dangerous stuff.
But I also imagine that toward the end of his tenure, I believe he probably had a strong suspicion of what was going on.
And that with that strong suspicion...
So here's the funniest part about it.
So Jack is famously sort of a high-awareness kind of an individual.
He's sort of not down in the dirty weeds with the rest of us.
He's a little bit more of a meditator, seeker of knowledge kind of a guy.
And he seems very nonviolent, wouldn't you say?
He seems like a non-violent kind of a guy.
Wouldn't wish any violence on anybody.
Higher awareness kind of guy.
I'm imagining how this is playing with his mind.
Because if he got screwed by his own staff as badly as I believe he did...
He probably wishes he could go in there with a machine gun and just, like, kill them all.
Now, that's not fair.
I don't want to speculate about other people's internal thoughts.
But how mad would you be if you didn't know what was going on and your staff had lied about it and put you in this position?
I would be really, really mad.
And I think he probably either suspected or knew about it before he left.
And I think that's why.
I think that's why he's so vocally in favor of two things.
All of the documents being released.
Now, if Jack were guilty, would he ask for all of the documents to be released?
At the very least, he knows that there's no internal document that incriminates him, wouldn't you say?
At the very least...
He must know there's nothing that would incriminate him.
Otherwise, he wouldn't be calling for it to be released.
He would just be silent about it.
And he has been, a number of times, vocally in favor of what Musk is doing, including the downsizing of the company he built.
So if you piece it all together, my speculation is this.
It's just speculation. That Jack probably feels like he got screwed by some people on his team, and he's happy with Musk getting the revenge that it was impractical for him to get.
That's what I think. Now, let me say this as clearly as possible.
If in 10 minutes it turns out I'm completely wrong, and Jack was behind everything, I will say to you without reservation, well, that was wrong.
I got that one wrong.
So I'm not going to hide it from you.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
It won't be the end of my life.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Did I miss a super chat?
I guess I missed it a long time ago.
Alright, what else did we learn here?
Question, it's legal for a corporation to lie, isn't it?
Not to Congress, but they can lie to the customers, can't they?
It's legal. I remember it was such a mind-blower when I was a kid to learn that the professional wrestling you saw on TV was not real.
Because I said to myself, well, they can't lie to you on television.
Can they? If it's on television, somebody must have checked to make sure it's real.
They wouldn't just say it's not real.
But apparently there's no law against it.
And game shows are the same thing.
Did you know those game shows where, you know, somebody wins and somebody loses?
You know that they, legally, they can just rig those if they want to.
Now, I don't think that they do all the time.
Maybe not most of the time.
But it's completely legal to rig a game show so you think you're watching an actual game, but, you know, it's just rigged.
It's not even illegal.
Years ago, this blew my mind.
Do you remember when... Was it David Copperfield made a jet disappear?
Does anybody remember that?
It was on live TV? I don't know if it was live or recorded.
It might have been live. And the way they did it was, it was like a real jet, and they had people hold hands and form a circle around it.
And then they covered the jet with some kind of a cloth covering, and when they removed the covering, the jet was gone.
How do you make an entire jet disappear?
Obviously, it wasn't lifted over the people, because they would have known that.
And it's a whole jet, so it's not like there was, like, a secret trap door.
Like, there's no trap door that's big enough for a whole jet, right?
So how could they possibly do that trick?
No, it wasn't with mirrors.
No, think more basic.
It was just a TV camera trick.
It wasn't a magic trick at all.
The trick was it wasn't ever a magic trick.
The people who were holding hands were part of the trick, and as soon as the camera looked at one part of them, the other group just let their hands out, and somebody pulled the jet out with some kind of whatever you use to pull jets around.
And then when the camera went back to where those people were, they were back where they belonged, It was never a magic trick.
It was just a lie that was entertaining.
And because it's entertaining, they can lie.
I think that's roughly the rule.
If the point of it is entertainment, you're allowed to lie.
You only have to entertain people.
That's it. You did what you said you'd do.
I'll entertain you. So, once you know that...
That helps inform a lot of what you see.
Just because somebody says something's true, there's no legal liability there.
They can say anything they want.
All right. Jack Dorsey did tell Charlie Kirk in 2018 that they don't shadow ban.
Jack Dorsey told me the same thing at around the same time.
You know, different words, but same time.
Now, I believe them.
So, could I be wrong?
Sure. Sure.
People can be wrong.
But I'm still going to bet on that.
Now, what happens to Democrats when it becomes a point of fact that the system was rigged And if Twitter was rigged the way it looks like it was rigged, that definitely changed the political landscape in a dirty trick kind of way, but not necessarily in the illegal way.
Definitely a dirty trick.
So what happens when they're a dirty trick, which definitely changed everything?
What happens when that's revealed?
How do they act?
Do they say, oh, you got us this time?
Well, that would be hard to do, right?
Do they say, no, that didn't happen, your facts are wrong?
Because that would be hard.
It would be hard to say the facts are wrong.
So here's what I predict.
Cognitive dissonance.
Now, what is the tell for cognitive dissonance?
Have I taught you that?
Does anybody remember what the tell is?
Well, it could be the so, right, where they go, so you're saying, and then they say something that's not what you're saying.
Word salad. Word salad is the tell.
So here is Ted Lieu, famous Democrat Twitter user who is a member of Congress, and you would expect him to have to say something.
You'd have to say something about this.
So I'll read you what he tweeted, and you tell me, does this make sense, or is this word salad?
All right, I'll just read it the way he tweeted it.
He goes, Or to promote QCAT videos over posts by Barry Weiss, or to have, quote, Twitter files, or to accelerate posts about the Browns, or decelerate posts about kale.
Twitter is a business.
Get it? Now, does that have anything to do with anything?
Yeah, that's word salad, isn't it?
It literally looks like I've got to say words, but I can't say anything that makes sense, so I'll just put these words together in sentences.
I would call this a strong tell.
I mean, this doesn't even look like he's lying.
It looks like it broke his brain.
What happens when you realize that the entire time your side was the bad guys?
You know that Ted Lieu knows at this point that the party he belongs to corrupted the republic intentionally, and they got caught.
Now, it wasn't illegal, apparently, but it was the most unethical, immoral, weasel thing that I've seen in a long time.
And that's his party, and he was an active member of the party that did that.
Yeah, he even had kale in his word salad.
Very good. He actually used the word kale in his word salad.
Talk about a simulation tell.
There you go. Now, I came up with a new word.
I call it Twittersplaining.
You've heard of mansplaining.
Here's Twittersplaining, and let me do it for you.
And you have to do it as if you're so arrogant, you think the person you're explaining this to somehow is hearing it for the first time.
So let me Twitter-splain for you.
Got to get in character a little bit.
Let me get in character.
Let me explain to you maggots.
Twitter is a private company.
Do you know what private means, right?
Like not the government?
You get that? Does everybody understand that Twitter's a private, private company?
Okay, now, do you maggots understand that free speech applies to the government?
How about that?
Put that in your pipe.
Yeah, no. So, you were talking about Twitter, a private company.
But freedom of speech, that's about the government.
And so I think I've explained that away for you.
And scene.
And now I'd like to do my impression of Newt Gingrich making a complete asshole out of that guy.
And now my impression of Newt Gingrich from his appearance on Tucker.
Was it Tucker or Laura Ingraham?
I think Laura Ingraham. When a big corporation colludes with the government, we have a word for that.
Fascism. That's the literal definition of Of fascism.
A private company and a government colluding against the citizens.
That's exactly what happened.
And scene.
So pick your politicians.
Twitter-splainers or history professors.
I think I'm going to go with the history professor on this one.
Do you believe that what we've learned about Twitter, which falls into the category of exactly what you fucking thought was happening, would you agree that that characterization is fair?
That what we know about Twitter is exactly what you thought was happening, because it looked exactly like that was happening?
Okay, yes.
Second question.
Do you have any question about whether Google and its YouTube part and Facebook are doing the same thing?
Is there any question in your mind that they're doing the same thing?
No, of course not. Respecting the law against free speech perpetrated by an extra government organization and they asked Twitter to do it.
Okay. Yeah.
Now, remember my theme for today?
Individuals are presumed innocent.
Jack Dorsey?
I presume him innocent.
I could change my mind later if there's different information.
But he's presumed innocent, even though there's no legal...
he's not in a legal process.
But just, you know, ethically, he's presumed innocent.
But is Google and YouTube and Facebook, are they presumed innocent?
No. No, they're presumed guilty.
And at this point, a reasonable person has to assume that they're not on the side of America, that they are a fascist organization involved in a fascist process.
I don't think that's hyperbole, is it?
If the definition of fascism It's the corporations and the government working together against the will of the citizens.
We're looking at it.
We're looking right at it.
There's no way to spin that, is there?
It's just, that's what it is.
All right. So yes, you should assume that YouTube...
Hi, YouTube. I know you're watching me right now.
So my live streams get demonetized fairly regularly, and then you have to ask for it to be undemonetized, and then it does, because there was nothing there to get it demonetized.
It just gets demonetized based on topic, I think.
So they're actually watching me right now, Like, literally, somebody at YouTube watches this livestream because we know that because it gets demonetized so quickly.
And so I'm actually, in effect, talking to the person who almost certainly is a fascist.
Isn't that interesting?
Like, for sure.
Like, there's a fascist at YouTube, probably at least one, who's actually watching me right now and knows for sure That they're working with the government of the United States to, you know, de-boost some accounts.
And they're probably sitting there thinking, I'm a fascist?
That doesn't sound good.
I'd better look up the definition of a fascist.
But if you do look up the definition of a fascist, and I say this to you, whoever's watching me at YouTube right now, just look it up.
I'm not making it up.
It's when a private company and the government work together against the interests of the people.
That's what it is. So, just...
Let me say this to whoever YouTube is watching this right now.
Just think about your life.
Just ask yourself who you are and who you want to be.
Seriously. Who do you want to be in this world?
Do you want to be a fascist?
Does that feel comfortable? Would you rather be...
Now, I don't know if you're American, because you could be in another country, but do you want to be on the side of reducing legitimate political speech?
Is that who you want to be?
Because if you de-boost my voice, you're not really on the side of the people, any people.
And so, speaking to you directly...
Just consider who you are and who you want to be.
That's all I'm going to ask of you.
I'm not going to ask you to treat me differently.
I just want you to be confident in who you are and who you want to be.
That's all I'll ask.
And I'll let that fall out wherever it is.
All right. Musk was asked on Twitter if there were any candidates running for office that we know were shadow banned.
And Musk said, yes.
And apparently we'll find out.
Just hold that in your head for a moment.
And YouTube, whoever's watching this for YouTube, hold that in your head.
That we know for sure that at least at Twitter, there were candidates, legal candidates for office, who were shadow banned on Twitter.
Now, of course you're doing it here, too.
Not you personally, maybe.
Whoever you are at YouTube that I'm talking to.
But you're part of that process.
How does that make you feel?
Now, I get that maybe you preferred a certain side.
Yeah, I understand that, and I respect it.
Because your opinion is valuable, and you should hold your opinion.
But just ask yourself if you think you're improving the country...
This way. You know, of all the things you could do to make the world a better place, is this it?
Is reducing the legitimate speech of 40% of America, is that where you want to be?
Does that make you feel good at the end of the day?
All right. I updated my hoax list.
It was 18 two days ago, and we've already added a couple.
So now the question of whether Twitter does or does not shadow ban is now settled.
Yes, they shadow banned.
They might have called this something else, but there's no question anymore that it happened.
And I'm just going to go out and just say this out loud.
Given what we've seen recently, where the theme of exactly what your worst suspicion was actually true, if we keep seeing that our worst suspicions are true with one topic after another, I'm going to go back and revise my opinions on Aliens, Pizzagate, and the 2020 election.
I mean, right on the edge.
I have said all three of those things are non-valid topics.
I've said aliens, I don't think they're real.
I don't think they're real.
I mean, I'd love to be wrong about that.
I've said that Pizzagate, from the first minute of Pizzagate, I said, no, that's not real.
That's not real. If anybody wants to fact-check that, you'll find that I said it wasn't real from the first second.
Now, And also the 2020 election, I accepted because I haven't seen evidence until today that there was, you know, an obvious problem.
Now, the Rasmussen poll that shows that the people who believe they voted for one person were maybe surprised at the outcome, because it looks like, at least from a statistical polling perspective, it looks like there was a big issue in Arizona.
Yeah. So we've got a total collapse of trust.
By the way, I'm not joking about this.
Does this sound like a joke?
I'll say it again so you know it's not joking.
This is so unsettling that everything you imagined is true that I literally, no joke, will reconsider aliens, Pizzagate, and the 2020 election.
Three things that I dismissed as not worthy of my attention.
All right? Yeah, don't get me started on evolution.
All right. Adam Schiff.
He said this in a tweet to Musk.
He said, Hey Elon, under your leadership, neo-Nazis, homophobes, and racists are flocking to Twitter and spewing hate speech.
And then Musk responded that hate speech is like down 30%.
So literally, Schiff did what Schiff does.
He just made up something and then presented it as truth.
Except Musk's credibility is so high right now that if Musk says in 10 minutes, no, that's not true, who are you going to believe?
Who are you going to believe, right?
Musk, of course. So here's what you need to know.
It's always useful to know the teams.
One of the ways you can tell what's really happening in the world is to identify the teams, to know who plays on what, like who does what role and what on their team.
And when the Democrats need somebody to change a story in the news, and they need to just lie to get it done, there's no other way to do it, they always go to Schiff.
He's their designated liar.
That's not a joke. He's the designated liar.
He's the one that will go on and say something that's completely not true.
Whereas your other politicians might want to shade things or use hyperbole.
They might want to leave out some context, you know, basically normal stuff.
But Schiff will just make up a fact.
He'll just say, I saw something that he didn't see.
Like, that's a whole different level of lying than what you normally see.
Like, when Trump lies, he looks like the bullshit salesperson.
And unless you're an idiot...
You know what he's doing because he tells you directly.
He tells you, yeah, I use our verbally to get things done.
But when Schiff lies, that's a whole different thing.
He's just making up a story to change something not in the best direction.
So when you see John Brennan, Clapper, or Adam Schiff, those are the three designated liars.
They use them for that purpose.
So when you see them, there you go.
Let's see.
What was the story about Harry Reid?
Thank you.
Oh. Sam Rittman?
So, you know, the...
The individual, Sam Brittman, who...
I don't know exactly how he identifies.
Is it non-binary? He's got the shaved head.
He works in the nuclear energy area of...
Or is it weapons? Nuclear weapons area of the government.
And he was accused of, because he was seen on video, of stealing somebody's expensive bag off an airport carousel.
And was later allegedly seen wearing the clothes from that bag.
Well, it turns out he's alleged to have done the same crime twice.
Once at another airport.
And probably they have it on video.
And so that's happening.
And you know what? The funny thing is that have you ever lost a bag when you're traveling?
You ever have your luggage missing?
Has that happened to any of you?
Because that's happened to me.
But if it happened recently, I'd be Googling pictures of Sam Brentman just to see if he's wearing any of my clothes.
That's how you find out.
The house where I grew up once got robbed.
A burglar came into the house and robbed a bunch of stuff.
And the way the burglar was caught was I saw him wearing my father's clothes one day.
True story. I'm just a kid in the car, and we're driving past somebody who was chopping some wood.
I'm like, that's your shirt.
He was actually wearing my father's shirt.
And so he was caught.
Anyway. What else is going on here?
God, what a day. Did I miss anything?
Was there any story I missed?
Now, let's put it all together.
Pull it all together.
Sam Bankmanfried is an American citizen.
And while it certainly looks like he did something suspicious, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Because he's an American citizen.
Jack Dorsey looks like it's a sketchy situation, doesn't it?
He's an American citizen.
He is innocent, unless proven guilty.
But Twitter itself, guilty as fuck.
Google, YouTube, guilty as fuck.
Congress, guilty as fuck.
FTX the company, guilty as fuck.
So yes, in the election...
Let me just say it directly.
My operating assumption is that the 2020 election was rigged.
I do not have direct evidence of that.
No, I don't have direct proof.
I do have evidence. Because the Rasmussen poll.
And I'm generalizing from the other experiences.
So the rule that I use all the time is that if it's possible to get away with something, like you have a good chance of getting away with something you shouldn't be doing, there's a really high chance that the benefits will be tremendous, either power or money.
And there are lots of people involved, so there's always going to be somebody sketchy if there's lots of people.
And you've waited enough time, right?
So if you have all of those variables, enough time has gone by, enough people are involved, the benefit of cheating is amazing, and the odds of getting away with it are really good.
Under those conditions, bad things happen 100% of the time, eventually.
Not on day one, but 100% of the time.
And we see that exact situation with the 2020 election.
The 2020 election was a huge benefit if you could get away with it.
It's been a situation for a long time.
A lot of people are involved.
You could probably get away with it.
It's guaranteed. Under those conditions, it happens every time.
So the only thing I'm not sure of is if it's happened yet.
But it's going to happen if it hasn't, and certainly the overwhelming likelihood is that the election was rigged in some way.
Now, I'm not saying I know that it was rigged enough to change the result.
There's no... I don't have that information.
There's certainly an indication of that, the Rasmussen poll, but we don't know it as a fact.
Now, it's still true that no court, no court, has shown proof that the 2020 election was rigged.
It's just that, as an informed citizen who can recognize patterns, but more importantly, you can recognize causes, right?
When I say those rules about, you know, if there's time and people and opportunity and the big upside, that's not just a pattern, right?
It's also a pattern that repeats every time, but it's a direct cause and effect statement where you can say, oh, there's the engine.
That's the exact engine that drives it.
That engine was in place, and that can cause these things, and it does it every time.
Now, was any of it illegal?
I don't know. It's premature to say that, but it certainly happened.
I mean, let me just say this.
Statistically, let me put it in the safest way.
If you are a citizen of this country and you're paying attention, you can do any kind of pattern recognition and you have any understanding of how the world works, the reasonable assumption is that the 2020 election was rigged.
Will I still be on social media tomorrow?
What do you think? I think I will.
Now, I'll probably be demonetized.
I'm probably getting demonetized right now.
Am I? YouTube?
YouTube? If I'm being demonetized, it means you're watching me right now.
Let me find out.
Let me ask the question.
I will ask the one person who knows the answer to this.
Demonetized yet?
Because it's being monitored right now.
I'll have an answer probably in half a minute.
What do you think? Do you think I'm demonetized?
Or do you think that would be just too on the nose?
So like today will be the day it doesn't happen?
There's a good chance that today is the day it doesn't happen.
Because I made too much of a big deal about it.
But I'll tell you in a moment.
Now, often it will be demonetized as soon as it ends.
So that's another possibility.
It's possible it's not demonetized, but the moment I get off, it might be demonetized.
Jim Baker cooking the books.
The guy who cooked the books was named Baker?
I'm not sure he cooked the books, but I see where you're going with that.
All right, I have a response.
What do you think?
Do you think I'm demonetized or not?
I am demonetized.
I'm demonetized right now.
So you can watch the fascism happen right in front of you.
This is fascism.
You're experiencing it right now.
And by the way, there's no ambiguity about this.
So I have a confirmation that I'm demonetized by a private company who is not doing it for their own benefit, Do you think Google is doing it because Google's profits would go better if I, as a well-informed adult citizen of this country, questioned the sketchiness in a context where everything is sketchy?
Do you think that that helped Google's profit?
I don't see how.
In fact, if it's provocative, it helps her profit.
The only reason that they would do it would be, why would I be demonetized?
Because the government wants it.
Can you think of another reason?
Because I can't see any argument.
Well, the cursing would be an excuse.
But my videos in which I curse all the time are not demonetized.
So they do not have a pattern of demonetizing me only for cursing.
That's not a thing.
Because those are the ones that get reversed.
So there's actually somebody at YouTube, presumably, who actually listened to my presentation, listened to me talk to them directly, and demonetized me.
While I'm right in front of you.
Like, right in front of you.
This just happened.
Everything you fucking believed was happening was true.
It was all true.
Now, I still have questions about aliens...
And Pizzagate. But, you know, you're watching me being victimized by fascism right now.
Like in real time, you're experiencing it.
How does that feel?
How does it feel to know you're in a fascist country?
You don't have to wonder now.
Interesting. All right.
Well... YouTube, I'm going to say bye to you.
I've got some more comments for the locals, people who are subscribers, so they get the good stuff.
