Conservatives Are WINNING The Internet, Democrats Self Destructing
Conservatives Are WINNING The Internet, Democrats Self Destructing. A Democratic group called The Third Way is pleading with Democrats to ignore Twitter as the far left user base and overly woke progressives do not represent American voters. But alas to no avail, the woke far left rejects centrism and is driving dems further to the fringe.Meanwhile Conservatives mass produce memes, make jokes, and get massive engagement online. For conservatives and the right the internet was a new opportunity to bypass mainstream media bias.By many metrics we can see the left has free reign and conservatives are being censored. While censorship does affect everyone, conservatives get it more based on numerous reports. But this censorship is only bad for the individuals censored, for conservatives as a group they are getting cleaned up and made to look good as the worst actors and even innocent ones get suspended.While at first glance it may seem counter intuitive this leaves the worst far left actors to dominate the Democratic conversation and only the most professional and well read conservatives. Certainly all individuals deserve free speech but in the end the censorship is backfiring horribly on leftists as woke social justice types run wild.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Conservatives certainly face a bias when it comes to social media platforms.
We saw a story from Gizmodo where Facebook said they routinely suppressed conservative news.
It was a Facebook staffer.
We saw the story, it was actually the podcast I was in, Jack Dorsey, said they were too aggressive in how they policed a meme used mostly by conservatives.
And then there was a publication in Quillette where they found 22 high-profile suspensions and 21 were only on one side of the political debate.
But, this might actually be backfiring on the left.
While conservatives do face a bias and censorship, in all, it seems like conservatives are actually winning the internet.
Right, look, people have said the left can't meme, so I think there are very obvious reasons why conservatives do better.
And there's an interview over at Vox that goes through this, and I want to read through this, but we also have this story.
From the Daily Beast, Democratic centrist group launches Twitter campaign to get people to ignore Twitter.
Third way is targeting donors, pollsters, and reporters with promoted tweets telling them what they see on Twitter isn't real.
And this is something I've talked about quite a bit.
Now, many people say the reason conservative news does so well online is because mainstream media is dominated by the left.
So conservatives find their own outlet for sharing information.
But, one of the things I've kind of hypothesized is that because of all this censorship of conservatives, the craziest right-wingers are gone!
And all that's left are the suit-wearing professionals.
Meanwhile, on the left, the crazies are running wild, getting away with whatever they want.
Thus, you are now seeing a Democratic group telling people, stop!
Those people are nuts!
Twitter isn't real!
So let's read through this, before we get started.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do to support the videos is like and comment below because the engagement really helps, and share the video on social media.
Also subscribe if you haven't yet.
But let's get back to the initial story from the Daily Beast.
Twitter is not exactly known as a platform for centrist, middle-of-the-road political discourse.
But Third Way, the prominent think tank for moderate Democrats, is hoping to change that.
The group is targeting roughly 10,000 influencers on the platform by promoting paid content that aims to change the progressive conversation to centrist chatter ahead of 2020.
And they're doing so in large part by encouraging the individuals they're targeting on Twitter to not pay too much attention to Twitter.
Checking Twitter might be a quick way to tune into the political conversation, but it's probably warping your sense of the electorate.
Third Way's official account tweeted earlier this week, linking to an article in the New York Times.
Spot on.
This is exactly what I've been saying.
I look forward to the Third Way being called conservative now because they're challenging the far left and the regressive nonsense.
They go on to say, Bravo!
I agree!
This is speaking to me.
But you know preaching to the choir is not going to do much for you unless you can convince other people this is true.
day. Bravo! I agree. This is speaking to me. But you know preaching to the choir is not
going to do much for you unless you can convince other people this is true. They say, for years
Third Way has tried to keep the Democratic Party from lurching too far left.
They've done so primarily by pitching lawmakers on the idea that the path to a sustainable governing majority lies in more centrist-minded policies.
But with Democratic lawmakers continuing their leftward drift, the group is rethinking what type of incentive structures matter.
The Twitter campaign is a recognition that social media conversations and the powerful public opinion shapers who participate in them can be as influential in shaping how lawmakers act as, say, polling data.
Except seemingly not Republicans for some reason.
And this is evidenced by the fact that you have numerous high-profile Republican personalities, conservative personalities, saying stop the bias, stop the censorship.
And where are Republican lawmakers?
Some have come out and talked about this.
But where are they?
Why is it that Joe Biden says his top priority is LGBTQ rights?
The left is staring Twitter in the face, believing it's real life, and Republicans aren't paying attention, for better or worse.
This may actually be benefiting conservatives, because the left, the Democrats, are being driven insane by the media being driven insane.
So here's the thing.
This all flows downstream.
I made a video not too long ago talking about how the media is going insane because their ratings are drying up and no one watches anymore.
In response to this, they become desperate in response to them losing ratings.
They start making crazier and crazier content.
The left-wing politicians see this and think it's real.
And then they start pushing the same narrative.
Look at Kirsten Gillibrand.
She tweeted that the future is female, intersectional, etc.
These things are not mainstream.
I mean, they're relatively mainstream.
They're becoming more mainstream.
But for the most part, it's a small group of people who agree with this.
And she's polling at less than 1% on average.
I could be wrong, but that's the last I saw.
She's not doing too well.
So why would she embrace this?
Twitter convinced it.
It's what people want.
But they don't.
Polls show us they don't.
So, let's just wrap up this story from the Daily Beast.
They say, the group is also targeting users in New York and Washington, hotbeds of campaign donors and other powerful political entities.
And they already caught the ire of some progressives.
Third ways, so-called centrist solutions are anything but.
Because they don't actually reflect the center of public opinion.
I believe that's wrong, especially when you consider Gallup and Pew, two pollsters, research firms, have found most Democrats want more moderate policy, not more progressive policy.
Still, Bennett said he doesn't expect casual Twitter users to pay any attention to what they're doing online.
With a Twitter ad, unless you're interested in this tactic, it just sort of flows past.
We are not intending to stop people and say, whoa.
Here's the thing.
I've routinely highlighted a study from the University of Missouri showing that Twitter is amplifying extremists.
The centrists can't break through because tepid centrism doesn't work.
Like, my channels do okay, but admittedly, I look at these progressive and right-wing channels and I'm like, man, if only I was more hyper-partisan and if only I was meaner.
I'm impressed I've done as well as I have not insulting people or being mean.
The reality is, I don't ever expect to be a massive channel with millions and millions of users.
I certainly get a lot of views, especially with increasing the work I'm doing.
Hopefully what I do will speak to more people that Third Way, for instance, is targeting.
Because I think they're right.
The Democrats will lose if they can't find moderate people.
And it's not so much about your position on socialism versus, you know, capitalism.
More so that people on Twitter are so woke, they attack each other all day and night.
This is one of the biggest reasons why conservatives are winning the Internet.
The Democrats are being driven insane, but more importantly, Conservatives are dominating because they have a unified message.
Whether it's because of censorship or otherwise, I don't know.
But in this story from Vox, it's an interview.
Why conservatives are winning the internet.
A new book explains why digital activism helps conservatives more than liberals.
Now I gotta do something here.
Take a look at this.
Here's the cover of the book.
I laughed a lot when I saw this, because how perfect that it's the hashtag symbol right now, as there is a current hoax to try and convince people the hashtag symbol is far right, etc, etc.
Not necessarily aligned with conservatives, but it's funny that that's what they ended up doing.
But they bring up a few interesting points.
Let's just start from the top, because I don't want to miss over anything specifically.
But Shauna Illing is talking to Jen Schrader.
Now, it's really interesting.
They have a very progressive bias in how they talk about these issues.
But I do think they're right in terms of their analysis, or at least Jen's analysis.
She talks about how... Well, she brings up the good things.
The Arab Spring, the indignados, Occupy Wall Street, these big protests fighting for justice.
But then, she says, things started to crumble.
There was Gamergate, and this explosion of sexism and harassment.
There was Edward Snowden, and the revelations about the extent of global mass surveillance.
And then, of course, 2016 is when we really went over the cliff with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.
Well, some would argue that's still a good thing.
Because here's the thing.
All of these things... Excuse me.
are about populism.
The Arab Spring, indignados, Occupy Wall Street were big uprisings.
Regular people getting their voice heard and demanding action.
Gamergate, whatever your opinion on it, was also a group of mostly non-media people challenging the media.
By all means, if you want to get into an argument about what Gamergate was, do so.
I'm not here to talk about who was right and who was wrong, simply that it was one side versus an establishment side.
It was anti-establishment, establishment.
Edward Snowden challenged the establishment.
Brexit.
Trump.
Populist challenging the establishment.
She goes on to say, I was researching digital activism in 2014 and it was already apparent to me, despite what a lot of people thought, that conservatives and authoritarian powers were seizing control of the digital space.
Well, I think this is an insinuation about, you know, conservatives being authoritarian.
But it's actually right if you break it down a different way.
Conservatives are doing a really good job online.
Outside of the censorship, they do.
And we have data to prove it.
I'll get to it in a second.
Actually, I think we have it right here.
When we look at the top publishers on Facebook, we can see that conservatives actually do really well.
In a report from Newswhip, which I don't have pulled up, They talk about how The Daily Wire is actually one of the most engaged platforms, or companies, on Facebook.
The top conservative page, The Daily Wire, getting 139 million engagements, and the biggest left-wing partisan site was The Root with 25 million.
So conservatives are certainly doing a good job.
Perhaps that's why, then, these companies are so concerned and biased and censor conservatives, because they can see that conservatives do really, really well online.
But back over to the Vox story, there is one more point that I want to make sure I highlight, but I think I may have passed it up.
Here's what she says.
Conservatives are generally monolithic in their attacks on, say, Obamacare.
The left wants a diverse array of voices.
The left tends to want to include a lot of different people and a lot of different issues, and the result is a more muddled message that is harder to communicate.
No better example than what's going on in Birmingham in the UK.
Where Muslims and feminists are fighting because Muslims are protesting LGBTQ education at schools.
And a feminist MP, Jess Phillips, came and actually confronted them.
And you're at a point now where the left has tried to bring in so many disparate groups, so many different groups, that the ideologies are clashing.
Barack Obama referred to what's going on as a circular firing squad.
Many of us online refer to it as the left eating itself.
The right does this sometimes, but not that much, because the right is more cohesive and more hierarchical, whereas the left is more, you know, anti-hierarchy.
They actually are very anti-authoritarian to the point where they don't actually understand the concept of authority as it is.
But there are other reasons why, or I should say, this actually leads somewhere else.
When conservatives are less concerned about the health of, or I should say, the emotional state of other individuals, meaning, you know, you're an adult.
If you're offended, that's your own issue.
People should be responsible for themselves.
You end up seeing something emerge that's, I guess I would just say it's meme culture.
Conservatives have no problem making a joke, making fun of somebody, and having a laugh.
Liberals, on the other hand, are bringing together so many different groups, they're actually scared of offending each other.
This has done something else that's helped conservatives.
In this story from Mother Jones in April, The Left Can't Meme, how right-wing groups are training the next generation of social media warriors.
Memes helped elect Donald Trump.
Now well-funded conservative groups are using them to proselytize.
Here's the thing, the left can't mean.
They've made some, but for the most part, not many good ones.
They don't want to offend anybody, so they can't make jokes, they're concerned about giving interviews, and not all of them, just many of the people on the left, or mostly the woke left.
For conservatives, they don't really care about offending you, so they'll make a joke, and it'll work or it won't.
And this allows conservatives to have more fun and laugh.
It's a really weird thing for me.
You know, because when I grew up, the comedy was all on the left, and the right was stodgy and uptight.
Now it's flipped.
Now the left is policing morals.
Not all, but, like, most of them, yes, they're morality police, concerned about offending one person or another.
And conservatives are actually the ones making the jokes.
Imagine George Carlin today.
George Carlin is an amazing, amazing, legendary individual.
His comedy was epic.
It will go down in history as some of the greatest.
But he made a lot of really, really, really offensive jokes.
He has one bit where he uses every racial slur in the book.
Why is it that the left won't allow that anymore?
No jokes, no mean jokes.
Look it, they're trying to ban Steven Crowder for not even going as far as George Carlin did in the past.
And George Carlin was a hippy-dippy liberal guy.
What happened?
Were this flipped?
I don't know.
But this space is giving rise to those who want to have fun.
So I tell you this, when a young person online sees memes and they're funny, and they think, I can play too and people will laugh and high-five me, people want to feel good.
This is a massive advantage for conservatives on the internet.
The left is offended and people feel bad.
Who wants to feel bad all the time?
Nobody.
So there's an interesting post I found from 2016 that kind of talks about why conservatives have done so well online.
It's just someone's response on Quora just before the election of Donald Trump.
They asked, why does the internet seem so conservative?
The response was, it's a direct result of a liberal mainstream media bias.
It's kind of like how feminists a few years ago were given a big microphone by the mainstream media.
They used it to basically say men are, you know, they said men are really bad.
He says I'm generalizing, but the point is, they sent a very strong anti-men message.
Did anyone in the mainstream counter this narrative?
No.
So what was the result?
Normal people had to take matters into their own hands.
Memes, YouTube channels, social media posts.
They came like a tsunami.
Eventually, the backlash became bigger than the original attack.
We're saying the same thing with the presidential election.
The media is so pro-Hillary that normal people feel an obligation to counter their narrative.
That's why Breitbart is one of the most shared sites on social media.
That's why Reddit's most active forum is The Donald.
That's why there are so many pro-Trump YouTube channels.
That's why so many anti-Hillary topics trend on Twitter.
He says, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would have no need to be posting here.
Her propaganda is everywhere in mainstream mediums already.
But because all you get is negative coverage of Trump from mainstream press, people like me feel the need to use social media to publicize facts, stories, and arguments that the media refuses to acknowledge.
And that's true.
Investors, Business Daily.
Media Trump hatred shows in 92% negative coverage of his presidency.
This is where they talk about the Media Research Center did a lot of visual spade work.
It viewed some 1,007 evening news stories about Trump, about the Trump White House and ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1st to September 30th.
That's the equivalent of about 32.7 hours of coverage by TV standards and eternity.
When this happens, what do you think the result is?
Conservatives go online, they talk about what makes them angry, they share memes, they spread videos, they give commentary, and thus you get a massive outpouring of conservative channels.
most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history. 92% negative. When this happens,
what do you think the result is? Conservatives go online, they talk about what makes them
angry, they share memes, they spread videos, they give commentary, and thus you get a massive
outpouring of conservative channels. On YouTube, there's one report that shows an analysis
Now this is disputed to a certain extent because there's people like Jimmy Kimmel who's included in liberal.
But the reason for that is Jimmy Kimmel's commentary and his jokes and his opening monologues are anti-Trump, never pro-Trump.
So you see, many alternative and independent voices speaking out and challenging the mainstream media.
So, we can look at the ratings on any given day for Fox News and see that Fox News absolutely destroys the competition.
But the reality is, although Fox News is dominating in terms of cable news channels, there's a reason for that.
It's because you have ABC, you know, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vox, The Verge, BuzzFeed, etc, etc, etc.
You have many, many mainstream left-wing channels and much fewer conservative channels.
And to the detriment of conservatives, there are very few actual conservative journalists.
And this is a comment, I can't remember who brought this up, so forgive me if I'm not giving you credit.
Conservatives don't do journalism.
They mostly do commentary.
Liberals do journalism.
We're seeing far left activism seep into journalism for sure, but those that are actually gathering the facts and reporting do tend to be liberal.
Conservatives aren't countering this, they're just commenting on it.
And so that presents a big issue.
But then you end up seeing what happens is if the media is dominated by liberals, then conservatives are pushing back online and it's working.
The reason I wanted to talk about this video is that this is a story from today.
I know there are going to be a lot of people on the left who are like, look at the title of Tim's video, he's clearly, you know, pandering to conservatives, like, oh, it's a Vox article.
Vox wrote this.
I am in agreement with their assessment, for the most part.
Vox wrote an article about why conservatives are winning the internet.
Again, while censorship is a big problem, and I absolutely think it needs to be dealt with, partly because it's actually helping them in some regards, not the individuals, but as a collective, censorship is bad.
People have a right to speech and the principle comes first.
But the reality is, What's happening online is conservatives have utilized the tools of the internet way better, way better than the left has.
Well, I will admit while the story talks about how the Donald, I'm sorry, the Quora post, the Donald is a huge hub of meme activity.
There was one study I read that said a majority of memes come from the, or I should say that the Donald is the second most prolific generator of viral memes.
The left has r slash politics.
I swear to God, you go on Reddit and it's a form for just politics, but it is ridiculous.
It might as well just be like r slash anti-Trump, right?
But what's happening here with conservatives winning isn't just my opinion.
And I want to stress winning isn't black or white.
I think in a lot of ways conservatives are dominating the internet and it's one of the
reasons they couldn't predict Trump or Brexit because they're not paying attention to what's
happening online.
But we also see this Daily Beast story, which I'm very happy to see.
Basically that Democrats are even recognizing how the internet is destroying their party
and hurting their chances.
Unfortunately, here's what's going to happen.
The progressives absolutely have the ability to go viral.
Of course they do.
To act like conservatives have the entirety of the internet is silly.
They're winning the internet.
I believe.
Vox believes.
Many others do.
But the left is still successful online to a certain degree.
Unfortunately, they're running wild and they can't agree on things.
So the internet isn't necessarily acting as a good thing for Democrats.
It's actually hurting them.
And here's what happens.
The most insane hyperbolic tweets are what go viral.
The centrists who are trying to combat this have to pay to have their tweets seen to combat the insanity on the left.
It's a damn shame.
Absolutely is.
And so long as the Democrats are fractured, I'll tell you what, Donald Trump is going to win.
The economy is great.
Conservative news online is just dominating.
While we can certainly see, according to News Whip, that in the month of March, this is one of the later studies they have, because they look back.
We can see that there are, you know, CNN, which is left, according to the New York Times.
BBC, absolutely.
The New York Times is actually pretty okay, but they do lean left.
We can see the Epoch Times doing really great.
The Daily Wire, Fox News.
So there are many, many conservative outlets that are doing really, really well.
It's sad to say, The Democrats have the mainstream media, but as the mainstream media is losing relevance, I think they're going to burn out.
And as exemplified by this Daily Beast article, When the mainstream media is gone, the Democrats, they're not going to have any successful message.
Bill Maher, look at my video from the other day, or my video from earlier, on my second channel.
Bill Maher calling them out, saying, stop this!
They can't help it.
Bill Maher gets attacked by the woke progressive bunch, and the centrists are trying to pay money to try and break through the mold.
But it's the extreme lunatics who get the most attention.
And if Twitter keeps banning the lunatics on the right, Then the people on the right who get attention are gonna be the normal, professional-looking guys who are acceptable.
I mean, people.
And on the left, you're gonna have the wackaloons.
The crazy, crazy people who make everyone look nuts on the left.
And the centrists try to stop it.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Do you think the conservatives are winning?
I think they are.
We'll see what happens.
Just because they're winning now doesn't mean it's going to be perfect.
There are some who would contend they're losing in terms of censorship.
But I would argue that while there are many individuals who have lost and their speech should be protected, as a whole, conservatives are being benefited by some of this.
But again, comment, let me know what you think.
Stick around, I've got more segments coming up shortly.
YouTube.com slash TimCast starting at 6 p.m.
The podcast will be arranged a little differently, but thanks for hanging out and I will see you all next time.
He said if, you know, the economy is going to help Trump, so bring on the recession or something like that.
Not no.
No, please, no.
Bill Maher is a liberal who regularly calls out the insanity of, you know, the Democrats are going off the deep end, right?
And this is what my video was about yesterday on my main channel, that the unhinged left is becoming mainstream.
And the story started because I saw this article about a woman who threw, I believe it was a milkshake, some kind of drink, at Republican Matt Gaetz.
Turns out the woman ran as a Democrat against Matt Gaetz.
So we're literally at a point where someone runs against Matt Gaetz and then three years later throws a drink at him, a milkshake or something at him.
This is the state of, you know, where we're at with the Democrats.
Okay, so things have gone crazy.
Again, not all Democrats, because clearly someone like Bill Maher represents them in a very high-profile capacity.
But he said this, according to Daily Wire, Bill Maher defends Trump merit-based immigration plan sounds more normal.
He says it sounds more normal Republican.
So let's clarify this here.
Did Bill Maher defend Trump's merit-based thing based on saying it sounds more normal Republican?
I think if we're being fair, he's saying this is like Republican behavior, a merit-based system.
It's kind of a defense, but he was actually railing on Trump, saying that the tariff idea was Trump crazy, and that this sounds more normal.
So it's kind of a defense.
The real defense came when Bill Maher said, sounds kind of like what Canada has.
You're not going to convince me that Canada is conservative.
No way!
So, if this is normal Republican, and Bill Maher says it sounds like what Canada has, then merit-based immigration doesn't sound bad at all.
But there was still someone on his show who pushed back against it.
Bill Maher completely understands what the Democrats need to do in order to win.
And he's repeatedly called out the wokeness of the left.
So this is kind of like a follow-up on the video I did yesterday for my main channel.
In that, part of this segment was Bill Maher telling the Democrats to get out of Wokeville, stop, you know, stand up to Twitter.
It was hilarious.
He was like, just because WokeBabe99 is mad at you doesn't mean anyone cares.
So let's read a little bit about this, and then I've got some other stories, and I'm going to give you a warning.
There's one story I'm going to be talking about that is going to I'm not trying to be mean, but, uh, well, you've been warned.
Just, just, you've been warned.
Once again, Bill Maher of HBO has allowed some sense to spring forth from his usually irreverent mouth by acknowledging President Trump's merit-based immigration system as something worth achieving.
Kind of.
I think, you know, I think Daily Wire definitely wants to be like, Bill Maher's defending Trump!
And it's kind of like, no, no, no, it's kind of like a neutral statement.
Neutral to positive.
I wouldn't say, it wasn't Bill Maher jumping up and down saying Trump's right.
They're going to say the political comedian made a surprising statement about the Trump administration's proposed immigration policy during the overtime segment on YouTube, which follows after his real-time show on HBO.
Maher first began by asking his panel of guests if a merit-based immigration system should receive more consideration, not that it would be similar to what Canada has.
So that's interesting.
I mean, a lot of liberals talk about how great Canada is, right?
And Canada does.
I don't know if you've ever gone to their website.
You have to earn points or something.
You have to have a certain degree of skills if you want a visa.
CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers denounced the proposal for being out of line with the US immigration tradition.
Which she claims has always been about people just coming to the country with no regard for their merit.
This country is based on people coming over here not- not based on having a PhD or having high-level skills.
Even when we say merit-based, it sort of suggests that someone who doesn't have a high education doesn't have merit.
I think we need people who are unskilled laborers.
We need them just as much as people who are engineers.
Now there's a problem when they- they do give- you get- you earn points in- in uh, I think New Zealand does this too.
If you have a college degree.
A college degree does not guarantee you actually know what the hell you're talking about.
I think we all kind of understand that.
So it's not perfect.
But I understand the idea of a merit-based immigration system.
Now, it's kind of funny.
I'd probably score relatively low on a merit-based system, like if I was trying to go to Canada, because I have no high school diploma.
I didn't go to college.
However, I think there's certain criteria that would, you know, they recognize things beyond just a degree.
But I will push back on Miss Kirsten Powers.
Two things.
Just because things have always been this way does not mean they are the right things to do.
That's actually a liberal position or progressive position.
She's saying it's out of line with U.S.
immigration tradition.
I understand when the country was very small, she talks about how her, I believe her grandparents or her ancestors, whatever, came as coal miners.
Well, we don't really have that many coal miners anymore, so yes, there needs to be some kind of standard, especially when one of the biggest sectors of our economy is the tech sector, and technology is a driving force for most developing economies.
We're not as interested so much in a strong economy based on us digging dirt out of the ground as we are, how can we make a better piece of technology Will it get us to the stars?
Will it improve our lives?
Yes, we need things like coal miners.
Don't get me wrong.
The point I'm trying to say is there's a reason why immigration policy changes.
The world changes.
Technology develops.
So it's absolutely fascinating to me that we're at a point now where it's like the religious zealotry that I grew up with seeing on the conservative side is now appearing on the left.
Tradition?
Is that a joke?
Why are you advocating for immigration tradition?
Let's talk about how we protect lower class workers.
What also ignores is that we got hit by, and so the second point, we got hit by a massive economic recession.
People in this country, some people have never recovered.
Some people's wages haven't gone up.
The economy's doing great, but there are still people hurting.
And that means we shouldn't just open the floodgates for everybody to come in and displace those who haven't recovered yet.
I'm not, and this is not even me doing a strong, like, America First thing.
I certainly think asylum seekers should be given their legal course to asylum, because saving someone's life is more important than figuring out if someone's going to be able to put their kid in college.
I know that sounds a little bit harsh, but they're hard decisions to be made.
If you had to choose between, I'm gonna make sure that you, you know, are gonna be able to save money, or, and this person is gonna be left out and potentially die, I'd choose to save the life.
But we need strong migration systems and laws and closing loopholes to prevent those from exploiting the asylum system.
So as much as I made that point, let me be clear.
There are a lot of people who do exploit the asylum system because they know they'll get apprehended, they'll claim asylum, they'll be released, and they'll never show up.
Congratulations, they're in the country.
I'm talking about legitimate people who are, like, quite literally going to die, right?
I think we can agree saving life You know, Trump's certain economic policies.
But to be fair on that point as well, I will stress, the amount of people who actually need asylum probably wouldn't be displacing the average worker in this country.
If you open the floodgates, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if you literally say anybody can come and anybody can work, you are literally displacing people and causing economic harm for no reason.
That makes no sense.
You know, they say, secure your own face mask before securing the mask of those sitting next to you.
And that's why it's a sort of, like, I would never say that I'm like an overt America first person, because I do think there are certain things that have priority outside of our borders.
But I'm way more than probably the average progressive.
And the reason for it, I think, is that many of these progressives are just tribalists.
She's only saying this because it's anti-Trump.
Even Bill Maher was like, oh, Canada has it.
Like, Bill Maher isn't being insane about it.
Okay, but let's move on from this.
The interesting thing here is that, you know, I think it's fascinating all the time to see Bill Maher, he's a normal liberal, and the left has gone nuts.
Bill Maher has repeatedly called this out.
Last month, Bill Maher Democrats, if you make 2020 a woke contest, you lose.
He's right.
He's absolutely right.
And now, you were warned earlier, but I'm going to tell you exactly why a woke contest will lose.
And I want to give you a kind of graphic warning.
It's going to put an image in your head that you might not want, but you've been warned.
In another story, Lena Dunham poses nude to promote positivity about loving yourself.
That's fine.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Lena Dunham.
I did not issue... I didn't say it was a warning because I'm trying to be mean to her about her appearance.
It's just that there are some people who might not want to be thinking about something like this.
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is that, by all means, I am a left libertarian.
I am left liberal.
So I believe in freedom.
I am very anti-authoritarian.
I do believe in more... Left on the economic spectrum is more cooperative.
Right is more competitive.
So I lean left.
But I am very much about freedom.
It's a very difficult position to have to convince people to work with you on certain issues without a guarantee of financial exchange.
It's complicated.
I don't want to get into all that stuff.
The point is, You do you.
You do you.
If you want to post a photo of you naked, like, more power to you.
But you have to recognize that people in this country think a certain way, okay?
That there is a common... that we still have some kind of common culture.
What Lena Dunham is doing here, while the woke crowd may be like, oh, that's so sweet, the average person is going to be like, no, thank you.
I'm not interested in seeing you pose naked.
And these are the kind of things done by very high profile individuals aligned with the left that make the left seem out of their minds.
What does Joe Biden say?
Something about white man's culture.
Joe Biden recently said something like the LGBTQ agenda is like his number one legislative priority.
And I'm just like, listen, man.
We want to guarantee civil rights for everybody.
That's a fact.
But first and foremost, can we deal with the economy?
Foreign policy?
Listen, I think it's fine that, and it's actually fantastic, that we care about protecting marginalized communities.
I'm all for it.
But to come out there and do that overt virtue signal, I'm like, do you think That the 99, you know, 90, it's like 98% or whatever of the population, 90, let's just say 95.
Let's say, I think it's a really high estimate, but let's say 95% of the population that is, like, straight, you know, cisgendered, whatever, doesn't really pay attention to politics.
You think they're gonna be, like, excited about you coming out and saying this?
Or are they gonna be like, what does that have to do with whether or not my factory is going to reopen?
What does that have to do with whether or not I'm going to have healthcare?
Seriously, Joe Biden's priority is LGBTQ rights over healthcare.
That to me sounds insane.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't prioritize LGBTQ rights.
No, by all means, it should be way up there.
But you think healthcare would come first because healthcare is for everybody.
Because I think, you know, he's trying to play to the woke crowd.
Well, Bill Maher warned you about that.
I'll warn you about that.
I've been warning you about that.
And even conservatives have been warning you about that.
What Lena Dunham is doing is not overtly political, but she is a very prominent person leaning in a political direction and makes many political statements and has done many, many controversial things.
It's my understanding, I could be wrong, but I remember she said something about how she wished she had an abortion.
What do you think happens when regular Americans in like, you know, I don't know, Illinois hear that?
They think, wow, these people are losing it.
And then Trump wins.
Remember this?
Grab them by the ballot.
Naked photo shoot of women to encourage people to vote for Democrats.
They removed all the photos.
It's an old story.
This was back from what, when was this story?
November 3rd, I think it was 20, was it 2018?
Yeah, midterm elections.
What were they thinking?
A bunch of women posing nude to encourage people to vote?
Trump right now is absolutely dominating, okay?
I might do a bigger video on this later because this is a really interesting article.
But Trump is absolutely destroying the competition in terms of his campaign for re-election.
He is outspent.
Look at this.
Obama, Bush, Clinton, and H.W.
Bush.
Look how much Trump has spent.
Raised and spent.
So he's still got money left over, but he is spending like crazy.
What is that?
Like five times the amount Obama spent for re-election.
This is nuts.
Look at this.
8.3 million.
And Elizabeth Warren coming in second place at 1.7.
Trump is outspending and destroying everybody.
The Republicans absolutely know their messaging.
And Bill Maher said this on his show.
He said, get your message straight, but there's too many people running and they're knifing each other in the throat.
So here we are.
Here we are with Lena Dunham getting naked and talking about body positivity and all that stuff.
And again, more power to you.
Do your thing.
I have no problem and I'm not trying to be mean to Lena Dunham in no way.
I have tremendous respect for her.
It's very brave for her to do this photo shoot.
The point I'm trying to stress, though, is that as a high-profile person aligned with the Democrats, was a very prominent supporter of Hillary, these kinds of things are bad for the Democrats.
Certainly the woke crowd will disagree, but I'm not here to pander to the woke crowd.
I'm here to talk to regular Americans.
And if there is someone who is an independent, leans a little left, votes Democrat traditionally, maybe switch to Trump, who knows?
I mean, you probably get it.
You probably completely understand.
Hopefully, you know, I mean, I guess it's almost kind of pointless to bring up because, yeah, I assume if you're watching me, you get it.
You understand exactly why what she does and what these other women are doing is hurting the Democrats.
You understand exactly why Bill Maher is right when he says, don't make it a vote contest, you'll lose.
They've gone off the deep end.
They're chasing after a fringe portion of the population that's like less than 8%, if that.
And for some reason, I think it's the majority.
And it's going to cost them.
So, anyway, to wrap this all up, I mean, the premise is, Bill Maher has repeatedly defended Trump.
I find it absolutely fascinating when he does this.
And I'm actually curious on what you all think about the merit-based immigration plan, because I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Whether or not you, you know, the Democrats want to oppose it or challenge it, I'm flabbergasted that on the panel that tradition was the argument she used.
I'm not a traditionalist.
So no, that doesn't speak to me.
There's progressive and there's tradition, right?
That's ridiculous to me.
I suppose the true progressive line would be no borders, right?
That's the true progressive.
Well, you can't do that.
Just because it's progressive doesn't mean it makes sense.
But just going straight up with tradition, the tradition of we used to just let anybody
in.
It's like, right.
And we used to have a wild west frontier with like nobody in it.
Now we have big cities from sea to shining sea.
And we want to make sure we protect the people who have paid into and helped support the
system that keeps us safe.
That working class family in Idaho and Ohio and Michigan, when they've been paying taxes
and providing for the common defense, supplying resources that allow the United States to
exist, I believe they deserve to be taken care of.
So it's a very much so America First policy.
Again, I'll stress what I said earlier, that I believe legitimate asylum cases will take priority because we want to save lives.
But if it comes to letting someone in the country to get a job, Uh, sorry, dude.
You know, we've got people here who need jobs.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
More segments to come.
The next one will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
For those of the podcast, it will begin shortly.
And I will see you all in the next story.
Ocasio-Cortez has just pulled off a First Amendment hat trick.
Three different things just happened.
For one, she's essentially agreeing with Carlos Maza, the man from Vox who has called for physical assault against people to humiliate them, in that he wants Steven Crowder banned.
So we've got AOC jumping on the ban Crowder bandwagon.
She then goes on to say that, she asks, have you seen any online platforms make strong, healthy decisions to prevent bigotry and disinformation?
Jumping on the censorship bandwagon.
And then, Ocasio-Cortez blocked the Daily Caller on Twitter, running afoul of precedent that was set when people sued Donald Trump because he blocked them on Twitter.
Legal experts say that could be unconstitutional.
Three different 1A violations, or I shouldn't say violations, but I don't know, infringements.
Here's the thing.
I think it's really, really strange actually.
It might be unconstitutional beyond just this one story in that I don't know if a politician could actually Could actually ask for a platform to ban someone.
That would be someone using their capacity in office to censor speech, even if it's on a private platform.
And the reason I say this may be is because of this ruling.
Trump argued, and I go through this in the story, he argued that his tweets are in his personal capacity, but a court ruled no.
And the Supreme Court recently ruled that the government can't restrict your access to these platforms, be it private or otherwise.
If Ocasio-Cortez is advocating for people to be shut down, that's a government actor advocating for something the Supreme Court said the government can't do.
Really interesting argument.
I'd love to see some legal experts actually bring this up.
But we actually have, interestingly, the Knight Foundation, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, tell Ocasio-Cortez, no, you can't block people.
So here's what we're going to do.
Let's go through all of this.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, crypto option, physical address, of course.
Just liking and commenting on the video is the best thing.
The engagement really does help.
So let's start with Cortez's tweets, because this'll be fast.
She says, The holy grail of many social platforms is engagement.
Bigotry plus disinformation campaigns are often the most engaging and rewarded due to their inflammatory nature.
But let's stop there.
That's true for literally anything.
Like Al Jazeera Plus, which is extremely, uh, you know, doing really, really well on Facebook, getting billions of views over the past several years.
Yes.
BuzzFeed figured this out first.
Make rage content.
There you go.
Some, like Pinterest and Reddit, at least try to address this.
Others decide profit is worth the social erosion.
Even from a market competition perspective, it's a bad long-term strategy.
The reason young people are leaving Facebook and droves is because it's unchecked toxicity makes it an awful place to be.
Wrong!
That's not true.
At least most people, most of what I've read and researched is that young people don't want to be where their parents are, and they went to Snapchat and Instagram where they can create a kind of private space for themselves.
Twitter, on the other hand, is terrible.
Think about this as big tech lobbies for monopoly power to prevent market competition.
What?
Have you seen online platforms make strong, healthy decisions to prevent bigotry and disinformation?
Take a minute to celebrate that here with a comment or example or write what steps you wish your favorite platform would do more of below.
So she doesn't go as far as to say someone should be censored.
But she's certainly engaging in that conversation, which I think is really, really dangerous of a politician.
Will Chamberlain responded saying, Totally agree. They are being too cautious.
They should ban you and Sycott Chakrabarty for bigotry towards conservatives
and for spreading disinformation about socialism.
Therein lies the big problem with people who think they're always right
and why we have to protect free speech.
And it's really sad to me that the mainstream left is ignoring this.
At least we are seeing now the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is pretty woke, defending free speech online because they're now seeing how it backfires.
But we saw this.
The Knight First Amendment Institute said, We'd be tempted to block the Daily Caller, too.
But please don't go down this road, AOC.
The Knight Institute can help you draft a First Amendment-friendly social media policy that protects you from threats and harassment.
Now someone goes on and then smear and slam in response to this, the Daily Caller, and this tweet, I'm not going to read it, but it's a really good example of why we need free speech.
They say, free speech is one thing, giving credibility to the non-credible is another thing entirely.
Excuse me.
Except you are not right.
You are not the herald of truth.
No one is.
And some things are simply perspective.
Listen.
Recently, at some event or something, Trump was told about Meghan Markle's comments.
And Trump said, I didn't know she was nasty.
The left ran wild.
And the media, too.
Trump called her nasty.
Conservatives said, no, he didn't.
This is fake news.
The left then goes, what?
Trump's denying it.
But we have him on tape.
Here's the simple reality.
Did Trump call Meghan Markle nasty?
You could argue that.
Did he not call it?
You could argue that.
Conservatives are saying he was referring to her comments, like she was being nasty, not that she was nasty.
He didn't, you know, and that's what he meant to say.
And there's context that's being stripped by just claiming this one sentence.
The left is seeing the sentence and saying it's literal, it's there.
So what does Scott Adams say?
Same movie, one screen, two different movies or something like that.
People see different things.
One of the best examples of this, it's a comic.
Where there's a 6 or a 9 drawn on the ground with two people standing in front of it or, you know, on top or underneath, pointing to it, saying 6 and 9.
Because when it's flipped upside down, it's a different thing.
And so therein lies the big... You'd probably do the same thing with 3 and W or whatever.
But there is the point.
This is why free speech is important.
Because we might both see the exact same thing and perceive it differently, and we need to be able to talk about it.
But I gotta say, it's really, really funny.
Because this is like a hilarious backfiring on the left.
It was woke resistance types that sued Trump because he blocked them.
And now Ocasio-Cortez does the same thing.
You can't do that.
And Trump lost his appeal.
This is crazy.
A lot of people thought he would be overturned.
No.
Supreme Court has ruled in a different case, the government cannot restrict your access to this platform.
Period.
And that's a different case from Trump.
And then you have Trump blocking people and said, nope, that's a government actor restricting your access.
Can't do it.
Business Insider says, AOC blocked the right-wing media outlet The Daily Caller from following her on Twitter last week, a decision some legal experts say may have violated the First Amendment.
The Daily Caller's account tweeted at Ocasio-Cortez last Thursday disputing a comment she made about her Green New Deal resolution.
Cortez responded by blocking The Daily Caller from following or reading her tweets.
Last year, the federal court in New York found that President Donald Trump's practice of blocking critics on Twitter, and thus preventing them from interacting with his account, was unconstitutional.
The court held that when the president and other public officials use online forums like Twitter for government business, they transform them into public forums subject to First Amendment protections.
Really, really interesting is that it was specifically the thread, not the account.
So basically, Because Trump was blocking people.
When he tweets, he creates a new digital public forum.
It's a fascinating interpretation.
I gotta say, man, we are developing new civic policy that we've never seen before.
In 10 years, we'll look back, we'll have a name for these kinds of things.
Digital forums, digital public forums, or digital governmental whatever.
And for now, we're looking at this, and people are trying to figure out, is a tweet a public forum?
And we gotta think about it.
Trump appealed the ruling, arguing that he tweets in his personal capacity rather than an extension of the federal government.
But judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unconvinced by that argument during a March hearing.
One asked why Trump's actions weren't a quintessential First Amendment violation.
And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that a local elected official in Virginia violated the First Amendment when she blocked a constituent on Facebook for 12 hours.
Katie Fellow, a senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, which brought both cases, said the same rules apply to Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter.
When you use a social media account in a way that makes it like a virtual town, you can't kick people out of that town hall.
But why then should we give a private company the right to do it?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
But, you know, apparently it was the liberals who used to be in favor of regulating massive corporations, and now I find myself still holding the same principles, but they're all gone, and they're saying, but the private platform.
When did they join the Koch brothers in defending the rights of the private enterprise over government regulation?
I'm just so baffled by this argument.
And it's rather frustrating for me, because my principles haven't changed, but you can tell it's frustrating, isn't it?
And I gotta add, it's really funny too to see a lot of conservatives defend this, you know, come onto the side of regulation, but the difference here is the left tended to be for regulation, the right tended not to be, but usually the right tended not to be for certain issues and sometimes would still be, right?
So the issue is conservatives Are for some regulation, so in this sense it does still kind of make sense.
It doesn't make sense that massive multi-billion dollar corporations are controlling our speech and manipulating what we can see, think, or hear.
I should say think is peripheral to it by restricting the information we get access to.
They manipulate our thought process.
There are companies dedicated to this.
Quick shout out to a company called Boundless that's built around predictably changing users' behavior with artificial intelligence.
Why are we allowing this?
I don't know.
I didn't mean to go on a rant about this company.
I've been doing some research on this.
It's a different story.
But back to what Cortez is doing.
Let's talk about the government in this issue.
They say multiple public figures have argued, like Trump, that the social media accounts they use for campaigning purposes are personal rather than public accounts.
Some also say that individuals who aren't their constituents don't have the same rights to engage with them.
Wrong.
But Ocasio-Cortez regularly uses her campaign account, AOC, which has upwards of 4 million users for government business and policymaking.
She also maintains an official house account, RepAOC, strictly for business.
Hannah Bloch-Weber, a law professor at Drexel University who specializes in civil liberties and cyber issues, agreed that the Knight Institute rulings have clear implications in Ocasio-Cortez's case.
I think pretty clearly she's blurring the lines between what's strictly campaigning, what's personal expression, and what's her official account as a member of Congress.
BlockWeba told Insider, adding, The idea that you could selectively discriminate on the basis of viewpoints just because someone doesn't live in the district seems problematic to me.
More broadly, free speech advocates are concerned that allowing public officials to censor criticism shields them and their followers from differing points of view and could help transform their accounts into echo chambers.
They do say, other legal experts are unconvinced.
Ken White, a First Amendment law and criminal defense attorney at Brown, White, and Osborne.
He's also a blogger at the site Popat.
So he's, I think Popat, like Popat blocked me for some reason.
I never said anything to him.
I think I proved them wrong or something and they agreed and then blocked me right away.
He said he doesn't believe Ocasio-Cortez or Trump violated the free speech rights of those they blocked.
It doesn't stop anyone from speaking.
It's a choice that's not what the First, are you joking?
The First Amendment prevent, okay.
The First Amendment says the government shall make no law regulating or restricting the right to speech, etc.
It's a choice by one particular person not to interact with this other person.
No, it's a choice to restrict their ability to see what you have to say.
He told Insider, there's a right to petition the government, but there's no right to be heard.
There's no right for them to listen to you.
Right, but if you block them, they quite literally can't petition you at all.
So that's a First Amendment violation.
The First Amendment isn't just free speech, by the way, and I think most of you know this, but a redress of grievances, which means I have a right to slam my report in front of you and yell, you can walk away all day and night, sure, but I can still tell you why I'm mad.
This isn't the first time Cortez is tangled with the Daily Caller, they say.
I don't know if I care too much about it.
Let's wrap up their conclusion on this story.
Is it just a bunch of different stories?
I'm confused about what this article is.
Oh, it's just a really long story.
They say, The area of the law is novel and developing.
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has yet to consider how the law applies to the ever-expanding world of online forums in the context of public debate, but the issue will likely only grow more pressing and relevant.
White thinks the High Court would likely be sympathetic to the First Amendment concerns.
In general, the Supreme Court has been very pro-First Amendment, White said, adding that courts have mostly found in favor of First Amendment rights when there's been doubt for the last generation.
So basically, this is a fascinating development.
Let's consider this.
We know the precedent set in this regard.
Trump lost his suit.
He lost his appeals.
You can't block somebody.
Trump then unblocked many people.
I don't think he unblocked everyone.
Ocasio-Cortez Is dancing on the razor's edge of calling for censorship here?
Have you seen online platforms make strong, healthy decisions to prevent bigotry and disinformation?
Bigotry and disinformation are not illegal, and they're actually protected under the First Amendment.
You do have a First Amendment right to lie.
You do.
So if Ocasio-Cortez is saying—she's dancing on the razor's edge, basically.
She's saying, celebrate this.
Prevent this.
Can a public official encourage businesses to restrict the speech of others?
There's probably precedent set on this.
I'd love to hear some legal analysis.
Comment, let me know what you think.
For those that are listening on the podcast, you can just leave a review.
I've got another segment coming up shortly.
It'll be on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
The arrangement is different on the podcast, but thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More to come and I will see you in the next bit.
Following up on the last video on this channel, talking about the anti-Trump lawsuit that backfired, Ocasio-Cortez may be in violation of the First Amendment, we see this story.
Trump calls for boycott of AT&T over CNN coverage.
Let's read through this.
There's some criticism and some other points I'll bring up in terms of conservatives actually trying to bring about a boycott of some sort.
But Trump might actually not be allowed to directly call for a boycott.
Necessarily.
It could potentially run afoul of the First Amendment, but I'm not entirely sure.
So, earlier today I made a video.
Ocasio-Cortez has been banning people on Twitter.
And she's actually not allowed to do that, because someone trued—many people sued Trump.
And then Trump lost.
The lawsuit stated that Trump can't block people.
Basically, he's creating public forums.
The same applies for any public figure.
But Ocasio-Cortez had a series of tweets where she implied big tech firms would be banning people for bigotry and disinformation.
So she didn't go as far as to say, do it, because I don't know if she can.
I wonder to what extent Trump could get in trouble if he did say do it.
But let's read the story first.
From the Epoch Times.
Trump calls for boycott of AT&T over CNN coverage.
President Donald Trump on June 3rd called for a boycott of AT&T in order to force the
corporation to overhaul its subsidiary, CNN.
The president made the remarks on Twitter as he traveled for a state visit to London.
Trump had just criticized CNN a day earlier for taking his remarks about a member of the
royal family out of context.
Just arrived in the United Kingdom.
The only problem is that CNN is the primary source of news available from the U.S.
After watching it for a short while, I turned it off.
All negative and so much fake news.
Very bad for U.S.
Big ratings drop.
Why doesn't owner ATT do something?
I believe that if people stopped using or subscribing to AT&T, they would be forced to make big changes at CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway, Trump added.
It is so unfair with such bad fake news, why wouldn't they act when the world watches CNN?
It gets a false picture of USA, sad.
I don't know if there needs to be a boycott of anybody to make CNN do anything.
CNN is collapsing.
And Trump points this out, right?
They're collapsing ratings.
Now, the other thing is, on a technicality point, Trump didn't actually call for a boycott.
Nowhere did he say, I want you go do X, et cetera, right?
He said, I believe that if people did, and that's the important distinction, it's the same thing Ocasio-Cortez did.
My God, I call her left-wing Trump all the time.
But Ocasio-Cortez, Didn't in her tweet say big tech companies should do this they said some companies choose to do this tweet in response celebrating what you like about it or what you think they should be doing so it was very much like companies that don't do it are bad companies that do it are good and that's how in my opinion she gets around running afoul of the first amendment but
Courts might still disagree.
Now, Trump is a bigger target than Ocasio-Cortez, but as we've seen, the lawsuits that affect Trump are now impacting Ocasio-Cortez.
She has no right to block people on social media, and I believe, well, I don't want to say too much, but she is running afoul of the First Amendment, at least as it pertains to the lawsuit and the appeals from Trump.
They go on to say, AT&T acquired CNN in June 2018 as part of its $85 billion purchase of assets from Time Warner.
Trump has frequently criticized CNN for airing virtually nonstop coverage casting his presidency in a negative light.
And as I highlighted in my video on my main channel, 92% of cable news coverage of Trump has been negative.
On June 2nd, the president took another jab at the network, calling out CNN's reporting on comments he made about Princess Meghan Markle.
CNN reported on comments Trump made to The Sun in response to learning that Markle had called him divisive and misogynistic during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Markle was one of a number of celebrities who said they would move to Canada if Trump won, but didn't follow through on the promise.
I didn't know that.
What can I say?
I didn't know that she was nasty, Trump said, according to The Sun.
However, he said, it is nice that she joined the royal family.
I am sure she will do excellently.
She will be very good.
I hope she does succeed.
The president wrote on Twitter that he never actually said Markle was nasty.
According to a study by the Media Research Center, yes, they talk about how cable news, it's 92%, but we'll skip to this.
Representatives for AT&T did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a lineup of cable news channels, CNN ranked 12th for the week of May 20th to 26th, below channels like the Discovery Channel, Home and Garden TV, and the History Channel.
Fox News ranked first, with nearly triple the viewers of CNN.
In total daily viewership, CNN lost 7% of its viewers since last year, according to Adweek.
Wow, CNN ratings are way down, record lows, Trump wrote on Twitter on May 23rd.
People are getting tired of so many fake stories and anti-Trump lies.
Chris Cuomo was rewarded for lowest morning ratings with a primetime spot, which is failing badly and not helping the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon.
I don't want to call Don Lemon dumb, but I will call Don Lemon wrong, and I will always point out, please, Donald Lemon once did a segment where he asked a guest if a black hole could have swallowed an airplane.
I'm not exaggerating.
He literally did that.
And the woman responded by saying, even a small black hole will swallow the whole universe!
Okay.
Why this man is still on TV, I have no idea.
But after something like that, is there any surprise their ratings are down?
Look, I get it.
You cannot like Fox News because of their political opinions.
You can claim they're lying.
But they're not telling people that a black hole could possibly swallow an airplane.
Please!
What is wrong at CNN?
They can't understand this.
Story says the president has previously declined to answer CNN during news conferences and has had a number of heated exchanges with CNN's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
The White House temporarily revoked Acosta's press pass after Acosta refused to give up a microphone and brushed aside a female aide who tried to retrieve it.
Well, the Trump administration hasn't actually done a press conference in a really, really long time.
It's my understanding.
But there's an interesting thing here, because first, Trump didn't directly call for a boycott.
Not literally, but I believe his intention was to encourage people to push that boycott.
Trump knows he can't tell you, go and do this.
So he's being like, here's an idea.
What would happen if someone did this?
And then people go and do it and he'd say, I never told them to do it.
We get it.
But there are other people who I've been hearing some murmurings in some conservative circles about people calling for a boycott of certain products because of their support for extremists.
More specifically is Verizon.
So for those that aren't familiar, the Huffington Post is owned by Verizon Communications.
They bought AOL on May 12, 2015.
I am no one to boycott.
I don't care for boycotts.
But there has been some murmuring that conservatives are planning some kind of boycott of various products because Huffington Post is what I would call a news outlet that maximizes harm.
So for those that aren't familiar, one of the core tenets of journalism, like ethics, is minimizing harm.
And so I'll give you a good example of how you minimize harm.
Let's say there's an individual, John Smith.
John Smith is part of a group of people who are very dangerous.
You know that John Smith is primarily doing business through Chase Bank.
You reach out to Chase Bank, and in order to minimize harm, you say, Chase, there is a person affiliated with this group that is facilitated by your bank.
Is it against policy?
What are your views on this particular group?
Now, that even could still be presenting harm because you're naming the group specifically.
If you want to truly minimize harm, you'd say something like, there are many groups that support these specific ideologies, and some of them are actually using your service.
Is it against your policies?
What would you say?
And then, the bank won't know what you're talking about except for the ideas, and you can present your story.
We found these groups of people using this service, and there you go.
It's still not perfect, but what do the journalists do?
What does CNN and Huffington Post do?
They maximize harm.
It's the inverse of the actual ethic.
They call a company and say, did you know that person X is associated with these things and they're using your service?
And then the business, it removes those people.
That maximizes the harm to those you are covering.
It is not the role of a journalist to make sure the subject of their story is destroyed or has their life ruined.
That is maximizing harm.
Because of this, people want to take it out of Verizon.
The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005 as a commentary outlet blog and an alternative to news aggregators such as Drudge, founded by Ariana Huffington and Andrew Breitbart.
Wow!
I did not know that.
Hey, you learn something every day.
But I do want to end with this.
This tweet that I saw from Citizens for Ethics.
They responded to Trump's AT&T tweet by saying, How have we gotten to the point where the President of the United States is openly trying to get American businesses to fail to prevent a news network from accurately reporting what he says and does?
I don't know much about what this organization is.
They're high-impact legal actions targeting government officials who sacrifice the common good for special interests.
Sure, I would say it's a good point.
Trump shouldn't be doing this and I think he's dancing on the razor's edge here.
So is Ocasio-Cortez and I'd love to see The citizens for ethics call out what she did when she implied she wants big business to censor people.
Okay?
That shouldn't be the role of a government official to stop critics because Cortez, she blocks her critics.
She's not supposed to do that.
Anyway, we'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
For those listening on the podcast, you can just leave a review and stick around.
I've got some more segments coming up shortly.
In my last segment, I was talking about the role of news in maximizing harm to their subjects.
For the longest time, one of the most important ethics in journalism has been minimizing harm.
For everyone.
You want to understand the news and spread the facts, but you don't want to cause damage to people.
However, as we've seen with the Daily Beast and CNN, they seek to maximize the harm they do to private individuals because, well, in my opinion, these people are evil.
It's terrifying.
This kind of behavior was happening in Sweden when I was covering the no-go zones.
We heard about journalists from various newspapers showing up to people's houses asking them about comments they posted anonymously online and publishing their names to destroy their lives.
And now we can see apparently the Daily Beast and CNN are joining in.
This is an opinion piece from the Washington Examiner that goes over recently the Daily Beast doxed a Trump supporter, CNN showed up to a woman's house, and also threatened to dox a guy for making a meme.
So let's read through this and see what they have to say.
Before we get started, go to timcast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option through PayPal, cryptocurrency address, physical address, but of course, The best thing you can do to support this video is like the video, comment below, share the video because the engagement really, really helps, and sharing does for sure, but also subscribe if you haven't already.
Engagement, you know, tells YouTube the video is good.
From the Washington Examiner, they say, Daily Beast CNN confused censorious partisanship with journalism.
The press is not the enemy of the people.
But I will be damned if it does not act like it sometimes.
The Daily Beast has just published a hit piece outing a private citizen whom it accuses of producing a hoax video.
The video purports to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a moment of inebriation.
And I'll stop here and mention, there are two videos.
There are two.
The one that was shared by Trump was just cuts.
It was a normal video.
It wasn't doctored.
It was just an edit of various things she was saying where she was slurring.
The media has been conflating these two videos.
Apparently not aware that there's two different videos.
Well, let's read on.
The footage, though widely shared, is fake.
It had been deliberately slowed down to give the appearance of intoxication on the part of the speaker.
But that didn't stop it from being shared widely, including by former New York City mayor and presidential attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The video's popularity is newsworthy insofar as it is a case study in how falsehoods can spread in the digital age.
But that's not where Daily Beast contributing editor Kevin Poulsen took the story.
Rather, his report focuses almost exclusively on doxing the alleged creator, including his criminal record and his Instagram mystery.
I ask you, I ask you men and women of the internet who are watching this video, mostly dudes, are news organizations supposed to be doxing people they don't like?
Have news organizations doxed any Antifa members?
Have news organizations sought to protect the identities of Antifa members?
Oh, they did?
Yes, CNN ran a story where it was titled, Antifa Seeks Peace Through Violence, or something like that.
Complete psychosis.
And then CNN doxes, or shows up to a woman's house and threatens to dox somebody.
I think we can see, plain as day, anybody who's been paying attention, how these are partisan actors.
But don't take my word for it, let me just defer to the New York Times, barring its reporters from appearing on Don Lemon's show, because CNN has gone off the rails.
Let's read on, though.
Remarkably enough, this is not even the first time that a major newsroom has hunted down and doxed a private citizen for producing political memes and content opposed to Democratic politicians or supportive of President Trump.
In July 2017, CNN tracked down Reddit user Han A-hole Solo for creating a meme showing the president beating a humanoid version of the cable network's logo.
In its subsequent report on the matter, the network explained it agreed not to reveal the identity of the
Reddit user in return for a promise that he would refrain from engaging in similar behavior in the future.
Do we live in a nightmare dystopia?
Yes, we do.
Think about it.
We don't like the fact that you criticized us with a meme, so we're going to publish your name unless you tell us you won't do it.
And if you do, we'll publish your name.
That's a threat.
That is a threat.
These people are evil.
Evil people.
Quote, CNN is not publishing Han Ahol Solo's name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.
I don't think it was ugly.
I think it was funny.
I encourage everybody to make memes.
Have fun.
Make a meme.
Maybe it's a bad meme.
Maybe nobody shares your meme.
Don't get discouraged.
You can try again and make more memes.
What's wrong with being funny?
How is the left abandoned comedy?
It was just a video of Trump at WWE and the guy superimposed CNN over the guy Trump was fighting.
Who cares?
It's a joke.
They're saying, they're calling it ugly behavior.
You people are disgusting.
CNN, these people are sick.
It added, In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
That is a threat.
That is extortion.
That is blackmail.
How?
I think I should have sued.
I don't know if you can, but...
News organizations or secret police, you decide.
Later in February 2018, CNN hunted down and confronted a Florida woman whom its reporters accused of unwittingly coordinating with Kremlin-connected trolls by promoting a pro-Trump Facebook page.
The cable news network published the woman's first, middle, and last names online.
It revealed what state she lived in and even named her county.
The network listed the exact title of the pro-Trump Facebook page associated with the woman.
CNN also broadcast images of the woman's face.
The Trump supporter, who had reportedly promoted an event organized by trolls, Russian trolls, later suffered online harassment because CNN had painted a target on her back.
Good job, CNN!
These people are evil.
This is literal evil.
This is maximizing harm to private individuals for sharing memes.
As journalists like to say, three is a trend.
A number of individuals in the news industry seem to believe they have a moral duty to keep anti-democratic or pro-Trump internet users in line.
They are using the full force of newsrooms to rain hell down on the heads of unknown individuals who engage in supposedly problematic pro-Trump behavior.
Let's not forget, Time Warner, which was previously the parent company of CNN.
I don't know if they still... I think they still are.
I think AT&T bought Time Warner.
I could be wrong.
They're a large, one of the largest donors to Hillary Clinton throughout her career.
Isn't it interesting then that CNN is throwing the power of their platform against almost exclusively Trump supporters?
So I ask, when people get mad at me for making videos like this, when they say only conservatives criticize CNN, they've lost their spine and they have no principles.
Why would I, as someone who opposes authoritarianism, Ever support massive, multi-million dollar, billion dollar corporations using their power to harass and intimidate private individuals.
This little old lady who posted a stupid thing about some Trump, who cares?
It does nothing for the story to do what they did.
They threatened her life.
I'm sure the anxiety was immense.
It's like Covington.
How many stories have we seen where random people are accused of nonsense, are targeted for doing nothing, and are attacked?
It should be clear that I want to say, obviously not every media organization, but there are actors within media whose goal it is to make sure they keep you in line.
That you better not share an opinion.
You are fair game.
What was that?
You smirked at a guy?
You didn't know how to respond to someone banging a drum in your face?
We're going to make sure every news outlet smears you as a bigot.
That kid was probably freaking out at Covington.
I couldn't imagine.
I've seen some people who have been thrust into the limelight, you know, gain massive followings very quickly, they lose their minds.
Ocasio-Cortez has had to deal with a rapid rise, and you can see how she can't really handle it, and she doesn't know how to respond to being as famous as she is.
For me, it was a very slow growth over several years.
Yes, there was like one point where I was featured in a bunch of magazine stuff, but over time I gained more and more followers, and the amount of harassment has been ever escalating, exponentially.
But you know what?
I grew with it.
I recognized, as it was happening, it wasn't a shock to my system.
Think about what it's like to be minding your own business, and you see a funny thing and you go, haha, that's cool, and you share it.
Next thing you know, CNN, the airport news network, your face is in every airport around the country, and they're insulting you, and they're calling you names, and they're highlighting your history, and they're smearing you.
I imagine some people might have a heart attack.
Some of the reporters who support this behavior claim the Daily Beast report is defensible on the grounds that the Trump fan made himself a public figure when he decided to involve himself with several partisan, quote, news sites.
This is an interesting new take.
I suppose this means that political activists have just been given the all-clear to dox the staffs of other partisan news sites like the Huffington Post or Raw Story.
Or would that be the bad kind of doxing?
The Daily Beast and its offenders claim they are really fighting disinformation and Russian influence.
This is nonsense.
What we saw this weekend was absolutely an attempt to control online behavior and frighten others into submission.
This is not journalism.
This is political partisanship and hackery.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Comment below.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you then.
Google and Facebook and other companies.
So it's FANG.
It's FANG.
It's what is that?
Facebook, Amazon.
I don't know what the N is.
And Google.
Massive, massive stock drop-off.
And it's partly coming from regulatory woes.
Spot on.
Bring it on.
It's about time for regulation.
And I want to stress to all those who are concerned about government overreach, the government regulation in terms of speech can only ratchet in one direction.
The government can't restrict speech.
They can only protect it.
Any regulation put on Facebook and Google would protect free speech.
But I digress.
These companies are out of control, they're too big, they're dangerous, they're unaccountable, and no, I will not live under the boot of a massive tech monopoly whose allegiances aren't to the country I live in, and funnel their money overseas to hide and pay almost nothing in taxes.
We have a couple stories here, and I do have another update on the YouTube front we may get to, but let's read the story.
Facebook, Google, regulatory woes erode $137 billion from fangs.
A wave of antitrust probe headlines on Facebook Inc.
and Google Parent Alphabet just yanked about $137 billion from FANGstock's market values.
Some $41 billion evaporated from Facebook on Monday as a person familiar with the matter said the USFTC, Federal Trade Commission, will oversee antitrust scrutiny into whether the firms practice harm competition in the digital market under an agreement with the Justice Department.
That added to early morning losses as the group was hammered by a report the Justice Department was preparing an antitrust investigation into Google!
Facebook has been snatching up antitrust lawyers.
They've been hiring since last year.
It's coming.
Regulation is coming and Facebook is going to be broken up.
They say some $52 billion was erased from Google's market value as the stock fell 6.9% on pace for the lowest close since January 3rd.
And you can see this graph here.
Major tank for both companies.
Regulation is coming.
Now before we read on, go to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, if you just like and comment on the video, share the video, the engagement really, really helps.
Just interacting with the video.
YouTube, you know, likes that.
And subscribe if you haven't already.
The move comes as politicians from both parties face increasing pressure to apply tougher regulation on tech and telecom giants like Alphabet and Facebook, Inc., and even break up the companies, which are among the largest in the U.S.
For investors, tougher regulation most likely means a negative impact on profits.
Making it harder to justify the rich valuations of some of the world's highest flying stocks.
Two FAANG mega caps that were not directly targeted, Netflix Inc.
and Amazon.
I thought it was Netflix.
So it's Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google.
Also, that were not directly targeted, Netflix and Amazon also sold off sharply.
Amazon plunged 4.7% as about $41 billion was wiped out from the e-commerce giant.
Netflix lost $2.5 billion from its market value as the stock fell 1.6%.
So I have this Reuters update, maybe the same thing, but this one's specifically talking about Alphabet being hit by a DOJ antitrust probe, saying that Alphabet fell as much as 7%.
So I think they basically go over the exact same data, but there's some other points.
Amazon shares were also pressured by news that the company could face heightened antitrust scrutiny under a new agreement between U.S.
regulators which puts the e-commerce giant under the Trade Commission's watch.
ever score ISI analyst Kevin Rippey cut his price target on the alphabet stock by 52 to
1200 the second okay so dropping 50 bucks to 1200 the second lowest on Wall Street and
well below the median price target of 1350 for investors the investigation comes at a
time when the stocks bull case is challenged by concerns of an abrupt revenue slowdown
last quarter so this their serious risk I'm not an investment expert but I can I can go
go into some of the other opinions I've heard from people.
Many people are saying, mostly conservatives, and it's a handful, that if these companies were fair and didn't play this game, they wouldn't be facing regulation.
The left wants to censor speech.
There are many left-wing activist organizations saying these companies should censor speech, should suspend people.
They're calling for regulation in this capacity.
I'm not going to name all the groups that are doing this, but some people are.
However, the government can't do that.
So if the only problem these companies faced was negative press, they wouldn't really have anything to worry about.
Because stock prices probably won't respond necessarily to someone complaining about some naughty words someone said.
Maybe they will, I don't know.
However, there is a serious problem when Google, Facebook, etc.
start banning people for political speech.
That actually worries many people because that can invoke regulation.
Look, you can complain all day and night about hate speech and the government can't do anything about it.
They've already ruled they cannot control hate speech.
But when you start complaining about free speech and the negative impact these platforms have on elections and how they're censoring protected legal speech, they can regulate that.
And you are going to get an antitrust investigation when the news is repeated.
Russia manipulating our elections, censoring speech.
Think about this.
These companies are losing massive money.
And I'll tell you why.
We know Russia was meddling in our elections.
How much of an impact it had?
I don't know.
I'm not here to talk about that.
What I'm gonna say is, let's just operate the assumption completely.
Everyone said it.
It's true, okay?
Some people might disagree.
No, they did it.
They did it, right?
These platforms will ban conservatives' legal speech, and they are letting foreign actors influence our elections.
Let's talk about Al Jazeera for a second.
Al Jazeera made a ridiculously anti-Semitic video recently, got called out for it.
Al Jazeera Plus, government-funded news, produces ridiculous amounts of woke propaganda in the U.S.
This is a government actor producing propaganda in the U.S.
for the far left.
So, yeah.
We have a serious problem with foreign governments influencing our elections and our culture.
What does Facebook do?
Twitter.
We'll use Twitter as an example.
Megan Murphy.
She tweets, men aren't women.
What happens?
She gets suspended.
That's against the rules.
Well, she's Canadian, but you get the point.
There are conservatives in this country, United States, who have said things that are completely legal and protected speech, but are against the terms of service of a massive platform.
They get suspended.
However, there are many people who post insane, conspiracy, far-left, woke nonsense on Facebook, and they get promoted.
And they make money.
The only thing that I can see happening, and you know, I gotta tell you, if you saw my podcast or listened to my podcast on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gade, I said, if you do not rectify this, you will face regulation.
And the response they gave me, Vijaya Gade was like, well, I talk to people in DC and they like what we're doing.
Oh, do they?
Do they?
Well, Twitter isn't necessarily being highlighted by these stories.
But I would like to turn your attention to this image on the screen.
Perhaps you can notice these two lines falling rather dramatically.
Now, Alphabet actually took a bigger hit recently as well.
But there you go.
You want to tell me that people in Washington, D.C.
like what you're doing?
Sure.
Maybe some of them.
But I assure you, regulation is coming.
Antitrust is coming.
And because of it, They just lost a ton of money.
$137 billion loss because you couldn't just play by the rules.
And you know what?
It's tough, I'll admit.
I do think Google does a better job.
They're not perfect.
They're bad in many respects.
Facebook is worse.
Twitter is the worst.
But these companies were so scared of the cry-bullies at BuzzFeed and Vox and Huffington Post that they suspend people who don't actually do anything illegal or wrong by their standards of breaking the terms of service, but legal speech.
They are biased against a certain group of people.
And look, you know, it's not a debate.
It's not.
Okay?
If there's a rule that says you can't misgender people, well, you've just basically threatened every conservative with being banned because conservatives think misgendering is nonsense.
And this is the result.
So if they don't get their act together, then you can see their money is going to get wiped out.
But, I've said this before, if these companies can withstand the maelstrom of cry-bullying nonsense from these dying digital outlets, then perhaps we won't have as big of a problem in terms of censorship and a free speech crisis in the future.
There have been many videos on YouTube that have, you know, said offensive things, and YouTube's left them up.
In fact, there are overt white nationalists on YouTube who aren't taken down, they just have their videos restricted in some capacity.
And not even all of them.
Just some of their videos.
Twitter, on the other hand, just bans you.
And Facebook claims Paul Joseph Watson is one of these people and bans him, too!
But YouTube allows you to stay.
So I think YouTube is better.
But the point is, The only reason they ban people is because of media pressure.
Oliver Darcy said it himself, Alex Jones was taken out due to media pressure.
What happens when these companies that are dying are gone?
Facebook, Google, Alphabet will start, you know, kicking back up.
People will be allowed back on the platforms.
We need scrutiny for these companies, okay?
Unfortunately, there's no real scrutiny.
There's just partisan actors trying to take out their political rivals.
If we have nothing and no journalism, I'm concerned these companies are getting too big.
So you know what?
Bring on the regulation and take a hit.
We'll leave it there.
I don't want to ramble on this one.
I'm going to leave it.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next video will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel for those that are listening on the podcast.
