Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 30, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:26:07

Mark Zuckerberg Could Face JAIL TIME Over Ignoring Subpoena

Mark Zuckerberg ignored a Canadian subpoena to appear and is now being threatened with jail time if he does not appear the next time he steps foot in Canada Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:25:36

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Last night, for Subverse, we talked about Mark Zuckerberg ignoring a subpoena, and the Canadian politicians were extremely angry.
		And in a show of good faith, I was holding back my anger.
		There was so much I wanted to say.
		So, really quickly, we are now getting the Subverse site up and running.
		We have the long-form article, or long-ish article, I won't say long-form, talking about Zuckerberg ignoring the subpoena and what's going on.
		We'll come to this in a second.
		But right now, the news is, There was a committee happening in Canada, which involved people from other countries.
		Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg were subpoenaed to appear, and they didn't.
		And at the hearing, there were two empty chairs.
		Now, the head of public policy, I believe, for Canada ended up showing up.
		And the complete and utter disdain for politicians, for the government, for the rule of law infuriates me.
		But apparently now, They could possibly vote on a contempt of court.
		That's one of their options.
		And we have this story from The Hill.
		But there's more.
		A former Facebook investor is saying that Canada, I believe Canada, should shut Facebook down if they refuse to be held accountable.
		Mark Zuckerberg doesn't care what his platform is doing in other countries.
		And I think this... I really, really do not like Facebook and do not like Zuckerberg.
		I think he is flaunting the law, and he's having a serious detrimental impact, and I think he's just an outright bad and creepy guy.
		That's just my opinion.
		I think Facebook's trash.
		So we'll start with this, right?
		He could be held in contempt.
		Literally, he actually is facing potential jail time.
		Now, that means, you know, what has to happen first is he has to go to Canada.
		Then, if he refuses the summons, they could, you know, put him in jail.
		They would have to hold a vote on it, but he did ignore the subpoena.
		My understanding is that he's done it before.
		So, here's what we're gonna do.
		Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
		There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
		Liking, commenting, and sharing the video do the best to help, because that's how YouTube figures things out, I guess.
		So, here's the story.
		We'll start with the hill.
		Zuckerberg could be held in contempt of Canadian Parliament.
		Did I say contempt of court?
		Canadian Parliament.
		If he continues to ignore requests from Canadian lawmakers to testify before their government.
		Canadian Conservative Member of Parliament Bob Zimmer said Tuesday.
		Canadian lawmakers voted Tuesday to issue an open-ended summons for Zuckerberg and their Chief Financial Officer Sheryl Sandberg, meaning the two will face summons to appear before the Parliament the next time they step foot in Canada.
		If the executives fail to abide by those summons, Canadian lawmakers would vote on a motion to hold them in contempt of Parliament, so...
		They say, if approved, that motion could result in jail time for the powerful executives, though it is unlikely it would play out that way.
		So I definitely don't want to... Here's the challenge.
		I don't want to over-sensationalize and make it seem like they're actually going to come and arrest Zuckerberg.
		At the same time, I don't want to bury the lead.
		We covered this story yesterday on Subverse, and I believe we did a pretty good job Of trying to be rather, I don't know, not, you know, the goal of Subverse isn't to sensationalize or do anything like this.
		So it was, you know, for me, I'm reading the story that, you know, we put out and I'm reading it and it's very dry and it's straight news.
		And I'm really, really angry the whole time because it's not just about the fact that Mark Zuckerberg ignored the subpoena, but it's that he doesn't Seem to care that Facebook is damaging to all of these, but he doesn't care.
		He doesn't care He doesn't care that foreign countries are saying dude You are causing serious problems, and you need to come and talk to us, and he just doesn't show up One of the more interesting things about it though is In the story we covered this guy.
		I believe his um his last name is McNamee.
		What's his first name?
		I want to make sure I find the the quote properly so let's uh Yes McNamee Venture capitalist Roger McNamee told the committee, if your goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty, you have to be bold.
		You have to force a radical transformation of the business model of internet platforms.
		At the end of the day, though, the most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms, at least temporarily.
		Any country can go first.
		The platforms have left you no choice.
		The time has come to call their bluff.
		Whoa!
		I, uh, I, uh, man, I agree.
		I really, really agree.
		It's a challenge.
		It is a challenge because everyone's got competing interests in what Facebook is and what it is doing.
		And I think one of the challenges is that in foreign countries like Canada, they want to regulate speech.
		I don't agree with that.
	In the U.S., they are regulating speech and can't, or shouldn't be, because of the First Amendment.
	So, what Facebook becomes is going to be different for each country, and that's probably the way it should be.
	If you live in Canada, and they make certain speech illegal, well, that's your country, and you've got to figure things out.
	I think maybe, I think free speech is a fundamental right.
	You have a right to speak, right?
	You know, I pointed this out in my video about the world.
	It's called The World is Cruel and Unfair.
	You wanna talk about what rights are?
	If you're in the middle of the woods, with a broken leg, drinking from a stream, you have a right to speech, you have a right to- you have freedom of movement, you have freedom of expression, you can do your thing unimpeded.
	But you don't have healthcare, you don't get welfare, like, no, you- literally, it's on you.
	So we're gonna talk about what rights are.
	The point is, some countries don't- don't- don't enact it that way.
	Well, you know what?
	That's their countries, uh, that's their country, and- and what can we really do about it?
	I think it's gonna be up to people in Canada to fight for that right, But it seems like it's a losing battle.
	Long story short, if we say that Facebook should be shut down by these countries to enact and enforce their laws, then Facebook will basically have no choice but to either abide by the rule of law, Beneath the government, not above it, or be shut down.
	And so, you know, the way I see Facebook with their usership is on the decline, at least as it pertains to young people.
	I'm over it.
	You know, delete Facebook was trending, and the reason it was trending on Twitter is because Democrats were mad there was a video about Nancy Pelosi that made her look bad.
	And you know what I'm thinking?
	I'm like, you know what?
	Absolutely no, you should be allowed to post these videos.
	But whatever the reason that people are saying delete Facebook, I'm like, all right, do it.
	Facebook needs to go.
	Twitter needs to go.
	The thing about these social media sites is that they're completely unaccountable.
	They view themselves above the law, above our culture, above social norms, and they flaunt it.
	Look at, you know, the reason why I get really, really angry about all this is because I literally sat in front of Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde and we talked about these issues and they say all these things, they're fancy words and lies, they acknowledge some of the issues and they act like it's their role to be the arbiters, the heralds of true superior morals.
	You know, Jack Dorsey says, we want to promote a healthy conversation.
	What does that mean?
	It doesn't mean anything.
	Mark Zuckerberg, he bans certain people, he doesn't ban other people.
	It's all just PR.
	And then when you have an actual country like Canada saying, we need to talk about what's going on because Facebook is causing a lot of problems and they're not being held accountable, guess what?
	Zuckerberg, don't show up.
	So I find it absolutely fascinating.
	McNamee, this investor, actually pointed to Sri Lanka, the censorship.
	So here's the thing.
	In the challenge of whether or not we should shut Facebook down, it's an issue of private business rights, in which case I do kind of lean in terms of speech, communication, and private businesses.
	They shouldn't really be shut down.
	But there is a point to be made that something needs to be done to force Facebook to be held accountable because they cannot... Look, let me put it this way.
	What happened in Sri Lanka, censorship, no good.
	But Facebook should not be allowed to continue without account.
	They're a massive multi-billion dollar corporation with international interests, flaunting the rule of law in whatever country they operate, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
	Something needs to happen.
	So I think Roger McNamee has an interesting point.
	Be bold.
	Shut them down.
	Temporarily.
	And that'll wake them up.
	That's gonna slice their revenue right down the middle.
	And maybe something like that needs to happen.
	Otherwise, and this is actually kind of hilarious, they could face jail time over refusing.
	So it'll be really interesting because think about this.
	Right now, I'd be willing to bet Zuckerberg and Sandberg will not be going to Canada anytime soon.
	Think about that.
	They've got interests in Canada.
	They've got offices.
	They've got employees.
	There's reasons they need to go there.
	Well, now if they do, they're going to have to go in front of Parliament and testify.
	And if they don't, they could face jail time.
	It probably will not happen that way, but seriously, the fact... Listen, let me say it like this.
	Do I really think Zuckerberg's going to get arrested?
	No, I absolutely don't.
	But Canadian Parliament is putting that on the table to hold him in contempt, and if he faces jail time for this, they are saying it straight up.
	I think it's a lottery winnings chance at anything that's going to happen.
	One in several hundred million or something.
	But damn.
	This shows they're serious.
	Unfortunately, most of us know it'll never happen.
	Zuckerberg's way too powerful, he's got way too much money.
	Canada is a country of 36 million people.
	Should he be held accountable?
	Should Facebook be accountable?
	100%.
	Is Zuckerberg worried?
	No, I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg's GD- Facebook's GDP rivals that of Canada.
	Maybe not.
	I mean, maybe that's a bit, you know, facetious.
	Let's read this from the hill.
	It's only fitting that there's an ongoing summons so as soon as they step foot in our country, they will be served and expected to sit in front of our committee, said Zimmer, who's the chair of the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
	He made the announcement after Zuckerberg and Sandberg flouted a subpoena to appear before the committee during a hearing attended by international lawmakers about privacy, misinformation, and hate speech.
	See, that's why I'm kinda like, you know, you can't really control these things.
	But you know what?
	That's Canada.
	And I think most of you agree, if Canada's gonna do it, okay.
	In the US, we operate under different rules.
	Unfortunately, Facebook doesn't operate under our social norms in America either.
	So it's just one of the reasons I think Facebook is just awful.
	Just completely awful.
	So here's what ends up happening, right?
	You get the gist of it.
	I think this is really fascinating stuff.
	Over on our Subverse YouTube channel, we publish this video.
	And Zuckerberg ignores subpoena.
	Politicians are outraged.
	We didn't want to make anything that was overly sensational, like Zuckerberg faces jail time, which is what I'm doing on this video.
	And that's because I want to make sure there's a distinction between my personal opinion and my outrage versus what the story actually is.
	So the video did really, really well.
	But I tell you, I kid you not, when I was reading... So the way we do this is a script is produced, whereas with these videos, I just don't read a script.
	So as I'm reading this, I'm just getting angrier and angrier.
	Seriously.
	Check out the video on Subverse.
	And like, I don't know if you can tell I'm really angry.
	I'm trying not to be.
	I want to make sure that when you watch these videos, when you get our news over at Subverse, it's not going to be, you know, I don't know, pushing my opinion.
	You want my opinion, you come here, I'll give you my opinion.
	And I often don't really comment on stories we've already done on Subverse.
	But I gotta tell you, man.
	Read this story.
	I'll put the link in the description.
	It's really in-depth, covers a wide range of the issues surrounding what happened with the regulation Facebook is facing.
	But man, is it infuriating to hear about how Zuckerberg is just this conceited, narcissistic, awful person who is unaccountable, who gets away with these things.
	He should not be above the law.
	We are a world of various countries, of different cultures and different rules.
	And if he wants to make money off the backs of the Canadian citizens, then he's got to be held accountable to their government.
	But no.
	Zuckerberg runs his business and then doesn't show up when he's asked.
	And what's- and what's- you know what's really- what really, really frustrated me?
	What really, really made me angry?
	So I'm reading the script, right?
	And we get to a point where we read one of the quotes from Facebook's spokespeople, the spokesperson or whatever.
	And then later on, following more commentary, they give basically the exact same statement.
	So they say, oh, we're absolutely, you know, going to work with the committee on whatever they need.
	And then when they don't show up, they're asked again, they go, yes, we're absolutely like, it's like identical.
	So check it out.
	The quotes are like identical.
	And it was that statement that Facebook, the way I see it.
	Canada's like, hey, we got problems.
	We need you to come here and talk to us.
	Zuckerberg says no.
	And then Facebook issues a statement.
	So now they're saying we're going to issue a summons.
	You could face potential contempt in jail time.
	And they issue the exact same statement.
	That says to me, that's like a low tier smack in the face.
	Giving them the same statement.
	They're really saying, we don't care about you.
	We won't show up, and here's the same piece of paper we handed you last time, because we can't even be bothered to write a new paragraph.
	I really, you know, elitism is one of the things that bothers me more than anything else in the world.
	And it's why I have such disdain for many of these Democrats, these people who are super wealthy somehow.
	They're in Congress and their salary is $170,000 a year, but they're worth $200 million.
	How does that happen?
	I have no idea.
	Not all of them.
	A lot of them are broke.
	But there is just some lifelong politicians that somehow managed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
	Gotta wonder how that happens.
	The elitism.
	The double standard.
	And Mark Zuckerberg is a perfect example of that.
	He refuses to acknowledge the problems.
	They flaunt their power.
	They ignore the rule of law.
	They ignore the people demanding that they follow the rules.
	They ignore it.
	He's flaunting his wealth, and you know what?
	Zuckerberg, if it takes the form of temporarily shutting down Facebook, maybe that's what needs to happen.
	Now, Facebook, I think, is awful.
	But at the same time, as much as it's fun to talk about shutting down Facebook,
	the more worrisome thing is private business rights, like I mentioned, but also
	individual rights.
	This is a tool used by people. Imagine if the government shut down AT&T because
	AT&T wouldn't show up. Your phone stops working.
	Yeah, that's not okay.
	And, you know, I understand it's different in that you pay a phone subscription, Facebook is free for
	the end user, and they sell ads.
	Shutting down Facebook would disrupt their ad market very, very seriously and hurt them.
	Shutting down a phone company wouldn't because they already got your money.
	They'd have to prorate you for the missed days or something like that.
	But there's gotta be a solution, and I think this is one of the biggest challenges.
	How do you make Facebook play ball?
	How do you make Facebook play by the rules?
	You can threaten them with jail time!
	I really don't think Zuckerberg cares.
	Dude's a billionaire.
	You think he gives a crap about showing up in Canada again?
	It's never gonna happen.
	So you can wave it in his face, but think about these politicians.
	Yes, they have power as politicians to an extent, but they have nowhere near the power that Zuckerberg has.
	You have to understand how dangerous Facebook is moving forward and why this is so serious, okay?
	Facebook can choose not to allow a political message to appear on their platform.
	The only thing holding them back from world domination is Google, and that's not a good thing because Google does the same thing.
	And their interests are aligned in a lot of ways.
	Let's say one of these politicians, what do you think is going to happen when they go for re-election?
	Facebook's going to be like, hate speech!
	Like they've done to other people.
	And now you get a politician who steps up and says, I want to run for office, you know, I don't want to even play around with quotes like that, but someone will say that they want to run for office to stop Facebook manipulating elections, spreading misinformation, and whatever else is breaking the law.
	So Mark Zuckerberg sits back, puts his feet up, says, send him that same paragraph we sent him last time, and then delete his profile.
	It's a private platform, we can do what we want.
	Regulation needs to happen, okay?
	It needs to happen.
	Will Chamberlain of Human Events wrote a really great article explaining that in the US, regulation
	can only ratchet in one direction.
	So there's a lot of conservatives who don't seem to understand, if regulation hits these
	platforms, it can only serve to protect speech.
	Only.
	The First Amendment.
	It has already been ruled by the Supreme Court that these platforms are important for public
	discourse.
	It's about time something happened to stop them from flaunting the law, breaking the
	rules.
	And look, if they have the ability to suspend anyone they want for any reason, then you
	will not, then no one could ever challenge them.
	It's authoritarian insanity.
	It's techno-fascism.
	Listen, maybe fascism's a bad way to explain it, but I think about what we see in World War II, this idea of ever-expansive power, manipulating people, controlling people.
	Facebook has it.
	They're international.
	They can restrict speech on whatever level they want.
	They're a private business, they say.
	Well, guess what?
	There will come a time When one of these, you know, left-wing individuals wants to challenge the system, the surveillance, and Facebook will go, hmm, extremist.
	Delete.
	Think about it.
	I believe it was FBI documents and Homeland Security.
	This was published by The Independent.
	We also know that Homeland Security New Jersey, they listed Antifa as political, you know, extremists.
	They're listed under terror.
	So if Facebook really wants to, they can easily associate anyone who aligns with the far left and say, oh, but they were engaged in these activities.
	And what do you say?
	How do you prove them wrong?
	Think about, you know, I'm going to throw this to the Krasensteins, right?
	If you're not familiar with who they are, the Krasensteins are the anti-Trump brothers recently suspended from Twitter.
	What did Twitter say?
	They were buying fake engagements, operating multiple accounts or something like that.
	And in fact, Twitter didn't actually say they did.
	Someone said, why were they suspended?
	And they said, the rules apply to everybody operating fake accounts, never directly accusing them.
	And that's how they do it.
	You have no proof that these people did anything wrong.
	You don't have to like the Krasensteins, but they're the perfect example of Twitter doesn't prove why they were banned.
	Facebook doesn't prove why they were banned.
	So what do you think is going to happen?
	You will have a politician, you'll have an activist, you'll have someone rising up and saying, enough, these people are insane and need to be stopped.
	And they'll say, oh, they were secretly sending violent messages.
	We had to delete them.
	And then people just go, oh, wow.
	This is a nightmare.
	Facebook is seriously, it's a nightmare.
	You don't understand.
	That Facebook and Google control most of search.
	Most of the content you see comes through these platforms.
	And they can choose to remove a news website that challenges them.
	We are facing a... We are in the nightmare dystopia.
	So you know what?
	Maybe Zuckerberg does need some jail time.
	It'll never happen though, because... When was the last time you saw someone of power held to account?
	It never happens.
	It doesn't.
	You probably can't count on your fingers and toes the amount of politicians who probably should have been locked up and weren't.
	And with someone like this, who flaunts the rule of law, able to control speech, On a grand scale.
	Man, welcome to the nightmare.
	And it's a joke, almost, because people say, oh, Tim Pool's next.
	Tim Pool's channels are going to get deleted on YouTube.
	Yep.
unidentified		Yep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bring it on, man.
		Bring it on.
		I'm going to keep talking about this.
		I don't care if Google wants to shut me down because I'm calling them out for the massive power and demanding some kind of regulation and control of these companies that are out of control.
		So be it.
		So be it.
		I will stand in front of the firing line and say these big tech companies are out of control, and this is another example.
		Now, I do believe Google is nowhere near as bad as Facebook, but certainly Google has its problems.
		Cultural problems within the company, and they're just too massive and have too much power.
		You can, you know, admittedly, YouTube has done more to protect speech than Facebook certainly has.
		Think about the people who have been banned recently, and Google's refused to ban them.
		Think about Sargon getting banned from all these platforms.
		YouTube's refused to ban him.
		So I can respect that.
		It doesn't change the fact they have too much power, and there needs to be some kind of restriction and control on these people under the First Amendment, which means they cannot restrict speech.
		We gotta figure it out.
		We do.
		I haven't seen the movie Booksmart, but I hear it's really good.
		According to Rotten Tomatoes, it's got a 97%.
		However, for some strange reason, I don't know what the audience score is.
		I haven't seen the movie Booksmart, but I hear it's really good.
		According to Rotten Tomatoes, it's got a 97%.
		However, for some strange reason, I don't know what the audience score is.
		And there's a good reason for that.
		Rotten Tomatoes is trying to protect movies from angry fans, or from politics, or from
		the culture war.
		And the truth is, you know, you can pull up any movie like Aladdin, or John Wick, or Brightburn, and see that people didn't really like it, and you can see the audience scores almost immediately.
		So why is it that Booksmart Doesn't have an audience score.
		Well, the reality is, Booksmart is a woke movie.
		Woke-ish.
		I've heard good things from people, so I don't want to act like it's a bad movie and you shouldn't go see it.
		However, the movie is doing really, really, really bad.
		It's underwhelming.
		It's like 50 per- It missed its projections by like 50%.
		There's a lot of reasons for it.
		But there's one that seems to get a lot of, uh, uh, that's being highlighted a lot.
		See, the movie was directed by Olivia Wilde.
		And two years ago, we saw this story from IJR.
		Celebrities ask Trump supporters to boycott their movies but are in for a rude awakening.
		They say with the controversial election of Donald Trump, many celebrities, excuse me, have come out publicly to bash him and claim he's a racist.
		Excuse me.
		But now they seem to have completely lost their minds and are now requesting that the people who are ultimately
		Wow.
		partly responsible for their paychecks boycott their movies.
		On Monday, Grey's Anatomy actress Ellen Pompeo started a Twitter storm aimed directly at the president. It started
		when Pompeo noticed this tweet.
		She then publicly replied, tweeting to her 1.3 million followers,
		Newsflash, I don't want Trump supporters for fans, Einstein.
unidentified		Wow. So here's what ends up happening.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We do have a tweet from Olivia Wilde.
		They say Pompeo isn't the only celebrity who has tweeted about her Trump-supporting fans.
		Olivia Wilde, who was starring in 1984 on Broadway, couldn't care less if her Trump-supporting fans boycott her movies.
		She is even inviting them to saying, Trumpy trolls defending racism as free speech and
		threatening to boycott my movies, please effing do.
		It got awkward as one of her Trump supporting fans didn't hesitate to abandon ship saying,
		Booksmart came out.
		It's being praised by critics.
		We don't know what the audience thinks.
		think you are, nor are your tweets.
		So here's the thing.
		Booksmart came out.
		It's being praised by critics.
		We don't know what the audience thinks.
		I've seen some people I trust say it's actually pretty funny.
		However, at the box office, in the United States and Canada, Booksmart was released
		alongside Aladdin and Brightburn and was projected to gross around $12 million from 2,505 theaters
		in its four-day opening weekend.
		The film made $2.5 million on its first day, including $875,000 from Thursday Night Previews.
		It ended up underperforming, debuting to just $6.5 million, a four-day total of $7.8 million, finishing sixth.
		That's what, like, down 40 or so percent.
		It was projecting for 12 million.
		John Wick overperformed.
		This movie underperformed.
		Olivia Wilde tweeted about it, saying, Anyone out there saving Booksmart for another day, consider
		making that day today.
		We are getting creamed by the big dogs out there and need your support.
		Don't give studios an excuse not to greenlight movies made by and about women.
		One of the big challenges in making movies is that we often hear producers and directors say,
		Nobody wants to see a female lead and things like that.
		It's mostly not true.
		I don't know if that rhetoric is absolutely true, but we hear that a lot.
		We can hear Olivia Wilde saying, don't give an excuse not to greenlight movies made by and about women.
		Wonder Woman.
		Patty Jenkins, I believe, was the director, and it was led by a woman.
		So what's really interesting is that the movie is flopping, and I don't want to act like this has anything to do with her calling for Trump supporters to boycott it.
		People are drawing those conclusions.
		That was two years ago.
		But you've got to understand, right?
		It's not so much about whether or not Olivia Wilde said to Trump supporters, don't watch my movie.
		Because maybe she doesn't have that many Trump fans anyway, I don't know.
		It's an issue of the arrogance.
		And it's summed up in this response.
		You are not as important as you think, nor are your tweets.
		These celebrities are marketing tools.
		What good is a celebrity if they say, I'm going to cut my market in half?
		The only reason celebrities are verified personalities on TV is because they give brand recognition to a project.
		If you heard a movie that was coming out, And they had a no-name actor, you're probably not going to think twice.
		Celebrities are the marketing asset.
		Now, don't get me wrong, a lot of actors and actresses are really, really good at what they do.
		Comedians are really funny.
		But that's why they're called a celebrity, and it's not about being an actor.
		There are many people who are celebrities who do literally nothing.
		It's because they're brand assets.
		They're high-profile people that people are interested in for some reason.
		So if you are a good director or actor or whatever, Fine, but when you act like you're this important, please effing do boycott my movies.
		I think it's fair to say it's possible this played a role.
		Mostly because there's also, uh, um, this right here.
		They say, uh, there's a review from Vox.
		Let me make sure I, um...
		Uh, Vulture said, it manages to be inclusive and progressive without being precious about anything or sacrificing an ounce of humor.
		Alyssa Wilkinson of Vox awarded the film a 4 out of 5, writing that Booksmart feels like an evolution of the teen comedy genre.
		The movie, in my understanding, is supposed to be, like, super bad, I guess.
		And it's somewhat woke.
	I don't, that's not my opinion, that's actually, um, one of the critics said that it was, like, inclusive, woke, or whatever.
	So fine.
	But I have to think about a few things.
	I don't want to see this movie.
	I barely wanted to see Superbad, right?
	The reason I ended up going and seeing Superbad is because my friends told me to go see it.
	This movie is supposed to be very similar.
	I read the plot, and it's basically like one of these movies, kind of like Harold and Kumar.
	It's a, um, I guess I would call it like a lowbrow...
	Hangover type comedy, you know, nothing really happens.
	It's just like people doing weird things and the scenes don't make sense.
	So that's my understanding of it, but I guess people find it funny.
	But ultimately, you can look at two things.
	Superbad.
	None of the actors in Superbad were particularly famous.
	Like, you know, these two young women who are in it aren't particularly famous.
	But there is a difference.
	One is woke, one is not.
	I have to wonder if that plays a role, right?
	So there's several factors that really damage this movie.
	I do believe that getting woke is damaging because regular people don't care for this.
	So when you market this as woke, I'll tell you what, man, I have been scorned.
	And I have no interest in going to see a woke movie.
	If that's what critics are saying about it, count me out.
	Because, look, it's not just about this one movie.
	Again, I want to stress, I've heard from people I trust it's actually pretty good.
	I'm still not going to go see it.
	Star Wars The Last Jedi, I don't consider to be a get woke go broke at all.
	I don't actually care about Admiral Holdo or Rey or whatever.
	I think it was just really poorly written, the plot made no sense, and it was painful to sit through.
	Ghostbusters, painful.
	Captain Marvel, painful.
	And what happens after I see it and I tell people, hey, I didn't like it?
	I get accused of every name in the book!
	You're not allowed to criticize certain movies, so then screw it!
	I'm not gonna go anywhere near it!
	Olivia Wilde directed this movie.
	She's been very vocal in the past about her activism.
	You know, telling Trump supporters to boycott her movie.
	Why would I want to go see her movie?
	You're a mean person!
	You're weird!
	I don't care about that.
	Robert Downey Jr.
	has, I don't know if he's done anything like that.
	And Captain America, Chris Evans, only barely skips the criticism.
	Because I have criticized him for his overt politics and Mark Ruffalo.
	You know, there are many people who have done big movies that I'm very critical of.
	However, the movies aren't billed as woke movies.
	I know that Captain America isn't going to be a woke movie.
	They did Black Widow very, very well.
	Captain Marvel was a woke movie.
	I ultimately didn't want to see it, and then I did, and I just thought it was bad for a lot of reasons.
	But isn't it so weird that when bad movies get made, I'm sorry, when woke movies end up being bad, all of a sudden now you're not allowed to criticize it.
	All of a sudden now this is a movie made by women and for women, and we have to make sure That we don't give these students an excuse to have to green light it?
	What are we talking about?
	There's a bunch of movies directed by women and led by women.
	Why is this always the narrative?
	So I'll tell you what.
	Booksmart may be a good movie.
	I do not want a trash movie.
	It's a good movie.
	I've heard it's a good movie.
	I heard it's funny.
	I don't want to go see it.
	I don't.
	Because I've gone and seen his movies that have been described as woke, I've gone and seen movies that have been produced by feminists who claim that their movie is THE movie for women or something, and it's always ended up being bad.
	Wonder Woman was just Wonder Woman, and that movie was good.
	The Hunger Games was just The Hunger Games, and that was good.
	Ghostbusters was billed as the all-female reboot, and it was bad.
	Then we had Captain Marvel, which is, they're talking, like, they seriously slam down this narrative about women being lead.
	It's like, dude, we have this.
	It's not... Whenever they try to use wokeness to market a movie, it ends up being bad.
	It does.
	Black Panther was partially marketed by some groups as being woke, for sure.
	But the movie's trailers didn't play that game.
	In fact, Captain Marvel's did!
	All these Marvel movies with actors and actresses that are overtly political don't play the game.
	By all means, in your private life, say whatever you want.
	You have my respect for doing so, standing up for what you believe in.
	Well, let's just go through it right now.
	Olivia Wilde says Trump supporters don't go to my movie.
	Well, great.
	Think about this.
	Trump supporters make up around... It's actually... I'm going to play a game here.
	This is interesting.
	Trump's approval around, what, 45%, right?
	So if you were to argue based on those hard numbers, 45% of people polled Support the president.
	She told those 45% of people to boycott her movies.
	And then, strangely enough, her movie's projections are down around that much!
	Isn't it so weird?
	So again, please don't make it seem like I'm actually saying Trump supporters boycotted her movie, because I'm not sure Trump supporters would have gone to see her movie regardless of whether she said anything or not.
	It's also important to point out, for some reason, they decided to launch their movie at the same time as Aladdin.
	Come on, man.
	Everyone's gonna go see Aladdin.
	And Brightburn.
	But Brightburn was kind of bad.
	I guess I'll leave it there.
	Look, listen.
	If you tell 45% of the population—it's actually like 50% because Trump got—well, no, I'll put it this way.
	Trump got, what, 63 million and Hillary got 66?
	Many of those votes Trump got aren't Trump supporters.
	They're just people saying, I'd rather have the Republican or something like that, right?
	So when you look at Trump's approval ratings, and then you tell that group of people, don't come to my movie, don't be surprised when that's literally what happens to your movie.
	So I do feel like this is a get woke or go broke.
	I also feel like it might kind of be sad because the movie may be good.
	Unfortunately, they haven't activated the audience score yet, so I can't even read what people are thinking.
	Even if the movie got brigaded, which nobody was brigading Booksmart, there's no posts anywhere saying, Booksmart, harumph, I say.
	Why won't Rotten Tomatoes show me What the audience thinks.
	I don't care about the critics.
	The critics are wrong.
	Okay?
	I mean, the critics were somewhat wrong on Aladdin.
	It was a little bit better than 57%.
	But they, like, you look at a movie like Death Wish.
	I don't know if you've ever seen it.
	It's where Bruce Willis is a dad getting vengeance or something.
	And he buys guns.
	And all the critics slammed it, but the audience loved it.
	And I'm like, yeah, the movie was very entertaining.
	It was fun.
	Why didn't the critics like it?
	Because the critics are politically motivated.
	Am I going to trust the reviews for Booksmart from critics?
	Hell no!
	Show me what the audience says!
	Unfortunately, it says, coming soon!
	And they haven't activated it.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're scared of people coming.
		You know what this says?
		It says Rotten Tomatoes does view this as a woke movie.
		Well, I'll tell you what.
		Stop making woke movies, and I'll go watch them.
		Because I love going to the movies.
		I do.
		Like, every weekend, I look at the movies, I hit up my friends, and I'm like, hey guys, here are the movies that are out.
		And we went and saw Brightburn and Aladdin.
		We did not go see Booksmart.
		You know why?
		It's a woke movie.
		Look, it might not actually be a woke movie.
		I'm not trying to say it like that.
		But all indications show this is a woke movie.
		Rotten Tomatoes hiding the score.
		Olivia Wilde directing it, saying no Trump supporters.
		Reviewers saying it's inclusive and progressive.
unidentified		And I'm like, ah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The worrisome thing for me is if you're going to make a movie and politics is at the forefront of your identity and your marketing, well, then you're going to sacrifice good storytelling as far as I'm concerned.
		Captain Marvel was bad.
		Okay.
		It was not a good movie.
		At the very least, you could say that Captain Marvel was whelming.
		Like, I sat there like, mm.
unidentified		Uh-huh.
unidentified		Mm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But there were generally some just genuinely cringey parts.
		And then I'll end by saying this.
		I know I'm reiterating it, but look.
		No matter what you say about these movies, they're gonna come after you.
		They're gonna call you a man-baby.
		I made a tweet about Captain Marvel being a villain when she electrocuted that guy's hand, and all of a sudden, you know, and a bunch of other people highlighted this too, but all of a sudden we get all these articles talking about man-babies, and it's like, oh, heaven forbid I criticize a character in a movie.
		These people are out of their gourds.
		So you know what?
		If that's the result of this culture, don't be surprised when your movie flops miserably, and then you have to beg people to show up.
		Okay?
		Because you played that game.
		And no matter... And what's really funny is you get these celebrities saying, come on guys, go see it!
		And guess what?
		Nobody did!
		All these woke celebrities cheering on this movie, and they flopped.
		And, you know, look, they still made money.
		I'm sure the amount of money they made is still gonna be, you know, okay.
		But they underperformed.
		And that could be the result of bad analytics, bad projections.
		But there you go.
		If combined, not getting the money you projected, along with the director saying, please go and see it, they're gonna, you know, it's gonna be an excuse to stop making movies about women.
		It's like, oh please, dude.
		They're not gonna stop.
		Look, Wonder Woman was a smash hit.
		You think they're gonna stop doing it because of your low-budget film?
		Please.
		The arrogance of these people.
		That's the big thing, okay?
		That's the last thing I'll mention.
		They think they're so important.
		Dude, I don't think I'm that important.
		I don't even know why anybody follows me.
		I'm surprised I get any views on these videos.
		Seriously, I just feel like some dude on the internet talking about stuff.
		Why would this person be any more important than anyone else?
		You're not.
		You're just a person who is on a screen that people watch things.
		You are just a person.
		In fact, actors and actresses are the last people who should be celebrities.
		You literally pretend to be somebody for a living.
		Sure, I get it.
		There's a lot of training involved.
		Things can be hard.
		It's a lot of work.
		But I'd rather celebrate scientists, astronauts, firefighters, etc., as would many other people.
		So stop acting like you're the most important people on the planet, and that you can boycott people.
		Because surprise, surprise, you're a marketing tool.
		And when you tell 45% of the people not to show up to your event, or around half, guess what?
		Your projections are down by about that much money.
		Isn't that weird?
		Maybe it really is that Trump supporters said, I'm not going to go see your movie.
		End of story.
		I'm done.
		I'm done.
		I don't want to rant anymore.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		Stick around.
		More segments to come later today, and I will see you then.
		NYU journalism gets woke, goes broke.
		It was a big controversy a little while ago.
		NYU was going to host a disgraced former New Yorker fact-checker, who is also a far-left activist who worked for Media Matters, to teach a journalism class on the far right.
		It makes no sense.
		If you want someone to teach someone about reporting regardless of their political affiliation, why would you pick someone who lost their job essentially because they couldn't fact-check?
		Why would you hire someone who worked for an overt Well, unfortunately, it didn't work out.
	And while many people were saying you shouldn't do this, there was more than just the political reasons.
	There was the actual monetary reasons.
	NYU cancels former New Yorker fact-checker Talia Levin's journalism class today.
	I want to talk a bit about the fakeness of woke journalism, the failures of woke journalism, and how journalism is getting woke and going broke As a whole, it's a pretty bad issue.
	So I've got a bunch of stories we can go through.
	Vox, the Vox Union, Vox members, it's VOX, staging a walkout wanting more money when the company's already in dire straits.
	Rachel Maddow's ratings are already down.
	And the addiction to Twitter these journalists have, it's actually making them stupider.
	I am not exaggerating or joking.
	A study finds that Twitter specifically makes people stupider.
	Now, before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There is a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency addresses, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do, like the video, comment on the video because the engagement really helps, share the link if you like it that much, or subscribe if you haven't already.
	So first, let's read this story from John Levine of The Wrap.
	They say, New York University has cancelled an undergraduate journalism class that former New Yorker fact-checker Tali Lavin was scheduled to teach this fall after only two students signed up.
	Get woke, go broke.
	The decision to hire Lavin to teach the elective, reporting on the far right, had drawn criticism since she resigned her New Yorker position last June after falsely accusing an ICE agent of having a NAZI tattoo.
	Adam Penenberg, director of undergraduate studies at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, said that low enrollment forced him to cancel the class.
	Canceling the class had nothing to do with Talia's writings, tweets, or anything else.
	We canceled it because too few students enrolled, Penenberg added.
	Lavin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
	NY Journalism electives are capped at 15 students.
	The department has run courses with as few as 8 students under certain circumstances.
	Penenberg also said it was unlikely his department would invite Levin back.
	It would make no sense to try it again, given how few students expressed interest, he said.
	We have no plans to offer Talia another course, simply because her main focus, and the focus of her upcoming book, is the far-right.
	Lavin's official NYU faculty bio, which lauded her as an expert in far-right extremism and social justice, was removed sometime around April 20th, 2019, according to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.
	In her original course, Levin promised a fulsome exploration of the far right, saying she would show students how to track and identify online extremism.
	Now I want to stop here and point out how absurd it is.
	And this is addressing the issue of controversy.
	If you want someone to teach people how to identify the far right, why would you hire someone who falsely identified an ICE agent, and then was forced to resign from their job, and then went to work for an activist organization, and then for whatever reason doesn't work there anymore?
	It seems like if you want someone to teach people, they would be at least somewhat successful in their track.
	I'm not gonna hire a plumber to build a deck for me, nor a carpenter to fix my toilet.
	Why would you hire someone who's failed at the job to do it?
	They say, In an era when hate is on the rise, the course will provide student journalists with a thorough grounding in far-right and white supremacist movements in the U.S., briefly examining their history and delving into their sprawling present incarnations.
	Reads a now-deleted course description, which also promised a careful analysis of pieces that have fallen short of the mark.
	Lavin's three-year career as a fact-checker at the New Yorker was derailed last June after she tweeted an accusation that Justin Gaertner, wheelchair-bound ICE agent, of sporting an Iron Cross tattoo over his left elbow.
	She later deleted the tweet and apologized after learning the tattoo represented a Maltese cross, a symbol commonly used by members of the U.S.
	Veterans of Foreign Wars.
	They go on to say that she worked as an extremism researcher for Media Matters, and they say her part-time gig at NYU soon came under fire from right-wing critics as well.
	But I mean, the criticism mostly was started by, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, John Levine reported on this.
	I believe he was the one who uncovered the story that they were hiring her, and I think for good reason, outside of any right-wing criticism.
	He says, In March, Lavin told the Daily Beast that the attention from right-wing media has resulted in death threats and harassment.
	It's very disconcerting when someone with 3 million viewers calls me a terrorist, Lavin wrote on the website.
	I've gotten some death threats.
	I've got a lot of slurs.
	I've been called a C 10,000 times.
	Well, I will point out no one deserves that kind of abuse or behavior.
	I will also point out that I regularly receive similar behavior, and it is unjustifiable, and it is wrong.
	You can disagree with Talia, you can not like her.
	That's fine.
	But, you know, we do have a serious problem on the internet where people all just pile on and target people, and I find it personally disgusting.
	I do.
	As I mentioned time and time again, my Twitter feed is locked at 99 notifications, and it's mostly people just saying awful, nasty things.
	Not always.
	There's a lot of good people.
	Don't get me wrong.
	But Twitter is a terrifying platform.
	And it's really interesting, then, that we learn about this.
	Now, I'm not going to read too much through the story, but I want to highlight this as it pertains to journalism.
	Twitter is eroding your intelligence.
	Now there's data to prove it.
	They found that in their study, Twitter use was associated with a 25-40% standard deviation from the average results in reduced performance.
	They essentially set up a study where they had people do a traditional course versus reviewing things on Twitter, and found that people who were on Twitter had a massive deviation in the negative.
	So here's what happens.
	Journalists live on Twitter.
	Look at the Covington controversy.
	Look at all of these big stories where journalists just get tweets and then write stories about them.
	Think about how many stories were based on one random Twitter user.
	Some random no-name Twitter user made an opinion, and then a news outlet said, hey, here's a story, and said, some people say.
	It's not news.
	But as Brian Stalter of CNN has pointed out, whether you like the guy or not, he's right.
	Journalists have an unhealthy relationship with Twitter, and the data shows us it's making them stupider.
	So isn't it all surprising, then, when we see stories like Rachel Maddow's ratings continue to plummet?
	This is just from the other day.
	Her ratings are still going down.
	Now, Rachel Maddow's problem was Russiagate for sure.
	She built up an audience around a conspiracy theory that made no sense, and it's not necessarily the same thing having to do with Twitter.
	But I highlight this because you can see certain people are becoming more successful.
	Getting woke, going broke is not success.
	And now we have an additional story.
	Vox Media, shifting its hiring towards part-timers and contract workers since its staff unionized.
	This is a story from Neiman Lab that talks about how just the other day, Vox union employees staged a walkout for about an hour.
	Because they want better benefits, better pay, etc.
	And by all means, they should be allowed to ask for it.
	However, Vox isn't doing too well.
	In a story published by Vox, they recognize that media investments are becoming worthless.
	And they even recognize that investments into Vox itself are likely worth less than they were perceived to be in 2015.
	How do you end up with these journalists demanding more from a company that is failing?
	It is entirely Or I should say, it is partly the wokeness that is driving these companies into extinction.
	In the past couple videos I've pointed out, as they become more and more desperate, they start thrashing about and going for whatever they can.
	They bring in activists, the activists are woke, and then they go broke.
	And NYU shows us a really great example.
	Listen.
	Two people.
	Two!
	We're going to apply for this class.
	It is not a market opportunity.
	It is not what regular people want.
	It is a bad idea.
	You can look at all the stats about the Democrats.
	Majority of the Democrats, according to Pew and Gallup, as well as other surveys, want more moderate policy.
	They don't want woke policy.
	It doesn't work.
	Now, some people might argue these are outliers, these are special cases, but no, we've seen it.
	Quillette published this story, researched by a man named Ewan Lenihan, where they found there absolutely is an overlap between the far left and journalists.
	Journalists absolutely are acting as activists.
	I actually have a personal experience working with these companies and seeing that they legitimately are activists.
	Another really good example would be BuzzFeed.
	Excuse me.
	BuzzFeed collecting 30 pro-Brexit Twitter accounts and asking Twitter why they won't ban them?
	This is a routine that activists do.
	This is what they do to try and get people banned.
	But most people don't want this.
	So here's what we'll do.
	Let's read a little bit into what's going on with Rachel Maddow, and I know it's not necessarily the same thing, but we are seeing that many outlets associated with the left are hurting.
	Again, the first story being that nobody wants to go learn from a course from someone who failed at their job.
	But getting woke in journalism is ultimately a bad thing.
	And I feel like I'm kind of all over the place on this one.
	But before we get into the Rachel Maddow's ratings, it's a very simple story.
	I want to tell you guys kind of a personal anecdote.
	I worked for Fusion, for those that aren't familiar or haven't heard the story before.
	Fusion was an ABC-Univision joint venture.
	And when I first started, they said they were going to be nonpartisan.
	They actually had posters on the wall.
	About seven or eight months in, they decided to change their editor-in-chief and go woke.
	And sure enough, the company went broke and now it's operated under a skeleton crew.
	I have seen this happen time and time again.
	There is a correlation, perhaps not a causation, excuse me, between companies embracing woke writing and woke politics and doing increasingly worse.
	It's no surprise to me that we can see that Rachel Maddow, though again, she's more Russiagate, is seeing her ratings drop, they say.
	Maddow's show, which has dedicated years to intensive coverage surrounding the Mueller investigation, averaged 2.6 million viewers per night, with 410,000 in the key demo.
	They say her show came in third for cable news behind Fox primetime hosts Hannity, Tucker Carlson, etc.
	Maddow peaked in January this year, where she averaged 3.3 million viewers.
	That number dipped to 3.1 million in February, and again to 2.9 million in March.
	Her March coverage included the beginning to the end of the Mueller probe.
	Rachel Maddow chased after another kind of far-left narrative about Russiagate.
	It's not the same as going woke.
	But this is what happens when the narrative dries up.
	And this is why I want to highlight Rachel Maddow specifically.
	This was something that was particular to a specific political faction, was not news, was kind of off, like completely insane, and ultimately ended with her ratings collapsing because the story is over.
	Now, woke ideology doesn't necessarily have that same conclusion where we can definitively say it doesn't work, but we have seen that in many instances this far-left activism does not work.
	It absolutely doesn't.
	And I think what we're seeing here with Vox particularly is that the company is hurting, They can't afford to hire full-time staffers anymore.
	They're now shifting to hiring part-time and contract workers.
	And in response to Vox failing, getting woke, being broke, I mean, they've been woke for a while, the Vox union demands more money.
	It doesn't work.
	But it brings up another important point about getting woke and going broke.
	Vox claims to be this, you know, left-wing venture, this media outlet, and they have opinions on the left, Ezra Klein, for instance.
	But when it comes time to pay the bills, what do they do?
	They push back and don't give the employees the security they're looking for.
	It seems that wokeness only exists as a sort of surface-level, shallow endeavor.
	And when it comes down to it, the companies hurt, the staff loses money, and then eventually they lay people off.
	Vox thinks their own valuation is dropping.
	Multiple companies are laying people off.
	No one's showing up to these classes.
	But we see it over and over and over again.
	These media companies are becoming increasingly woke.
	In fact, the Columbia Journalism Review actually endorsed one-sided journalism.
	This is the Columbia Journalism Review.
	So it's not just NYU.
	We're seeing another college-related outlet Saying straight up that people who are critical of trans activism shouldn't be allowed to write on the subject.
	At least that's the story we see from the Daily Caller in reference to a CJR article.
	In the story they say, CJR published a piece by Media Matters for America editor-at-large Parker Malloy in which she explicitly pushes for fewer perspectives and fewer voices in reporting on whether it's fair for biological men who identify as women to compete in women's sports.
	Media Matters for America is a self-described liberal activist non-profit.
	How much more evidence do we need that these news outlets, I'll do air quotes, are just hiring activists to push activist narratives?
	We can then see the correlation, but not necessarily causation, of these companies dwindling and burning out.
	I've mentioned it before, but what I think happened is they made money off of algorithms that changed and people don't want this stuff anymore.
	It's just not going to work.
	And I think it spells disaster, but let me just wrap up by saying, you know, what I kind of wanted to bring together with this segment, Is that we have numerous instances, non-stop instances of the failings of these digital outlets.
	Vox isn't at the point where they're laying people off.
	I believe they have laid people off before.
	There have been layoffs before.
	But we're seeing CNN repeatedly do layoffs.
	We've seen BuzzFeed.
	We've seen Vice.
	But now we're seeing one of the things that Vox is doing is looking for contract workers and part-time workers, and the union is angry about it.
	How much more evidence do you need to say this is a bad idea in media, and you need to be more rational and less activist-y?
	But time and time again, it's activism.
	Now, don't get me wrong, conservatives deserve a ton of criticism here.
	Because, I believe it may have been Mike Cernovich who pointed out, conservatives don't do journalism, they tend to do commentary.
	And the question is, why?
	Why is it that liberals are the ones doing the journalism, and then conservatives comment on it?
	There's gotta be some balance there.
	And if conservatives want to see more fairness in media, then perhaps they need to do some straight journalism.
	Now, I will say this.
	I am not a journalist.
	I am a journalist, I guess.
	What I mean to say is, I never considered myself a journalist.
	It was thrust upon me.
	So I certainly am a unique individual in whatever this space is.
	But by all means, clip that part where I said I'm not, because I've said it multiple times.
	I do commentary.
	I consider this channel, my second channel, to be largely political commentary.
	But when it comes to what we're doing at Subverse, it is 100% journalism.
	So call me whatever you want, but there needs to be more balance in journalism.
	There absolutely needs to be.
	We need it.
	We can't just have people on Twitter slowly getting stupider.
	We can't just have universities publishing far-left activists and hiring far-left activists to teach courses.
	We need something else.
	So I guess I'll just wrap this up.
	This is one of the more, I don't know, kind of I feel like I'm all over the place on this one, but I hope you get the idea.
	I'm trying to say is that journalism has gotten woke and is going broke.
	And maybe if they stop and figure out why it's a bad idea, these companies could actually come back from the brink.
	Maybe not.
	I think they won't do it, because they're addicted to it.
	They don't want to give up what little they have, so they're going to keep squeezing that sponge to get the last dropout.
	In the meantime, there's a new opening for digital outlets that aren't going to play politics to arise, and maybe that's a good opportunity for Subverse.
	For those that aren't familiar, that's my project, so I'll leave it there, I suppose.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	You can go to TimCast.com slash Dundee if you want to support my work.
	Again, subscribe if you haven't already.
	Comment below, let me know what you think.
	Seriously, yeah, comment, tell me what you think, and I will see you all in the next segment.
	I saw a poll not that long ago that said most people view liberal policies as mainstream.
	And there was another graph that I reported on several times over the past year that shows that brand marketing exists in the left-wing spectrum on social media.
	Meaning that when it comes to big brands, they also would rather advertise in left-wing spaces.
	And that's why you'll see things like, you know, Oreo making a rainbow flag package, things like that.
	Now this is where it becomes scary.
	Look, I believe climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
	I think we have to be rational and reasonable.
	And if someone disagrees and there's a disagreement based on the science and the paperwork, fine.
	We can still come to a rational discussion that will solve these problems.
	Not when you have people waving their arms and they are screaming, the end is nigh and we have 12 years.
	I've talked repeatedly about the solutions that conservatives and liberals can come together to at least mitigate some of the climate change damage.
	So the issue is, The left is in mainstream media, right?
	You know, anti-Trump, all this stuff is late-night talk shows.
	They control these cultural industries.
	What's scary is not to me the climate change issue, which is hard to quantify.
	It's hard to really grasp and understand.
	What's scary to me is that when the left jumps into the science denial train.
	This story from the Daily Wire.
	Professor, since Trump, my students have become biology deniers for social justice.
	And of course, we all get it.
	We all get it.
	Science, to me, is the most important thing.
	I mean, look, obviously happiness and life, we should take care of each other, but science makes life better when we figure out how the world works, we develop new technologies.
	So when I see the mainstream, universities, TV denying science, Well then I'm getting worried.
	I'm getting seriously worried.
	Now, before we get into all this, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's numerous ways you can donate.
	Most importantly, like and comment because the engagement seriously does help.
	And just share the video because that really does help.
	Subscribe if you haven't already.
	It's always greatly appreciated.
	But let's get back to the story.
	I think this is right.
	Right.
	Quote, they resort to denialism to protect themselves from having to confront a worldview they reject.
	James Barrett writes, While left-wing activists often accuse conservatives of being science deniers when it comes to global warming, one biology professor at Williams College has noticed a troubling trend since the election of Trump.
	Students' zealous embrace of social justice ideology is increasingly resulting in denialism when it comes to well-established biological ideas.
	For instance, that men and women are different!
	Is that controversial?
	Seriously, it is.
	In an op-ed for The Atlantic titled, Self-Censorship on Campus is Bad for Science, biology professor Lana Maroja, who has found herself in the middle of social justice outrage in the past, has pushed back, and pushed back, describes a shift she witnessed among a growing number of her students since Trump won the presidency.
	At that moment, political tensions were running high on our campus, and well-established scientific ideas that had been teaching for years suddenly met with stiff ideological resistance.
	She writes, Among those ideas is the concept of heritability, the degree to which offspring genetically resemble their parents, both physically and in behavior.
	In a classroom discussion, I noted that researchers have measured a large average difference in IQ between the inhabitants of the United States and those of my home country, Brazil, Maroja writes.
	I challenged the supposed intelligence differential between Americans and Brazilians.
	I asked students to think about the limitations of the data, which do not control for environmental differences, and explained the raw numbers say nothing about whether observed differences are indeed inborn, that is, genetic.
	Agreed.
	Even though she specifically challenges the reductive and potentially racist conclusions that some might reach, many of her students, without any evidence, reject the very notion of scientifically conducted IQ tests, declaring them to be bogus science invented to ostracize minority groups, and refuse to accept the well-established idea that IQ is partly influenced by genetics.
	She found similar pushback from students about any scientific studies about inherent differences between men and women and different races.
	It's crazy, isn't it?
	That we live in this world.
	I went to Thailand.
	And you know what really blew my mind?
	Guess what?
unidentified		People in Thailand are shorter on average than Americans.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And so in Thailand, I'm looking... It was Chinese New Year.
		It was really awesome, by the way.
		I seriously recommend it.
		Bangkok is beautiful.
		The food is great.
		The malls are huge.
		But on this big street, I could see over everyone's head and it was a really strange feeling.
		Guess what?
		I've also been to Norway and Scandinavia and they're taller than me!
		So I realized that there are genetic differences between people.
		And look, you guys know I'm rather centrist.
		I think that genetics and inheritability do play a role in everything.
		From behavior to intelligence, but it is my personal opinion, based on my interpretation of what I've read, and I could be wrong because I'm not a scientist, is that I believe that nature plays a substantial role, a larger role, to a certain degree.
		I'm not a scientist, right?
		So I defer to the actual neuroscientists and things like that, and actual professors.
		But I do know there's a lot of debate on the issue.
		There are certainly some people who believe that, you know, nature is a bigger factor than nurture.
		But I think when you consider that somebody who's starving and dehydrated is not going to function well, we can see that environment plays a huge role.
		And that includes not just where you live, the temperature.
		We know that women perform better in warmer temperatures than men.
		These are all big factors that need to be taken into consideration if we really want to understand the science behind all this.
		Again, I defer to the actual scientists, so don't take my word for it.
		It's just an opinion based on the limited things I've read.
		But what we're seeing in social justice is an outright denial of science, which is the craziest damn thing I've experienced in my life.
		How is it that Ilhan Omar said, it is unscientific and a myth?
		She did.
		CheckYourFat.org says her statement is false.
		I'm pulling up Fat Check on purpose.
		They said there has not been a lot of scientific research on trans athletes in sports, but the view that trans women have a competitive advantage in powerlifting is not a myth or unscientific.
		Trans women who undergo hormone therapy lower their testosterone levels, which studies suggest decreases athletic performance, but trans women may still have more strength than biological women, pound for pound.
		I was reading about this recently.
		Excuse me, I have allergies.
		And I was reading how prenatal testosterone plays a huge role in development, and that one of the biggest differences between men and women, biological males and females, is the ability to convert energy quickly in output.
		So men can jump higher because their body converts energy fast.
		It's fast twitch versus slow twitch muscles, my understanding.
		But let's go back to the story.
		That's religion!
		That is a religious behavior.
		To deny reality for your moral ideology is religion.
		about nearly any observed difference between human groups, including those between males and females, she writes.
		Unfortunately, students push back against these phenomena not by using scientific arguments,
		but by employing an a priori moral commitment to equality, anti-racism, and anti-sexism.
		That's religion! That is a religious behavior. To deny reality for your moral ideology is religion.
		I am not a religious person. I'm relatively spiritual.
		I recognize the importance of the lessons learned and maintained, to a certain extent, within ancient text.
		And that goes for all religions.
		I think there's wonderful things within the Bible, the Old Testament, and the New Testament, which we have used in our society to lay the foundations of things like the presumption of innocence.
		And I recognize there are a lot of bad things in it.
		And that overt zealotry and dogma are dangerous.
		And that we need to make sure We treat people as individuals, we respect liberty and freedom, and that includes the right to believe what you want.
		But when it starts infringing on science and becoming law, that's when things get damn worrisome.
		She says, They resort to denialism to protect themselves from having
		to confront a worldview they reject.
		That certain differences between groups may be based partly on biology.
		This denialism manifests itself at times in classroom discussions and in emails in which students explain at
		length why I should not be teaching the topic.
		The denialism at times goes as far as even rejecting the notion that people have a biological instinct to protect
		their kin because some students thought it was a Maroja, it was Maroja
		actually endorsing Trump's hiring of his family.
		These people are losing their minds.
		It's the new religion.
		I thought about this for a while.
		Actually, I'll save this point for the end.
		She goes on to address the concept that infamously got James Damore fired, that some genetic differences might lead to disproportionate representation of males or females in some fields.
	Well, they do.
	STEM fields. For social justice activists, since all people are supposedly blank
	slates, the only explanation for more men being in STEM fields than women
	is that they are cesspools of discrimination. This is what happens when
	ideology replaces biology. It's become taboo to even mention the possibility
	that men and women might have different preferences. Well, they do. It's a fact.
unidentified		It is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I want to say one thing.
		Do you know about the ages we live in, right?
		So there's the Age of Ares, the Age of Pisces, and now the Age of Aquarius.
		It's called the Precession of the Equinox.
		I could be wrong.
		I am not an expert on this stuff.
		But my understanding is that it is believed by some people Religions are based on the new eras they change, so... There was a, um, this could just be apocryphal conspiracy internet nonsense, but it's an interesting thought, because there was the Age of Ares, which was before the Age of Pisces, which we're in now, and we're entering the Age of Aquarius.
		The Age of Aries, presumably, correlates with the rise of Judaism.
		They have the ram's horn, things like that.
		Again, just something I read on some hokey astrology website, which I thought was interesting.
		So fact check me on this.
		It's just an idea.
		The point I'm trying to bring up is, a lot of people highlight this stuff, which I think is highly dubious.
		Astrology is nonsense.
		But they point out the rise of new religions for different ages.
		And I wondered what the new religion for the Age of Aquarius would be.
		Assuming all of that's true, because I am not an expert on this, nor do I ever really talk about this stuff, I was thinking about whether or not any of that is... There's a reason to talk about it.
		Just ignore it all, because it could just be nonsense.
		Will there be a new religion?
		Will there be something to replace Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or whatever religion, because humans have like this hole in them for some kind of faith?
		Intersectionality seems to be that religion.
		That the moral ideology is more important than objective reality.
unidentified		In fact, they don't even believe that objective reality exists!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I kid you not.
		It was one of the opening statements made by Heather Hying, intellectual dark web professor, who said, before we get started, if you don't agree with me that there is an objective reality, then, you know, we're at an impasse.
		Absolutely!
		You know, I tell people simply because we perceive the world differently doesn't mean objective reality doesn't exist.
		That's why we use tools and we share insight.
		And that's what's made humans so successful.
		That I can tell you something and you can replicate the behavior because surprise, surprise, reality is a thing!
		But I'll leave it there.
		Science nihilism is dangerous.
		I always make sure to start these things talking about climate change on purpose, whether you like it or not, because the point needs to be made that I don't care about tribe, I care about science.
		Data.
		Facts.
		And science is repeatedly corrupted by politics.
		And that goes for climate science as well.
		I would raise the question why, you know, Al Gore is buying oceanfront or beach property or whatever.
		Or why, more importantly, we are still allowing development in areas that are supposed to be flooded.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're building cities and areas where they claim there are going to be floods.
		I think scrutiny on all of these things is very important.
		But at the end of the day, I defer to the experts.
		The experts include the scientists.
		If the scientists are saying these people on the left are denying science, I take their word for it.
		Okay?
		Plain and simple.
		As should most people.
		But I'll leave it there.
		I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
		And I will see you shortly.
		In this story from Sports Illustrated, former Ohio State athletes file Title IX lawsuit over Richard Strauss' alleged abuse.
		College football.
		37 former male athletes filed a Title IX lawsuit against Ohio State on Wednesday that alleges university officials did not intervene enough or stop Dr. Richard Strauss from abusing students during preseason physicals or medical treatments.
		The lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
		District Court in Columbus and named only one plaintiff, former wrestler Mike D. Sabato.
		While listing the other 36 as John Does.
		I gotta say, it's really impressive for anybody who's gonna put their name on paper and let everyone know that they've gone through these things, male or female.
		Now listen, there's a reason why I wanna highlight this story.
		It is not because, as much as, you know, you might hear some feminists, you know, decry, I am trying to downplay the abuse women face.
		Certainly, I believe women are the primary victims of such assault and abuse, absolutely.
		I also feel like stories about this, while this is being reported by Sports Illustrated, often go overlooked because our culture views men as disposable, in some respects, and views women as victims.
		And I think that's unfair because absolutely men are victims, as we are seeing, at least from these allegations, 37 men filing a suit claiming That the university didn't do anything to help them.
		More importantly, this is a Title IX lawsuit.
		And there's another reason I bring this up.
		This story is very, very fascinating and important.
		Is that Title IX is often expressed to be a tool for women to seek equality.
		But in reality, the law doesn't work that way.
		Civil rights go both ways, and that includes if you're a man or a woman.
		This story hits a few points that Title IX can be a force for good.
		I think it's used incorrectly by many institutions, but it can be a force for true equality and help people who are victims regardless of their gender.
		Often we see Title IX used against men who are falsely accused, and that's a serious issue.
		But here we can see at least a use of it that benefits some men.
		So before we get started, check out TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
		There's multiple ways you can donate.
		Crypto address, physical address, or PayPal.
		But of course, just liking and commenting does wonders to help the video in terms of engagement, so if you're so, if you'd be willing, and share the video and subscribe because that obviously does way more.
		Let's read on.
		OSU had actual notice of and was deliberately indifferent to the fact that Richard Strauss, MD, an OSU employee, tenured faculty member, and the associate director of OSU's sports medicine program assaulted and abused hundreds of male OSU student-athletes and other male OSU undergraduates for over 19 years.
		Moreover, OSU officials aided, abetted, and actively concealed Strauss' predation on OSU students, the lawsuit said.
		Strauss allegedly abused over 177 male students between 1979 and 1997 at Ohio State.
		The alleged abuse spanned his time working with athletes from 16 sports as well as working at the Student Health Center and his off-campus clinic.
		Strauss committed suicide in 2005 and was never prosecuted for his alleged crimes.
		I want to make another point too.
		We hear a lot of rhetoric about how men are bad, and I think it's unfair.
		I think it's fair to point out that men tend to be the perpetrators of violent crime, but also the victims of violent crime.
		At the end of the day, I think what I'm trying to say is this story, at least before we move on, while men tend to be the perpetrators, we should focus on the victims and take victims seriously and not smear 99.9% of men simply because 0.1% tend to be overly predatory.
		You see what I'm trying to say?
		We see so much rhetoric that I think is just totally anti-man.
		And listen, I'm all for gender equality, equity, egalitarianism, all that stuff.
		So long as you're not being a dick about it.
		Right?
		I should save this stuff for the end.
		We should read the story.
		The lawsuit said Strauss was assigned a locker in every room used by teams in Larkins Hall and took showers with teams.
		Athletes were subject to long hernia checks by the doctor and were asked to drop their pants during medical inspections with him, regardless of their injuries or needs.
		The lawsuit stated that some athletes refer to Strauss as Mr. Longfingers and Mr. Touchy-Feely.
		John Doe No.
		6 alleged in the lawsuit that he was abused by Strauss more than 20 times and was once required to drop his pants when he visited Strauss for finger and eye injuries.
		According to the lawsuit, John Doe No.
		23 was assaulted 40 to 50 times by Strauss, who started every medical visit with a hernia check.
		John Doe No.
		23 also alleged that Strauss watched wrestling practices and would be the first one in the showers and the last one to leave.
unidentified		Talk about creepy behavior!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But again, I'll stress, I mean, let me know what you think, I guess.
		Comment, do you think Title IX is working in this regard?
		John Doe, number 19, a wrestler, alleged experiencing constant harassment in Larkin's Hall, feeling ogled during showers and finding notes in his locker propositioning him to meet up for Colonel Relations When he complained to an assistant coach about being harassed in Larkins Hall, John Doe No.
		19 was told to grow up.
		The lawsuit said former wrestling coach Russ Hellickson complained to Ohio State officials about the environment in Larkins Hall because the conditions seriously impacted the psyche and morale of his wrestlers.
		Hellickson requested his team shower in a separate area or be moved to a different building and administrators denied his requests.
		According to the lawsuit, multiple football players complained about Strauss' behavior to former team trainer Bill Hill, who did not tell athletes that the doctor's behavior was improper.
		Other personnel also brushed off complaints about Strauss.
		While precise responses differed, The gist was almost always the same.
		It was not a big deal.
		Strauss did things his way.
		Strauss was just being thorough.
		This had gone on for years.
		Other benign explanations were offered.
		Some plaintiffs came to believe that Strauss's examinations were a necessary part of their participation in the intercollegiate athletics.
		That was like a hazing, the lawsuit said.
		According to the suit, students and OSU staffers complained about his behavior as early as 1979.
		Athletic department personnel knew Strauss showered with teams, performed long genital examinations on athletes, and refused to let a third person sit in on the exams.
		OSU, however, dismissed, disregarded, minimized, refuted, denied, silenced, and even concealed complaints about Strauss's misconduct.
		At best, OSU chose not to act on information that alerted university faculty, staff, and administrators to a substantial risk.
		That Strauss was abusing plaintiffs and other male OSU athletes.
		So I want to make a few points on this story.
		I think this is a really great story to highlight.
		For one, these victims deserve justice.
		Their allegations deserve to be heard, same as anyone else.
		Now, the men in question or the people at this university will have their essential presumption of innocence, but this lawsuit will carry forward.
		When it comes to issues of this kind of abuse, I understand the idea of believe women or believe the victim.
		But, in a sense, until you're proven guilty, we need a certain level of evidence to prove that these things are true.
		This story shows us that this idea that there's a boys' club that protects predators because it's a masculine or toxic masculinity thing is wrong.
		This man was abusing young males.
		The issue is bureaucracy and PR lies and people trying to save face.
		If you were to ask me, why wouldn't the university stop this?
		In my opinion, because they didn't want to get caught.
		That's what people do.
		People are selfish.
		This is true for if it was a male victim, if it was a female victim.
		I often hear the narrative about boys clubs and how men do these things.
		In reality, men often are predators, right?
		I should say this.
		It is often that the predators are male.
		It's actually very rare that anyone is a predator.
		People who commit these kinds of crimes are few and far between.
		It's rare.
		So for one, we shouldn't be smearing all men, but we can absolutely recognize that it does tend to be men when there is a perpetrator.
		We shouldn't, you know, go after all of masculinity because this guy's a monster.
		More importantly, we shouldn't make the assumption that when it comes to how people get away with this, it's simply because they are male.
		The issue, in my opinion, is that in all institutions, be it universities, be it politics, be it, you know, whatever, PR is a lie, right?
		And this plays into what I've often talked about.
		You will hear people say things because they want to make gains, advantages.
		They will claim something is true or something isn't true to protect themselves.
		They're going to lie.
		When people call them out for bad behavior, I assure you there was some high-ranking official who was like, I do not want this on my watch!
		And they sweep it under the rug, and the problem persists year after year.
		But I guess the final thing I do want to bring up, as I kind of mentioned early on, we hear a lot of criticism over Title IX.
		And it usually has to do with false accusations made against innocent guys whose lives are destroyed because of it.
		Maybe there needs to be some kind of reform as to how this is being misused.
		But at least in this instance, and in other instances, we have seen what I would consider to be a proper use of Title IX.
		Absolutely, there are women who get justice based on Title IX regulation and are being protected.
		But we've seen people like Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute Go after programs that do discriminate against men.
		And we're seeing this.
		Title IX being used because 37 former male athletes were victimized for years and the school did nothing about it.
		Plain and simple.
		I want justice for victims.
		I don't care if you're the victim of a false accusation, you deserve justice.
	If you're the victim of abuse, you deserve justice.
	If you're male, female, black, white, Chinese, whatever.
	You deserve justice, and the people who break the rules and exploit others should be found out, and it should be ended.
	Title IX can be a tool for that.
	Unfortunately, there's problems with it.
	So this story hits a bunch of really good points.
	I think I've nailed them all, so I'll end here.
	Let me know what you think in the comments below.
	Stick around, I've got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
	Those on the podcast will be starting now, and I will see you then.
	China!
	They could be spying on us and collecting data through drones.
	I kid you not, I heard this story and I was fascinated.
	The idea is, apparently, all of these big drone companies, not all of them, but many of them, they make their products in China, and they're sending, allegedly, Visual data back to China.
	There's been a bunch of other allegations, too.
	So I have a story that's from not that long ago.
	It's from October.
	China accused of planting spy chips in U.S.
	telecoms networks.
	So we'll get to this one if we have time.
	But let's first start with this NPR story.
	We're not being paranoid.
	U.S.
	warns of spy dangers of Chinese-made drones.
	I gotta say, I'm probably gonna lean towards if our own companies are spying on us, yeah, I'm pretty sure Chinese-made products are too.
	If you can't trust Facebook to spy on you, why would you trust China to not spy on you?
	Sorry.
	But before we get started, this story from NPR, make sure you go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's a bunch of different ways you can donate.
	More importantly, Like and comment because that does wonders for engagement.
	It really, really helps.
	And subscribe if you haven't already.
	Share the video because that helps even more.
	But let's get back to the news.
	Drones have become an increasingly popular tool for industry and government.
	Electric utilities use them to inspect transmission lines.
	Oil companies fly them over pipelines.
	The Interior Department even deployed them to track lava flows as Hawaii's Kilauea Volcano.
	The Department of Homeland Security is warning that drones manufactured by Chinese companies could pose security risks, including that the data they gather could be stolen.
	The department sent out an alert on the subject on May 20th, and a video on its website notes that drones in general pose multiple threats, including their potential use for terror, mass casualty, interference with air traffic, as well as corporate espionage and invasions of privacy.
	We are not being paranoid, the video's narrator adds.
	I'm a bit of an expert on drones.
	I haven't been as active in droning for a long time, but I was, I believe, I could be wrong, the first person to do a live broadcast via drone.
	Now, it's for a news service, public, you know, it's complicated, but essentially me and my friends hacked one of the earliest commercial drones available, and we streamed the video from the drone to the internet.
	it was to cover a protest during Occupy Wall Street. My understanding is I was the first
	person to do so. I'm not entirely sure, but I can say that I went down to, I believe it's
	the Northeastern Drone Coalition, and was one of like one other people who chose the drone testing
	site where they're doing research and exploration for universities, private sector, for the
	government, et cetera. And And one of the things I've repeatedly warned people about, as I'm not very active in, you know, drone stuff as of the past, like, four or five years, was the potential for danger.
	It is serious.
	How do you stop a drone?
	Let me ask you this.
	You see a drone carrying something flying through your neighborhood, what do you do?
	What do you do?
	Do you let it go?
	What if it's carrying an explosive of some sort to a target?
	What if it's targeting a person?
	How do you track where it came from?
	It's extremely dangerous, and I'm surprised you haven't seen it yet.
	In fact, in video games you can do this.
	In the game Watch Dogs, you can throw an explosive onto the drone and fly it, Why hasn't anybody done that yet?
	I hope they don't, and I'm scared they will.
	And that's a serious problem.
	But let's talk, let's, let's, let's, let's get away from the more extreme instances and focus on more of international issues.
	NPR story says most drones bought in the U.S.
	are manufactured in China, with most of these drones made by one company, DJI Technology.
	Lanier Watkins, a cyber research scientist at Johns Hopkins University's Information Security Institute, said his team discovered vulnerabilities in DJI's drones.
	We could pull information down and upload information on a flying drone.
	You could also hijack the drone.
	The vulnerabilities meant that someone who was interested in, you know, where a certain pipeline network was, or maybe the vulnerabilities in a power utility's wiring, might be able to access that information.
	I was at an event once.
	The guys from Vice flew me out to this resort in Turkey for this big fancy meeting.
	I think it was called Stream.
	It's like a bunch of rich people partying.
	Somebody was flying a drone.
	I'm not going to name which company because I don't want to get in trouble.
	But I was able to hijack this drone because I'm a bit of a tech-savvy individual myself and I thought it was hilarious because they were a consumer who bought a fancy new toy and was flying it around and I used my phone to take it over and take some pictures and then I walked over and showed them and they were like, whoa.
	And that was really fun.
	I was like, I was able to access your drone.
	You might want to be careful.
	At the time, there was no real security for it.
	And I'm like, that's crazy.
	That these things are flying around and you can easily hijack them.
	As easy as I did.
	I didn't control it at all.
	I just took a photo and showed them like, hey, you might want to do this.
	And we had a good laugh about it.
	And we drank something called like a Rocky later.
	It's like a Turkish anise liquor.
	And I hated it, but I digress.
	It was a fun day.
	We were having a good time.
	They were like people that knew, like friends of friends.
	They say, DJI offered a bounty for researchers to uncover bugs in its drones, although Walker said John Hopkins didn't accept any money.
	In a statement, DJI said, At DJI, safety is at the core of everything we do, and the security of our technology has been independently verified by the U.S.
	government and leading U.S.
	businesses.
	DJI is leading the industry on this topic, and our technology platform has enabled businesses
	and government agencies to establish best practices for managing their drone data.
	We give all customers full and complete control over how their data is collected, stored, and transmitted.
	For government and critical infrastructure customers that require additional assurances,
	we provide drones that do not transfer data to DJI or via the internet, and our customers can enable
	all the precautions DHS recommends.
	Every day, American businesses, first responders, and U.S.
	government agencies trust DJI drones to help save lives, promote worker safety, and support vital operations.
	And we take that responsibility very seriously.
	We are committed to continuously working with our customers and industry and government stakeholders to ensure our technology adheres to all of their requirements.
	There are other, more covert ways that foreign governments could obtain the type of information gathered by drones, says John Villacenor, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles.
	If you fly a drone above a pipeline, there's a pretty good chance someone is going to see it up there, he said.
	But a spy satellite just takes a picture from 120 miles up, or whatever.
	Then, of course, no one's going to know what happened.
	This is not the first time the U.S.
	government has expressed concern over the Chinese-made drones.
	In 2017, the U.S.
	Army barred use of DJI's drones.
	My understanding, it wasn't just drones, though.
	They were concerned about everything.
	There was a conspiracy going around for a while that China was putting hidden Wi-Fi networks in toasters and things like that.
	I think that's absolutely fascinating and kind of paranoid, but the reality is hidden networks aren't hard to implement, and they really could do this.
	Listen.
	It's really, really easy to run a program that brute forces someone's Wi-Fi and breaks in.
	It's also very easy that you could buy something that has a small Wi-Fi chip in it that you wouldn't know about, that transmits a hidden network that you can't see, brute forces your Wi-Fi, and then transmit your personal data back.
	It's really easy to do this!
	And there were fears that China was doing this.
	And I'd be impressed If they weren't.
	Because China certainly has capabilities, so does Russia and everybody else.
	And we get most of our stuff made in China, which is probably a bad idea.
	But let's read on.
	Villacenor said the government's concern over Chinese drones is not new, although the fact that it has surfaced now may or may not be tied to these broader trade tensions that have flared up in recent months.
	The Department of Homeland Security's warning about Chinese drones coincides with the Trump administration's campaign against tech manufacturer Huawei, which also coincides with the ongoing trade war between the two countries.
	It also comes as officials are warning transit agencies in New York and Washington, D.C.
	against buying new subway cars made by a Chinese manufacturer.
	Excuse me.
	Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, along with the region's other Democratic senators, has introduced legislation prohibiting the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority from buying the Chinese-made cars because of security concerns.
	A railcar might have a whole host of sensors and communication tools.
	And when that equipment is manufactured in China, Warner said, and when that equipment sometimes can be upgraded on a remote basis, in terms of software upgrade, there are national security implications.
	Underlying the tech concerns is the Chinese government's control over all Chinese companies.
	The Communist Party of China now has, in their law, the ability to interfere and take information from virtually every Chinese company.
	Pretty sure the US can do it to US companies too.
	Warner warned.
	And as long as that exists, that provides a whole set of vulnerabilities I think American
	business has to consider on a going forward basis.
	The bottom line, the Department of Homeland Security said, is that customers should be
	cautious when buying Chinese technology.
	Now again, I just want to go over this lightly.
	I do want to mention... Listen, man, spying is happening.
	If you think you're not being spied on, then I think... Actually, there used to be a time when if you believed you were being spied on, you were considered crazy.
	If you think you're not being spied on today, then you're crazy, right?
	It's flipped.
	That's how bad it is.
	After Occupy Wall Street, I couldn't turn my phones off.
	I kid you not.
	I had an Android and an iPhone.
	It was like during the Occupy Wall Street times, my phones turned on automatically one day, and I thought it was hilarious, and they could never shut off.
	If I turned them off, they would instantly turn back on.
	Don't know why, maybe it was a glitch, but considering, you know, the prominence I received around this big activist thing, many people, considering I had two different phones, that was Apple and Android, they shouldn't be malfunctioning in the same way, we thought it was very funny.
	They also tended to get really warm for no reason, which, if you know anything about technology, means they're likely broadcasting or doing something computational.
	Who knows what it was.
	But there's for a long time now been concern that the phones we're getting that are made in China have secret technology that steals your information.
	Of course, it's all been denied.
	All the manufacturers deny it.
	But how would you really know?
	If China created something that was designed to be untraceable, how would you really know?
	At the same time, That would be a huge risk for China.
	Because if we ever did find out, that's an international incident.
	Anyway, I think it's a fascinating story.
	I think DJI makes fantastic drones.
	So it is what it is.
	Welcome to the future where everyone's spying on you and that's the dystopian nightmare we live in.
	I'll leave it there.
	Let me know what you think in the comments below.
	If you're watching, listening on the podcast, leave a review.
	It's greatly appreciated.
	Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.

▲