Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 11, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:23:40

Keanu Reeves Exposes The Sad State Of Me Too Feminism

Keanu Reeves Exposes The Sad State Of Me Too Feminism Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:23:34

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think Keanu Reeves is awesome.
		I think he's a great person.
		He's, like, got a history of donating at children's hospitals.
		He's been in some really great movies.
		I think John Wick is awesome.
		Some people said Replicas was really bad.
		I didn't think it was really bad.
		I enjoyed watching it, especially because Keanu was in it.
		And because Keanu's such a good dude, I will basically go see any movie he's in.
		Like, I made the joke on Twitter.
		There could be a one hour long scene of him eating Pringles in a library where people complain about it, and I'd just watch that and be like, I like this guy.
		He's a good dude.
		And so it's awesome to see him in new video games, but here's the thing.
		There's a viral meme going around.
		Daily Mail writes it up.
		He's too pure for this world.
		Fans praise Keanu Reeves and brand him a gift from God after noticing that he rarely touches the women he takes photographs with.
		You may have noticed a meme.
		In this meme it says, So you're telling me I can dodge lawsuits?
		No, Neo.
		I'm trying to tell you when the time comes, you won't have to.
		And you can see Keanu Reeves pulling off the hand hover?
		No.
		Confident, famous, wealthy Keanu Reeves hand hovering?
		If you're not familiar with the hand hover, it's normally attributed to guys with less confidence who are scared to touch women, for whatever reason.
		I do not see Keanu Reeves as that man.
		In which case, the meme tells you everything.
		Is Keanu Reeves really trying to dodge lawsuits?
		Maybe.
		I don't necessarily think it's about lawsuits.
		It's about negative press and people getting angry.
		This shows us the sad state of the Me Too era.
		Now, there are many people who are saying, no, no, no, he's just a gentleman.
		I disagree.
		And I have evidence to suggest this is because of outrage culture and the MeToo movement.
		Not particularly, not specifically.
		It's maybe not even that big of a deal.
		It may not be that Keanu was sitting there thinking like, oh man, MeToo's gonna get me, but I think these things are in the back of everyone's minds.
		So here's what we're gonna do.
		I am going to show you what makes me believe this is specifically about anger, outrage, lawsuits, etc.
		Well, check out this story, and I'm gonna show you the evidence in just one second.
		But before we do that, go to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
		There is a PayPal option, crypto, and physical address if you'd like to donate.
		Could really use your support to help the channel in case of, you know, potential demonetizations or anything like that.
		And the best thing you can do to support this video is just share it on social media, because that really boosts engagement.
		Subscribe, like, comment, and all that.
		So in this story from the Daily Mail, they highlight a bunch of people who shared these photos where there's arrows pointing to him, hand hovering, and they're calling him a gentleman and they're claiming that it's not because of Me Too.
		Some people are saying this.
		But I want to highlight specifically what people were claiming in terms of the lawsuit.
		So, they say that, while some people say it's a gift from God, other fans of the actor have stated that they believe he purposely doesn't place his hands on the people he takes photos with in order to avoid accusations of inappropriate behavior.
		One Facebook user said, he's being smart because he knows he'll be targeted by sexist and feminist people.
		Aziz Ansari, career derailed briefly over a bad date.
		Remember that?
		Remember Chris Hardwick, falsely accused and suspended from his show pending an investigation.
		What do you think happens then?
		If some woman, he's got his arms on them, and they later claim that he was touching them inappropriately, they're going to point to the photo and say, there it is, Keanu touching the women.
		Now, you will never be able to make that claim.
		They can say, oh, after that photo, he touched me.
		I don't believe it.
		In every single photo, he doesn't touch any women.
		But there's still the possibility that some people believe Keanu is just lacking confidence.
		And while that's possible, I'm gonna show you something that says to me, absolutely not.
		Remember this?
		BuzzFeed News.
	It's a photo of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
	He grabbed a woman's arm to look at her tattoo of the solar system, I believe.
	And she got mad at him later.
	Here she is smiling.
	He's got his arm around her.
	He takes her arm and looks at it.
	Was she not upset that he put his arm around her?
	This was, apparently there were four women who accused Neil deGrasse Tyson of inappropriate behavior.
	All, and I don't want to talk about the others, but I will point to this specifically and say, what do you think happens when a celebrity sees this high-profile target, lots of money, and you don't know where the line is, and no one else cares?
	I'm not saying Neil deGrasse Tyson's a good dude, I think he's kind of a weirdo, and he tweets really dumb things sometimes.
	Take a look at this photo.
	That's what she complained about.
	Let's read this.
	As they chatted, Tyson grabbed her arm to get a better look at a large tattoo of the solar system that extended up her arm, shoulder, and chest.
	Tyson repeatedly told her that he was looking for Pluto, which involved him reaching into my dress and sort of looking down it.
	It was an invasion of my space, inappropriate, and sexual, she said.
	At the time, she noted, Tyson wasn't the megastar that he is now, but he was a big deal among scientists and she was a postdoctoral fellow.
	I think the power imbalance was a reason why I didn't wrench my arm away from him and tell him to stop touching me.
	You're not going to do that to someone who is powerful in the field.
	Really.
	Or maybe it's that she didn't really care until all of a sudden everyone got angry.
	I'm not gonna sit here and say, listen, Hold on, let me back up.
	I will say this.
	If someone is grabbing your arm and you're upset, say, please don't touch my arm.
	And we're done.
	But you mean to tell me that this happened and she didn't care until way later.
	All of a sudden now, he is a megastar and it is an issue.
	So think about someone like Keanu Reeves, who is a megastar and everything's going great for him.
	There was a period Where Keanu, uh, it was not that long ago, he said that people just weren't casting him in big roles anymore.
	And this was around the time the first John Wick came out.
	And a lot of people didn't think the movie was going to be all that great.
	Keanu was in replicas, people really didn't like it.
	I thought it was fine.
	You know, it's a weird movie, but sure, it was fun to watch.
	But people... Keanu Reeves was kind of in like a lull in his career.
	John Wick came out and everyone loved it.
	I loved John Wick, the first one.
	The second one's okay.
	I think the third one's a little better than the second one.
	I don't know.
	The first one's really, really good.
	And now with Cyberpunk 2077 coming out, new video game, and with Keanu Reeves presenting at E3, a viral meme going crazy, Where he says, you're breathtaking!
	And then someone, you know, he says, this game's gonna be breathtaking.
	Someone yells, you're breathtaking.
	He yells it back.
	He's smiling.
	Everyone's having a good time.
	Keanu Reeves is the wholesome celebrity everyone loves right now.
	Everything is going great.
	Bill and Ted 3, I'm hearing rumors about.
	I'm excited for that.
	In a new, highly anticipated video game, think about where he probably is in his mind saying, everything's back on top.
	There was a lull, my movies are smash hits, people love me, the hell if I'm about to touch a woman and get Neil deGrasse Tyson'd, all because he was looking at her tattoo.
	Is it possible Neil deGrasse Tyson crossed the line?
	Sure, sure.
	I don't know exactly what happened in this photo.
	But it doesn't seem... She didn't complain about this.
	Take a look at this.
	He put his arm around her for a photo.
	She smiles.
	He then looks at her arm.
	Is he doing anything really wrong right there with the way he's holding his arm?
	Her arm?
	I really don't see it.
	And if she wasn't happy, she could have just been like, hey, excuse me, like, you're a little too much.
	But that's it.
	That's seriously it.
	She's mad that Neil deGrasse Tyson touched her arm, and that was enough for her to come out as an accuser against him of impropriety.
	And that's damaging.
	Now, it's not like it ended his career.
	But again, think about the mindset of Keanu Reeves.
	Now, of course, look, I'm not trying to act like he's ever in a really bad period or anything like that, like depressed or something.
	No.
	But he did say, I could be wrong about this, but I read a quote or something where he said that people weren't casting him anymore.
	People made fun of him for a while.
	And I didn't really enjoy... I didn't really get it.
	After he played Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still, people were making fun of him because they were saying he had no range.
	And I was like, dude, he was specifically cast to be a stoic alien.
	Like, come on.
	And they'd be like, yeah, what about that movie?
	This movie?
	He's been in dramas and romantic stuff.
	And he's been in comedies.
	He was in Bill and Ted.
	He's Ted Theodore Logan.
	He was a quirky, crazy guy.
	Like, I don't think that's fair.
	But think about all that bad press and people making fun of him saying he can't act.
	All of a sudden he's not getting the roles he wants anymore.
	John Wick smash hit, on top of the world, never gonna get MeToo'd.
	But there's more evidence here.
	Check it out.
	They say, following the comment about sexists and feminists, they say, they'll come up with the stupidest question like, oh wow, why is he holding her hips?
	More than anything else, these pictures make me sad.
	The fact that he has to do this to protect himself shows the state of the morality and reason in society.
	The images were also shared on Twitter by a user who said, Keanu ain't taking no chances.
	He's smart.
	I take my pictures like that also now.
	Me too!
	I take pictures of people.
	I am not putting my arm around.
	You can put your arm around me.
	I will not touch you.
	I will not do it.
	I'll keep my arms in my pockets, to my hips, and I'll lean in, like he's doing right there.
	I am not going to have this same nonsense happen to me.
	And it's sad, isn't it?
	Because we used to pat each other on the back.
	We used to, you know, grab someone's shoulder, take a photo, put your hand on someone's shoulder, put your arm around their waist.
	You can't do it anymore.
	It is the sad state of the Me Too era.
	For all the good that's come out, calling out the worst of the worst, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, And now you can't even be in a photo with somebody.
	But here's what I want to highlight.
	Check this out.
	Someone said, I don't think embracing someone asking to take a picture with you is disrespectful in theory, but choosing to still respect their personal space is smart because it is thoughtful.
	In response, one woman said, that's how I'm reading it too, respecting their personal space.
	I don't think he's reacting to the Me Too movement.
	That's just how he is.
	Plus he's a Virgo, so he could be slightly germophobic, lol.
	Another said, I've seen a couple people comment, it's sad it has to be like this.
	What's actually sad is the obsession we have with touching women at any given moment.
	He's just being respectful of others' bodies.
	What a concept.
	And there is the feminist outrage.
	Not the worst of the worst, but you can see it right there, touching women's bodies.
	Excuse me?
	They're touching him.
	People put their arms around each other.
	It's called a hug.
	We hug people.
	When I see people I haven't seen in a while, I give them a hug.
	When it's a dude, if it's like a good friend of mine, we get a hug in there.
	I hug people.
	It is not sexual.
	It is a friendly, neighborly thing to do.
	But man, how screwed up are we that we can't even do this anymore?
	I know somebody who's kind of not like a good friend.
	I will grab the hand like this, and we'll come in for a hug like that.
	Because I think humans can make contact in non-sexual ways.
	We can love each other.
	We can connect without it being about invading someone's space.
	But now, because of the pendulum swing of the Me Too era, it's just, don't touch me, man.
	Don't touch me, because if you touch me, you might accuse me of making you touch me.
	I don't even know.
	So I'll say this.
	It's possible.
	Keanu Reeves is just doing a hand-hover because he's not that confident.
	I really doubt it.
	He's friends with some of these people.
unidentified		Okay?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's friends with Winona Ryder.
		I don't think he has anything to worry about with her, but hey man!
		Here's the thing.
		If some random woman comes forward and says Keanu groped me, he's gonna be like, look at the photos of me and my friends, and they're gonna be like, yeah, he doesn't even put his hands on his friends.
		No one's gonna believe you.
		And that gives him a good defense.
		So again, let me end with one final thought.
		I don't think Keanu Reeves, I'm not gonna make an assumption he's ever been in a period where his life was over or ruined or anything, but I think he's doing really, really well right now, and it's very important for him to maintain this position.
		And I, you know what?
		I agree.
		The other thing I'll say is, he doesn't have to put his arm behind them at all.
		He doesn't.
		You know, like there's one photo where he's leaning, he's behind some woman, and he's just leaning in.
		He could do that if he really wanted to.
		And he has.
		But it says to me here that he wants to still, you know, he's confident enough to come and put the arm around, but he's like, not touching you.
		It's also slim.
		I don't think it's actually the reason, but maybe he wants to make sure everyone sees that he doesn't do this.
		Anyway, I won't ramble too much on this.
		My final thought on the matter is if you want to ask me why I think this is more about Me Too and lawsuits, look no further than Neil deGrasse Tyson in this photograph.
		He was looking at a woman's tattoo, and she got mad way later on.
		So think about that.
		Maybe it's not necessarily a lawsuit, but someone might freak out.
		He could put his arm around her and try to shriek, I ain't playing that game.
		Or better yet, what if he does something like this, and then ten years later, they're like, remember, Keanu did this, and here's a photo to prove it!
		They could change their story, they could forget, they could go nuts!
		Don't play the game.
		I won't.
		And it makes me sad.
		But I'll leave it there, stick around, I got more segments coming up later.
		Next video, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you there.
		From the Daily Beast, yesterday, top progressive ThinkProgress site bleeding cash and people.
		The outlet has lost five staffers in 2019 and is looking at a $3 million gap between revenue and expense.
		The story's actually really interesting because, for one, yes, we all know that digital media is collapsing, but the Daily Beast, accurately pointing out, ThinkProgress, the website that is a project of the Democratic Party's primary think tank, is facing dire financial troubles and bleeding staff, according to primary source documents viewed by the Daily Beast.
		That's the important lead.
		ThinkProgress, a progressive propaganda site, is... well, it's dying.
		And I'm impressed that the Daily Beast has pointed out it is a propaganda outlet.
		It's part of the Democratic Party's primary think tank.
		Before we get into the specifics of this story, I just want to make sure you have the lead.
		I want to point a few things out.
		ThinkProgress is rated as credible by NewsGuard.
		And the only thing they say that's wrong with it is that they don't avoid deceptive headlines.
		Well, I gotta stop here.
		I use NewsGuard for a lot of reasons.
		For one, you can't accuse me of personal bias in my sources if all my sources are approved by a third party.
		That's the point.
		But it doesn't mean I'm not critical of NewsGuard, because I do not believe an overt propaganda website should be getting green checkmarks at all.
		There should be a different symbol for political partisanship paid for by the Democrats.
		Like, if the Daily Beast is going to assert that, somebody's wrong, right?
		Either the Daily Beast should not be credible for lying about ThinkProgress.
		In reality, even NewsGuard acknowledges ThinkProgress is funded by a lobbying arm of the Center for American Progress Think Tank, which was founded by John Podesta.
		Don't be given green checkmarks for credibility to propaganda outlets made by the Democratic Party.
		All that aside, let me rephrase the headline of the story.
		Propaganda website founded by John Podesta is dying.
		Will it die?
		I don't know.
		I mean, maybe dying's a little hyperbolic, of course, you know.
		They're facing dire straits.
		They're losing money.
		They're bleeding money.
		And that's what we're going to read into today.
		Before we get started, make sure to go to timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work, because hopefully my media enterprise won't be dying.
		Eh, you know, who knows?
		You know, business don't last forever.
	But with your support, I am working on expanding, Subverse is picking up speed, we've got a new studio I'm going to be moving into in the next couple weeks, it's going to be epic, and we're going to be hiring people, a lot of good stuff, and that's why I need your support.
	So, if you can't do it through TimCast.com slash donate, then just like, comment, share the video, subscribe, etc.
	According to the Daily Beast, let's see if we can zoom in a little bit.
	A budget document provided to ThinkProgress management and obtained by the Daily Beast showed that the website was expecting a roughly $3 million gulf between revenue and expenses for 2019.
	ThinkProgress has never been a revenue generator and has often made up for its deficits through fundraising efforts and funds from its monthly mothership entity, the Center for American Progress.
	But the current outlook is significantly worse than ever before.
	According to the document, advertising revenue is projected to fall $350,000 short of what was budgeted this year, and online contributions are expected to fall short by nearly $180,000.
	The site is projected to have about $64,000 in grant revenue, money derived from donations to the Center for American Progress.
	And meant for coverage by ThinkProgress.
	That's roughly $60,000 short of what it had budgeted for the year and roughly $540,000 less than it received in 2018.
	Full stop!
	Not only is their ad revenue falling short.
	Why?
	I can only predict or assume it has to do with the decline in viewership since Facebook realized The problems of hyper-partisan garbage nonsense was destroying society, but more importantly it was destroying Facebook.
	Facebook found, um, my understanding is this, I could be wrong, so, you know, I often try to make sure I have these caveats because if I don't have the source in front of me...
	But it was something to do with people don't like using Facebook when all they get is police brutality videos and news articles.
	People used Facebook to connect with their friends and family and Facebook deviated away from that and became dominated by publishers who exploited the algorithm to make a ton of money.
	Last year, Facebook changed its algorithm and revenues and viewership dropped dramatically for basically every publisher.
	All of them.
	We then saw a wave of layoffs.
	These companies were sustained by Facebook feeding nonsense to people.
	I showed you that graph several times, you know, I don't have it pulled up, where all of these terms like whiteness and inclusivity started spiking around the same time.
	Yeah, it was the launch of BuzzFeed and Mike and Huffington Post, all these digital sites that were exploding the Facebook algorithm.
	Well, now think progress is being hit by the same thing.
	More importantly, however, it's not the ad revenue.
	It's that their online contributions are falling.
	Now, I can't speak to that.
	Like, I understand if your ad revenue is going down.
	I can understand that less viewership means less donors.
	That's probably a big play too.
	But it's also interesting in that in my experience with those of you who donate to me through TimCast.com slash donate versus the people who watch, donors stick around longer and watch every video.
	Okay, so here's the point.
	If somebody was giving money to ThinkProgress, I would imagine they would consistently be coming back and they are easier to retain.
	You have their contact information, right?
	Which means you can contact them and tell them, hey, our ad revenue is going to be really down this year.
	We could really use your support.
	But they're losing it anyway.
	So here's what I want to say.
	First caveat.
	It is likely the result of loss of viewership means less marketing, less ability to fundraise.
	But I gotta add, I think there's an aspect of people being sick and tired of the insanity.
	Because Bill Maher, on Chris Cuomo, I believe it was Cuomo the other night, I tweeted about it, said nobody likes living on eggshells.
	And I gotta say, I think Bill Maher is your barometer for what a regular Democrat is probably thinking.
	Sure, his audience hoots at him sometimes, and he's crossed the line sometimes, yes.
	The Democrats are split, with the majority leaning towards moderate policy, and about 44% leaning towards progressive policy.
	But when Bill Maher says it over and over again, he's said on his show, He said something to the effect of, I'm always right on this.
	Stop, you know, don't assume I'm on the wrong side of this one.
	I think Bill Maher is 100% right.
	People are sick of this.
	And you're chasing after insanity.
	Your site's going to fail.
	Why would ThinkProgress be able to raise money off this stuff when people are sick and tired of it?
	If 54%, according to Gallup and Pew, say they want moderate policy, why are they going to give money to you?
	You guys have gone off the rails.
	Well, let's read on.
	They say, in the face of these falling revenue streams, ThinkProgress has seen payroll drop by 12% from its peak level in 2019 and salary growth by 5%, according to the document.
	Among those leaving is the site's managing editor, Tara Culp-Ressler, who announced her departure last week.
	The numbers paint a grim picture for one of the better-known unapologetically progressive media platforms, and it has been exacerbated by what a source described as a failure of leadership at Center for American Progress to provide answers about the short and long-term future of the site.
	ThinkProgress is editorially independent from CAP and the accompanying Center for American Progress Action Fund, but operates within its organizational umbrella.
	Unfortunately, ThinkProgress has had a large and growing budget gap for going on two years now.
	Navin Nayak, Executive Director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told the Daily Beast.
	Like most media organizations, ThinkProgress has relied on advertising revenue as a major source of funding.
	Increasingly subject to the behavior of social media platforms and their decisions on news distribution.
	Yes, I was right.
	How many times have I been saying this?
	And now they're coming up and just letting you know, I know I worked for these companies.
	They are going to dwindle and spin out of control because the only way they made money was exploiting social media algorithms.
	Guess what?
	Twitter doesn't drive traffic.
	So everyone's losing their mind on Twitter and they're getting nothing for it.
	Just personal brand.
	And this is what we hear.
	Bill Maher read this on his show, a quote from someone who said they were attacking Barry Weiss of the New York Times because they want to cultivate a brand and gain followers.
	Man, stay true to yourself, you know?
	Stay true to yourself.
	Don't chase after the nonsense, but that's what they're doing because they're scared of losing their jobs.
	Think about this.
	One of the reasons I think we see the mass spreading of this toxic insanity, you know, regressive, whatever you want to call it, is they know the media is dying and they're doubling down on what they published, hoping to get those followers.
	So when everything collapses, they won't be left out in the storm, you know, in the wilderness with nothing to show for it.
	So they're going insane on Twitter.
	Well, you're only, man, I'll tell you this.
	We're hiring some people.
	Some entry-level people, some researchers, and stuff like that.
	We've gotten over a thousand applications.
	And I'll tell you what, man.
	It's sad, because there are some people that I would personally hire for not necessarily what Subverse is doing, because I'm not... I don't want to make it seem like I'm completely... I'm making sure that other people are overseeing and vetting all of the hires, not me personally, which is why I said not to contact me about it.
	I'm not trying to be a dick.
	Excuse me.
	But I'm trying to make sure that it's not my personal bias in hiring, and some of this is done legit, outside of my personal, you know, influence and everything.
	But I am also hiring, too.
	And there are some people I would have hired in a heartbeat.
	But they've become woke warriors on Twitter, and they're completely unemployable.
	I have no idea where they will ever be able to work again.
	And they know it.
	I've talked to them and they've been, you know, I've gotten some messages from people where they're like, hey man, you know, how's it going?
	I hear you're doing really well.
	I'm looking for a job producing.
	And I'm like, and?
	You think I can hire you?
	Like these people go on Twitter and they shriek at the top of their lungs the most insane nonsense to try and get that retweet, that follow, and now you can't hire them.
	I'm like, there's no way, dude.
	You go on Twitter and you say the most ridiculous, insane nonsense.
	You think I want to be associated with that?
	Like listen, I understand I say things on Twitter too, right?
	But I'm me, and I am what, like, the things I follow and what I want to be associated with are the things I want to be associated with.
	But if you're gonna tell me that you don't actually believe the woke nonsense you tweet about, why would I?
	Think you're worth working with me in any capacity.
	No ethics, no morals, just about the money and the job.
	Well, guess what?
	You can go work, you know, I don't know, you can find a job, rent out your apartments, you'll figure it out.
	But I can't imagine these people who've become woke reply guys, where they just randomly tweet at people and say stupid, snarky, out of context things in bad faith.
	I'm like, who's gonna hire you, dude?
	Seriously?
	Like, you dog pile on harassment campaigns targeting conservatives.
	Haha, very funny, great.
	I'm glad you've got 30,000 followers now on Twitter.
	Are you gonna go pay your rent?
	Are you gonna show your landlord?
	I got 30,000 followers!
	Twitter has no influence.
	This is what people don't really understand.
	It's mind-blowing to me.
	Twitter doesn't drive traffic.
	You know what I use Twitter for?
	Just kind of like venting my feelings.
	It doesn't matter.
	Nor does Facebook.
	And it's funny because I'll make long posts on Facebook sometimes.
	Like, I haven't really anymore.
	I use Mines.
	Like, you guys know that Mines has been popping up over my head several times.
	But on Facebook, I'd just be like, here's what I think about something.
	I didn't feel like making a video.
	It's kind of like a short thought.
	And I get people accusing me like, you're just trying to game the algorithm to get more reach.
	And I'm like, dude, Facebook's worthless.
	I don't care about Facebook.
	I don't even care about YouTube, man.
	I just make videos talking about my feelings.
	And for some reason, people watch them.
	But Twitter is the worst of all of them.
	Twitter really doesn't drive any traffic, and they all know it.
	So I got to say to these people who have become woke warriors on Twitter, it's like, dude, No one cares.
	Twitter doesn't drive traffic.
	No one's going to hire you because you've got 30,000 followers.
	And you've also tainted your brand and become this fringe weirdo activist that can't speak to regular... You've just destroyed all of your credibility.
	So, um... Well, we get it.
	You know, think progress is hurting.
	You know, I'm ranting on this issue.
	Let's read the conclusion here because I never like to leave these open-ended.
	They say this week members of the Think Progress Writers Union are expected to meet with ENDA and officials from CAP to discuss the future of the site and leadership there.
	I have been nothing but impressed with the poise and professionalism with which Jodi has led the newsroom.
	Nayak said she's overseen great work in a difficult time and been a steadfast advocate for the journalists of Think Progress.
	Hit pieces are coming.
	Hit pieces are a coming for several reasons.
	One, think of it this way.
	It's like, imagine you have an island that has two big cliffs on both sides.
	It's like, imagine this big column with two big cliffs on both sides.
	And they're chasing after the carrot on the stick.
	They got a carrot, you know, in front of them.
	They're running towards the edge of the cliff and then eventually they get to the point of that cliff and the cliff falls and now they're angry.
	And so what do they do?
	Crabs in a barrel.
	They try and drag you down with them.
	I will not go down without a fight.
	It's not so much that they don't like certain people or they, you know... Let me rephrase.
	One of the reasons, I think, They target the intellectual dark web types and centrists is because the centrists are the safe center of that column.
	The cliffs can fall, but the center column will remain.
	So they accuse centrists of all the worst things in the book.
	Conservatives are tacit allies with centrists, though in any other capacity they'd probably be fighting and arguing over things like pro-choice, pro-life.
	But now we're at a point where the left has gone off the rails.
	They've run so far to the left They're at the edge of the cliff and it's collapsing on them.
	And now they're shrinking on top of their lungs.
	And the moderate conservatives and centrists who are close to the middle and safe are going like, dude, you guys ran off into the nonsense.
	It's your own fault.
	And so what they do is they try and drag everyone down with them.
	I think we're going to see the hit pieces escalate.
	The front page fake news in the New York Times blew my mind.
	An op-ed maybe, but wow, seriously, they ran fake news on the front page.
	And it really, really is fake news.
	The whole, it's like, wow, man.
	It's really mind-blowing to me how they took a story about one guy who read, who watched some YouTube videos and became a liberal, seriously, that's the premise of the story, and then framed it as though YouTube made him a radical.
	First of all, here we go.
	The New York Times is pissed.
	And get this.
	On my video yesterday, the New York Times wrote a story saying that Google made $4.7 million off of the news industry.
	And they deserved a cut.
	I kid you not.
	Someone who represents the New York Times, the media association said, the New York Times, they represent us, said, we deserve a cut of those profits, Google.
	It's not fair.
	Our business is dying and you're making money off news, so you'd better give us money.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, buddy.
	Your boat's a-sinking.
	You fell off the cliff and it's no one's fault but your own.
	But it turns out the story was fake.
	I kid you not.
	The number was made up.
	It's not real.
	Google didn't make that money.
	They're smearing Google.
	There were like three hit pieces in one day against YouTube and Google.
	Then they run this story saying they literally They've actually said journalists deserve a cut of that money.
	Sorry, buddy.
	You don't.
	Information is free and the economy is shifting.
	You didn't adapt the economy.
	Neither did Blockbuster.
	Is Blockbuster going to stand up now and say, we deserve a portion of the Netflix money because, you know, Netflix only exists because we started it.
	No, sorry.
	Sorry.
	Times change.
	That's it.
	Sorry.
	So anyway, let's wrap it up here.
	The gist of the story is... I'll give you the few reiterations just to wrap up the final thoughts.
	Think progress is bleeding.
	It's bleeding cash.
	And people.
	Bad, bad news.
	Unsurprising, because we hear stories like this every week.
	But more importantly, let's point out, this is not a news website.
	It's a propaganda outfit for the Democrats.
	And that's according to the Daily Beast.
	So, you know what I say to propaganda?
	Good riddance.
	Bye!
	I'll see you guys in the next segment starting at 1pm on this channel.
	For those on the podcast, it will begin shortly.
	I will see you soon.
	Crowder has won.
	Not just my opinion.
	A statement straight from Vice News.
	In their story, YouTube's bungled crackdown on Steven Crowder only made him stronger.
	They say, a week after Steven Crowder's bullying of a Vox journalist pitted conservative media against big tech, it's official.
	Crowder has won.
	Who could have seen this coming?
	Crowder, of all people targeted in this capacity, in this Vox Adpocalypse, is the least impacted.
	Or I should say, he's actually got a net gain.
	This has done great things for Crowder.
	He's a massive channel.
	He was already mass demonetized, so he's making very little money.
	He's probably making a decent amount of money, don't get me wrong.
	But he was mass demonetized, so not nearly as much as anybody else.
	They took his monetization away, YouTube comes out and says, yes, but he can do what he's doing, he's not breaking the rules, but we'll punish him anyway.
	What happened?
	YouTube was hurt.
	They probably like that.
	And a bunch of innocent creators were hurt.
	In fact, some people who actually fight against hate, progressives, had videos deleted.
	The only thing this did was hurt the left.
	Crowder subscribers are up.
	He's signed up more members to his pay sponsorship program than ever, apparently.
	Congratulations.
	Massive marketing.
	You know, sending him more subscribers and doing great things for him.
	So here's what we're gonna do.
	Let's read through this story because apparently Vice News recognizes Vox and Carlos Maza have helped Crowder and hurt everyone else, more so their side.
	We'll read through this and then I got a bunch of stuff I want to show you about how ultimately it backfired in a hilarious way.
	Vox is completely hypocritical.
	Google is still defending Crowder, his right to speech.
	Crazy.
	So let's get started.
	Before we do though, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is like and comment on this video.
	The engagement really helps.
	The biggest thing is to share the link and subscribe because that's when YouTube's like, whoa, this is great stuff.
	So let's read it.
	They say...
	In an interview Monday night at the Code Conference in Arizona, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized to the LGBT community for belatedly taking action against Crowder's channel, which repeatedly targeted Vox's Carlos Maza with, I'm just going to say, naughty words, because I think it's better.
	But she stood by her company's decision to allow Crowder to remain on the platform, just without a cut of YouTube's ad sales around the conservative comedian's videos.
	If we took down that content, there would be so much other content that we would need to take down, she said.
	And she's right.
	Trevor Noah, who mocked Indian people in examples Crowder gave.
	Samantha Bee.
	John Oliver.
	The list goes on.
	What YouTube intended as a slap on Crowder's wrist has instead turned the video creator into a martyr standing against big tech overreach.
	No.
	That was Carlos Maza who did this.
	And it could even help him solidify a more durable business model that limits the pain YouTube can inflict for breaking its rules in the future, outside of an outright ban.
	We're not really beholden to the YouTube advertiser, Crowder said on his show Wednesday.
	Creators like Crowder have built deep relationships with their audiences through content that drives the user engagement tech platforms crave.
	Creators then convert those relationships into cash in a variety of ways that don't always rely on platform approval.
	T-shirts, sponsored content, memberships, and more.
	And you can become a member at timcast.com slash donate.
	Thank you, Vice, for bringing it up.
	But let's deviate here real quick.
	They mentioned the Mug Club.
	Sure.
	Here's the thing.
	Crowder was already mass demonetized.
	What you're seeing is an image from Crowder's Instagram.
	And he's got two emails showing a huge list.
	A bunch of his content saying it is not suitable for all advertisers.
	Now here's the thing.
	When you are demonetized, you still make money.
	But it's like 10% or less.
	So if Crowder was normally making a couple hundred bucks per video, he's probably getting more because he gets millions, maybe a thousand to two thousand.
	He's now maybe getting like, he was getting demonetized when he was making like, I don't know, a hundred, two hundred bucks maybe?
	That's not bad.
	But when you consider that he's got a staff, And they do live shows, and they have tons of expenses, and they film skits.
	It wasn't really moving the needle.
	So what did Crowder do?
	He got sponsors.
	First of all, he has Walther, who sponsors his show.
	He has The Mug Club.
	But he's also on Blaze TV.
	I imagine they're paying him, right?
	He's not really worried about demonetization.
	So sure, YouTube took action and demonetized his whole channel outright.
	But we're now learning he can get it back if he wants.
	He's gotta get rid of the videos with the t-shirt in it.
	He's gotta get rid of this video from example 3.
	He's gotta get rid of anything referencing his socialism is for figs shirt.
	And he's gotta get rid of one other video.
	So it's a handful of videos he can get rid of monetization back.
	No more selling t-shirts.
	The specific one.
	Well, Shopify already took it down.
	So in the end, who wins?
	Did Carlos Maza's campaign do anything bad for Crowder?
	Well, I'll tell you what.
	They both won.
	And they hurt everybody else.
	Independent creators, actual activists got hurt by this.
	Carlos Maza's profile has been lifted to a ridiculous degree, gaining like tens of thousands of followers on Twitter.
	Crowder's gained tens of thousands of new subscribers and followers, and he's gained more subscribers than ever.
	Here's what Vice News says.
	Here's what's fascinating.
	rallies rallied behind Crowder after the YouTube nixed some of the advertising on Crowder's
	videos last week.
	Senator Ted Cruz has publicly taken to his defense, and new subscribers have flooded
	into his channel, which pushed merchandise and membership to its mug club through the
	promo code free speech over the weekend.
	Here's what's fascinating.
	Crowder published a video.
	Excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	Where he said, I'm not sorry.
	He does mention me and gives thanks.
	I, you know, respect.
	Thank you for mentioning me.
	Because I did talk about this.
	I'm talking about it now.
	But in it, he says, they got more signups for Mug Club than ever.
	I think that's what he says.
	But he mentions, most people didn't even use the promo code.
	The promo code got you a discount on joining his Mug Club, which supports the show.
	And people said, nah, I'd rather just support the show and not use the promo code.
	They wanted to give Crowder money.
	They wanted to back him up.
	It helped him.
	It's not YouTube that made him a martyr.
	It's Carlos Maza and Vox.
	And they've only hurt the left.
	And I've got some examples I'll show you.
	Let's read on real quick.
	Critics, including Maza, have slammed YouTube for allowing his video to remain live despite their apparent violation of the platform's policies.
	Except they don't, and the left keeps saying this.
	I shouldn't say the left, the media keeps saying this because clearly they're on one side.
	But if Trevor Noah is doing it, and he's done it for a long time, and so is Jon Stewart, and if you have videos of George Carlin, it clearly doesn't break the rules.
	They don't get it.
	YouTube published examples of what does break the rules.
	Targeting Carlos Maza, for his, you know, orientation or behavior, specifically about his orientation, is what breaks the rules.
	You don't like it?
	That's too bad.
	That's not what the rules are.
	Well, they've changed the rules, but the rules still would not be broken by what Crowder was saying.
	I kid you not.
	Go look at the rules.
	It says, specific examples.
	You have to actually belittle and demean the group as a whole.
	Targeting an individual is incidental.
	Let's read on.
	They say provoking tech platforms into such awkward public positions could be lucrative in its own right.
	Crowder claimed in a series of giddy shows last week that YouTube's selective enforcement of its policies even provided a financial shot in the arm.
	Well, congratulations.
	They say as conservatives like Ben Shapiro and self-styled free thinkers like Joe Rogan came to Crowder's defense, he pushed Mug Club, memberships at a 30% discount.
	The deal gave fans access to the right-wing Blaze TV for a year for just $69.
	And Crowder's show on Thursday went so far as to nominate Mazda as Louder with Crowder's Employee of the Month for selling more mug clubs than ever in the company's history.
	Gee, who could have warned you that this would have happened?
	They go on to say that nearly 86,000 users subscribed to his feed over the seven-day span, according to analytics from the firm SocialBlade.
	Well, let's take a look at that.
	Here you can see On the 4th, before the campaign from Carlos Maza, I believe.
	The next day, 15,000 subs.
	So he was getting, you know, like 3,000 to 4,000 subs.
	Some days less.
	You know, it depends on if he posts a video.
	15, 23, 14, 16, 8, 9, 3, 4.
	Let's go on back down.
	The campaign was a big boost.
	And even in viewership, we can see the day before, you get 2 million views.
	But then he's got a decent boost of maybe like 50 to 60%.
	So congratulations.
	And what do we end up seeing from all of this?
	Well, YouTube started deleting award-winning history teacher.
	They got rid of an archive channel that showed World War II archival footage.
	YouTube then came out and had to apologize to the LGBT community, but doubled down.
	On defending Steven Crowder.
	Saying, nope, our decision was right.
	We're keeping him.
	So what did you learn from all of this?
	You've hurt your own activists.
	You've hurt teachers.
	And you've now got YouTube publicly defending Crowder's right.
	I'll tell you what that'll do.
	It's going to embolden tons of people to say the exact same things Crowder said.
	You didn't silence Crowder.
	You made him stronger.
	And you are going to inspire a new wave of people to criticize you because even left-wing individuals like Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracy have come out criticizing Carlos Maza.
	You've only made everything worse for yourself.
	Why?
	Granted, Carlos Maza's gained a ton of followers.
	Here's the thing.
	Unsurprisingly, we can see ContraPoints chiming in on Twitter.
	None of Crowder's videos have been taken down.
	Instead, we can see the progressive voice had one of his videos debunking a Crowder video taken down.
	Well, there you go.
	Natalie Wynn, who is ContraPoint, said, anti-fascist content is in fact more likely to be censored
	than fascist content because anti-fascist content is likely to reference overt
	hate symbols, whereas fascists know to use dog whistles.
	Well, I certainly think many of the people in this sect of YouTube,
	not so much ContraPoints, but yeah, kind of, they're freaked out because everything's a dog whistle.
	They see them everywhere.
	I will point out it's kind of weird that they can see him, no one else can.
	But it's true.
	Dog whistles are a real thing.
	It's not so much about dog whistling, though I think it's a silly concept.
	It's that they'll just put on a suit.
	And they'll use scientific terms.
	They'll overtly say the things they believe, but they'll say it in a way that doesn't break the rules.
	Because they can.
	And if you present evidence saying, no, here's proof this guy is actually a bad man, then they'll flag you because you broke the rules.
	How about this one?
	Melissa Ryan, who is with Hope Not Hate, an activist organization in the UK, said, Twitter still can't bring itself to ban actual World War II bad people half the time, but apparently they're suspending David Neiwert, one of the best reporters covering the far right out there.
	What the actual hell, Jack?
	Oh, God.
	We still act so surprised this happens, don't we?
	I'm actually surprised they still act surprised, right?
	Aren't you?
	Because at some point, you'd have to recognize that you are the one who's going to be banned, especially when it just keeps happening.
	I mean, how is this a shock to anybody is what blows my mind.
	But there's more.
	There's absolutely more.
	Because as it turns out, what did you gain from this?
	Well, I'm sure, Carlos, you got a nice little boost.
	Sure.
	I'm sure that you've got a lot of good press attention for yourself, some new followers.
	Crowder's doing fine.
	You've hurt independent creators, activists, teachers.
	You've caused just a wave of mass damage to YouTube as a whole, but not to Crowder.
	And now it turns out that Vox has actually defended anti-LGBT humor somewhat recently, in the past few years.
	It's not a one-for-one.
	I don't wanna make it seem like this dude, Filthy Frank, Is somehow, you know, I don't know.
	I don't, I don't know what to say, but I'm going to try and avoid showing what he actually said, because I don't want to get in trouble.
	Filthy Frank made a video where he said way worse things than Crowder.
	Like really, really, really overtly bad things, which, you know, if they weren't in the context of being humorous, then you could call them direct incitement.
	But Fox made a video about it saying, is he just a mean person or is this comedy?
	But Crowder.
	Crowder is overt harassment, all of the worst things in the book.
	But Vox itself was providing airtime and questioning.
	So not overtly negative.
	If Vox was really upset with the language Crowder was using, then maybe they shouldn't be promoting worse language.
	I saw an interesting video, and forgive me to the guy who made the video, I hate to mention these things without mentioning your channel, but...
	Someone, uh, there was a video on Twitter and I watched it, where it was a lawyer who said why he thinks Carlos Maza was in the wrong the whole time, and he put it really simply, that Carlos has had every opportunity to call out Crowder's behavior at any given time.
	But for two years, what did Maza do?
	He either ignored it, or actually chimed in and joked about it and made fun.
	Like, like it was funny, and made fun of Crowder for it.
	That kind of sets a precedent that you're okay with this behavior.
	Why now do you think you have a right to come after Crowder when for all of these years you had no problem with it?
	That to me...
	Shows that it's a bad faith campaign.
	Excuse me.
	That I think the real issue here was Mazza waited until Pride Month and then decided to launch his campaign against Steven Crowder.
	But in the end, we can see... I mean, I feel like it's beating a dead horse, you know?
	Of course Crowder's doing well.
	Of course his subscribers are up.
	Of course he's making videos.
	Of course his views are up.
	Of course he's saying, I'm not sorry.
	Of course he's got more new subscribers than ever before.
	And of course it backfired on the activists, getting their videos taken down.
	It hit the journalists, it hit the teachers.
	What do you think is going to happen when you do this?
	And this is the last thing I'll comment on, this story from a few days ago.
	Google's LGBTQ employees are furious about the policy disaster, and they're afraid to speak up about it.
	And there you go.
	That's the ultimate ramifications.
	It's kind of a win for conservatives.
	Because we can talk about Crowder doing well, but we can also point out how this proves so well it will always backfire on those calling for censorship.
	Are conservatives being censored?
	They are.
	But have they been hit by this wave?
	Not as bad as the activists.
	Not as bad as the teachers.
	So all this does is serve to prove a point that you were wrong the whole time, Carlos Maza.
	100%.
	So, I'll leave it there.
	Let me know what you think in the comments below.
	We'll keep the conversation going.
	You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
	Stay tuned, new videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6pm.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next story.
	Project Veritas has released a new expose on Silicon Valley tech giants, revealing, with the help of an insider who has blown the whistle, that Pinterest, though not the biggest site, is absolutely practicing some kind of censorship, at least according to the whistleblower.
	So I will add, this is all allegedly, this is going to rely on the verification of Veritas, take it with a grain of salt, because You know, when it comes to these kinds of big stories, I'll just put it plainly, lawsuits.
	Right?
	Lawsuits.
	So I'm going to make sure I'm careful here, but this looks legitimate.
	From Veritas, Tech Insider blows whistle on how Pinterest listed top pro life site as, I'm not even going to say that word, Bible verses are also centered, but adult lovemaking videos.
	Yeah, thanks YouTube.
	There's more here, however.
	I'd like to point out at this moment the bias of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas in that there are some other bits of information I find interesting in the documents they released, but they're very focused on the pro-life aspect of it.
	I'm not trying to drag them for a bias in a bad light.
	I'm saying there's actually more here that could be brought up that isn't necessarily being highlighted by the Veritas team.
	So, you know, maybe I should just say that there's more to the story than just what Veritas is reporting.
	And again, no dig to the Veritas guys at all.
	I think it's actually really interesting.
	They're very focused on the pro-life stuff, I think, also because they actually have conversation evidence, as opposed to other sites.
	Kind of don't really know why it's happening.
	But here's what we find.
	Insider.
	Search term Christian won't auto-complete.
	Others can't trend.
	No notifications or recommendations.
	Pinterest blacklisted pro-life group LiveAction.org, classified as adult lovemaking videos.
	Cannot link to site.
	Leaked sensitive terms list includes Bible verses and Christian Easter.
	This actually blows my mind.
	Ben Shapiro commentary censored in zero tolerance moment.
	Slack messages reveal.
	Planned Parenthood undercover videos marked as harmful conspiracy.
	Veritas calls on more Silicon Valley insiders to come forward.
	Now, so, I didn't do this story in the morning.
	They published this really early in the morning.
	And I waited.
	You know why?
	I knew something was gonna go down.
	And apparently Pinterest is panicking!
	They're outright panicking.
	That's, again, my opinion.
	But they've gone back and forth with unblocking and then reblocking and then banning and censoring and who knows what's going to happen next.
	There are three updates on this story.
	But what we can see here is that the people who live in Silicon Valley hold very biased political views.
	And in fact, interestingly, I'm just finding this out.
	Apparently, I could be wrong, but I read somewhere that California, you can't discriminate against political affiliation, though it's really hard to prove.
	Update 1.
	Pinterest reacts.
	LiveAction.org is no longer on their blacklist.
	The important thing is, the kind of blacklist they seem to be using is a straight block, and it seems like there are activists in the company putting non-lovemaking sites on this list, including anti-war left-wing media.
	That's the thing I was going to talk about.
	that James O'Keefe and Project Veritas are very like, whoa, this pro-life bias,
	anti-Christian bias is huge. And I'm like, I agree. And you've got evidence to prove it.
	It's really creepy because think about like Christian Bible verses. That's like totally
	normal holiday stuff. But they're like sensitive terms.
	What I saw in that list includes the anti-media, which my understanding is it's very left-wing,
	like anti-establishment, which says something to me.
	The censorship we've seen has heavily targeted conservatives.
	Why?
	They're a big faction, and there are a lot of people to take down.
	But the next biggest target of censorship is the anti-war left.
	I have highlighted numerous times, okay, Mathic Media and Rania Kalik, who get the brunt of this.
	And they deserve to have their free speech protected, same as anybody else.
	But the establishment left.
	The Warhawks.
	It's this group that apparently is protected.
	Really, really interesting, I might say.
	Really interesting.
	Now I will say, anti-war stuff, left or right, getting censored, I'm not surprised.
	You know, the establishment does what the establishment does.
	But coming after religion?
	Coming after Christianity specifically?
	Because apparently Islam and Judaism, not targeted.
	Though they really don't like Ben Shapiro, that's funny.
	But check this out!
	Update number two!
	Pinterest reacts again!
	LiveAction's Pinterest account has been permanently suspended!
	So they removed it, then suspended it, and then here we go!
	A Pinterest spokesperson has provided a statement in response to our request for comment.
	Religious content is allowed on Pinterest, and many people use our service to search for and save pins inspired by
	their beliefs.
	To protect our users from being targeted based on personal characteristics, such as their religion,
	we have policies in place so that ads and recommendations don't appear alongside certain terms.
	Fake news.
	I say fake news because in the video released by James O'Keefe, he types in Muslim, he types in Jewish,
	and they auto-complete with no problem, but Christianity gets hit.
	So first, let's take a look at the evidence Veritas is releasing.
	This is a Slack image where this woman, Jeanette Jermey, says, Hi, so I got a Zendesk ticket.
	Where they are appealing the website live action to be removed from the blacklist, I don't think it should be removed, but think this warrants a further discussion because we are currently not removing pro-life, pro-choice content, but this was added to a blocklist.
	This woman, Karina, says, Hi, it is usually best to start, if possible, by following up with a person that initially blocked the domain to see if there was a specific reason other than it's pro-life, pro-choice, etc.
	So they don't want it removed.
	I do not think we're seeing any overt bad action by Jeanette.
	She's saying, hey, what's up with this?
	I don't know if it should be removed.
	And I think there's a good reason that they bring up in that maybe somebody blocked a link for a good reason.
	Obviously, you know, most people who know what live action is are gonna be like, it shouldn't be blocked.
	But imagine you're just some, like, IT, you know, young person who's like, I don't know, somebody blocked it, you know, you're gonna have to figure out who did it.
	That makes sense to me.
	Should it be blocked?
	I don't think it should be.
	But this is a good example of Pinterest, you know, blocking live action, their account, directly.
	Apparently they blocked it for, like, misinformation or something.
	And this is the danger of where we're going with Silicon Valley censorship.
	These random people who are ideologically driven thinking they're the arbiters of truth.
	Well, let's do this.
	Because a lot of you may have seen this, but there's more to this story that I definitely want to make sure I point out.
	This is part of their domain blacklist.
	It actually says blacklist.
	So you can see there's a bunch of really funny phrases, but we've also got trackingvaccinations.com.
	I am no fan of anti-vaxxer stuff, though I have talked with some experts.
	People at the CDC, etc.
	And it's actually... How do I put it?
	The overt, staunch, psycho, pro-vax people are wrong.
	But the anti-vaxxers are substantially way, way, way, way more wrong.
	And the truth isn't in the middle on this issue.
	It definitely leans more in favor of vaccination.
	But it's like, on a scale of 1 to 100, where 1 is anti-vax and 100 is pro-vax, it's like a 90.
	So, I think anybody who's becoming super-zealous... I talked to some actual experts, and they said that there were certain issues that have been brought up which are legitimate, but are overhyped, and people overreact and take it to illogical conclusions, but they also think damage is done by the super-pro-vac-zealots who disregard legitimate pharmaceutical questions.
	Like, I'll put it this way.
	I don't even want to get into the vac stuff, but I'll put it this way.
	There are people who think pharmaceutical companies should be challenged, and that's legitimate concerns.
	And the experts I've spoken with were like, absolutely, these are private companies, like, you gotta keep them in check.
	But I bring that up because, should this stuff be removed, I don't know.
	I don't know what the website is, but ZeroHedge.com is banned.
	I don't know how to describe ZeroHedge.
	But the anti-media, the anti-media I actually know about, because it's like a libertarian, left-wing, anti-war channel.
	Why are they being banned?
	I just see them as partisan indie media.
	Why were they put on the block list?
	I have no idea.
	So was ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net.
	I have no idea what that is.
	Organic Healthy Tips Organic Lifestyle Magazine?
	What is this?
	NemechekConsultiveMedicine.com?
	What's interesting about this is that this is an adult lovemaking list, clearly designed for a specific reason, that's listing political websites.
	And I'm sure there's more.
	We just can't see them.
	But a lot of them are adult-themed, right?
	So I think it's particularly interesting that in this, whatever we want to call it, Silicon Valley censorship, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, it's not just hitting conservatives.
	They're coming after the anti-war left, which is really, really disconcerting.
	First, I'll say there's probably way more conservatives than anti-war activists as a whole group, including left or right, in which case I can understand the concern about going after pro-lifers, which are like a massive portion of this country.
	Then you have, but you have to take into consideration, we shouldn't ignore the people who are saying we shouldn't bomb other countries are getting censored too.
	You know, I talk about that a lot on this channel.
	It's kind of worrying, isn't it?
	My biggest criticism of Obama, Bush and Trump is foreign policy and the US meddling in other countries for proxy wars and all this stuff.
	And I'm somebody who's been overseas and I understand the complex nature of geopolitical, you know, conflict.
	And I am anti-war, anti-intervention, and all that stuff.
	It's one of my biggest issues.
	I think the US, they put on his face, like Obama did this, talking about all the good things they're doing while they go blow up kids.
	So it's worrying to me to see that.
	So that's where my mind went.
	When I saw this story, I looked at it and I'm like, hey, why are they blocking the anti-media?
	The anti-media was also banned, my understanding, from Facebook too.
	So the reason I highlight this and stress this is that I think, I want to point this out.
	At this point, most of us who have been paying attention know full well these tech companies are 100% biased against conservatives.
	Obviously.
	The reason I think it's so dangerous is that the cliff erodes, and eventually we all fall off of it as well.
	But more importantly, pro-life versus pro-choice are moral positions, and there's a disagreement on the science.
	The left argues that, you know, a fetus is not a human life, and the right argues that it is.
	I absolutely believe that it is, but I fall on the pro-choice side for governmental, libertarian, and individual rights reasons that are too complicated to get into in this video, but it involves, to put it simply, two individuals deserving of rights and complications, and the role of government in how certain things should be dealt with.
	It's a huge moral challenge, don't get me wrong.
	But the way I see it is, you've got a scientific question, and two sides disagree with each other.
	I'm kind of a centrist on the issue, right?
	Go figure.
	Why then should a massive Silicon Valley company determine that they are pro-science and therefore they can ban pro-lifers?
	It seems nonsensical.
	You can see how dangerous this gets now that Twitter is banned misgendering.
	That's another ideological position not backed by science.
	The anti-science people have control of platforms and communications.
	That's disconcerting to me.
	Outside of that, you know, people want to argue faith and stuff.
	I'm atheist.
	I'm like a weird agnostic kind of spiritual... I can't really describe the kind of spiritual religious beliefs I have, but I don't think atheist is necessarily the right way to describe it, nor is agnostic.
	Um, but it's a complicated conversation.
	I'd love to actually have a conversation with this about someone in terms of like religion and my beliefs because they don't fall into anything I could kind of define.
	Maybe.
	But the point is, it shouldn't be up to a massive media company, a social media company, tech company to determine what ideas we're allowed to have
	or share.
	Because then of course fake news and fake science gets propped up by weirdos who think
	they're right when they're not. This is why authoritarianism is bad. One person,
	they always think they're right and they're like, I know better for everybody and then they don't
	and then everybody dies. So how about none of that? But anyway, the point I wanted to make is
	we know conservatives are getting censored.
	You know, they'll deny it.
	This is great evidence to expose the corruption, as it says on the site, and now rub it in the face of the people who are lying and denying it.
	But I also want to make sure we stress, it isn't just the right, though it may be mostly, anti-war left.
	We've got to watch out for this, because you don't have to like them, but there are good people on the left who defend free speech, people like Jimmy Dore specifically, who are critical of the US military and intervention, and they're on the chopping block too.
	And I think one of the most important things everyone needs to do, particularly me, is I will absolutely make sure I defend the free speech of anti-war left because I'm more in line with them on a lot of issues.
	But, if you lose people like Jimmy Dore, who is a progressive, who doesn't like Donald Trump, but defends free speech, criticizes Karl Maas and calls out war, you need that to be the left.
	Because at least you can have a discussion with Jimmy.
	At least, he says, I'm willing to challenge you and have this conversation and be amicable and understand free speech.
	He made a really funny point about Crowder.
	And he says, if you don't like what Crowder's saying, don't watch the... I said, I don't watch.
	He's like, you know, I don't care.
	I don't watch morons.
	And I laughed.
	And I loved it.
	You don't have to like what crowders say.
	Just go watch it!
	That's the kind of left we need.
	But they're the ones getting swept up.
	So I'll leave it there.
	More segments to come.
	Stick around and I will see you in a few minutes.
	In about five months on the job, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already arguing that Congress needs a raise.
	And you know what?
	I actually agree.
	I've seen a lot of criticism saying that, you know, Congress shouldn't get more money, they don't do enough work.
	But the issue is actually really, really complicated.
	And I think Ocasio-Cortez actually brings up a really good argument as to why we should give more money to public officials.
	And I mean this sincerely.
	But if we're going to do anything like that, we have to ban politician-to-lobbying pipeline.
	That's one of the biggest problems in this country, the revolving door of people getting cushy jobs at big industry companies to go back on Capitol Hill and then lobby their past colleagues.
	People can get elected to Congress like two years, like one election, fail miserably, and then use that access to go become a lobbyist and get rich.
	That should not be a thing.
	Right?
	It's probably like the most activist-y thing I've ever said.
	I think politicians shouldn't be allowed to a certain degree.
	You know, I'll say this.
	I got really excited when Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz were teaming up to do something about this.
	After you deal with the lobbying, you need to recognize that it's a really, really difficult job.
	There's been two arguments, take their money away or give them more money, and I think more money might be the right answer.
	Disincentivize the monetary gain aspect of the job.
	We also have really big challenges with, you know, Ocasio-Cortez and other congresspeople, they're getting elected every two years, so they're constantly concerned about re-election.
	Man, I can't imagine why anybody, anybody would ever want to be a politician.
	Good lord, it's probably the worst thing I couldn't imagine.
	No way.
	Just not interested.
	But anyway, there was a backlash.
	Ocasio-Cortez is not happy.
	She says all workers deserve cost of living increases.
	And I agree.
	Check this out.
	They say, as the Daily Wire noted Monday, many in Congress feel like it's finally time to give themselves a long overdue raise after suffering a decade-long pay freeze at just $174,000.
	More than three times the median salary in America.
	About $47,000 in the first quarter of 2019.
	Their proposed new salary would be $178,700, a $4,700 raise.
	But that plan appears to have been rather quickly derailed amid internal backlash from Democrats who fear that giving themselves more taxpayer money might end up putting their re-election chances in jeopardy.
	It's always about stupid re-election.
	No.
	They deserve a cost of living increase for one simple reason.
	They're required to maintain a residence in their home district, and they have to live somewhere in D.C.
	There are a lot of Congress people who actually sleep in their offices.
	I will stress, somehow, some of these people in Congress have become multi-millionaires.
	I think we can all recognize there's a serious problem with that.
	And I think we can all recognize that at a populist level, be it the left or the right, we've got a bunch of elite, corrupt, I'm not going to swear, bad people in office who have no one's interest but their own at heart.
	So here's what I think.
	No more revolving door nonsense.
	No more pipeline to the lobby.
	No more lobby to Congress.
	Like, none of this.
	You work in Congress.
	I do not want to see someone then appear on the board of some big company with a cushy job.
	Or using insider information.
	Or passing laws.
	Buying stock and then passing laws.
	All this other nonsense.
	It's like, if you're going to work for the people, your interest should be the people.
	How we solve this problem, I honestly don't know.
	It's really, really complicated.
	Motivations, loopholes, you can't just snap your fingers and do it.
	But I do think there's an important conversation in giving a raise to Congress.
	I've thought about this a lot.
	When I was younger, I said, what if we just take all their money away?
	Make it so that only people who really want to be in politics will do it, because it's not going to be a path to a paycheck.
	But then you realize, it's rich people already.
	It's like a ton of millionaires already.
	Why?
	Because they don't care about the money.
	It's the power, the access, and the opportunity.
	Poor people don't often become politicians because of how much money you need to raise and how much exposure you need to actually get in the office.
	So it tends to be people of means who are able to run.
	So offering zero money is not an incentive to do better because the rich people running will be like, I don't care, I'm rich already.
	But what about the people of modest means?
	Ocasio-Cortez, notably, of modest means, who's a bartender.
	I don't think she has the experience to do her job.
	I think she's really bad at it.
	She's had a few good moments, but she often says nonsensical things.
	But you know what?
	I'm glad.
	I'm glad for one reason.
	It shows that in America, you can be uneducated.
	And I'm not saying that specifically about her.
	Like, I think she's ignorant, but she's educated.
	But you can be dumb.
	You can be working at a bar, and you can become a US politician.
	Good.
	Good.
	I think Ocasio-Cortez is detrimental to my politics, notably environmentalism, because she says a bunch of nonsensical things about farting cows, which makes it really hard for me to argue why we should implement, you know, policy and ideas that are going to make the environment safer, stronger, help deal with climate change, whether you agree with it or not.
	There is a conversation to be had with those who don't believe it's real because there's economic incentives and there's just like technology innovation, economic boosts.
	There's a win-win for everybody and she comes out and says it's nonsensical, intersectional, socialist nonsense and I'm like, please stop!
	You're making this hard for me.
	You're not coming together with people in compromise.
	You just think you're right and you're pushing other people away and being rude.
	Please don't do that.
	But I will stress, you know, in the end, I think it's really great to see young progressive populists defeat these corporate incumbents of mass means, of like all this wealth.
	But then the question is, we don't want only people like Ocasio-Cortez in politics because, admittedly, I think she's doing bad.
	That's my opinion.
	She represents something good, but she's doing bad.
	So how do we make sure we get politicians who don't want to just make money and get benefits?
	It's not about raises.
	I think what it comes down to, then, is we need to restrict this revolving door pipeline.
	You work for the government, you're banned from holding certain positions.
	There's loopholes.
	Seriously, no matter what you do, they will find a loophole.
	But it doesn't mean we don't do anything.
	Admittedly, I know, sometimes doing nothing is better than something, but in this case, something's happening.
	What can we do?
	Cortez and Ted Cruz are talking about it.
	Well, let's read on, because I don't want to just ignore.
	There was a backlash.
	Let's see what happened.
	The Daily Wire writes, Though supporters of the pay raise stress that they had bipartisan support and insist that a modest bump in pay is a necessary cost-of-living adjustment, Politico reported Monday evening the plan has been postponed.
	Top Democrats agreed in a closed-door meeting Monday night to pull a key section of this week's massive funding bill to avoid escalating a clash within their caucus over whether to hike salaries for lawmakers and staff for the first time in a decade, multiple lawmakers confirmed.
	At least 15 Democrats, mostly freshmen, in competitive districts had pushed to freeze pay after
	some Democratic and Republican leaders quietly agreed to the slight pay increase earlier this
unidentified		month.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		After intense debate over whether to force members to go on the record about a pay raise
		on Monday, Politico reports the vulnerable Democrats appear to have won the argument.
		Voting for a pay increase they maintained would hurt them in 2020, when Democrats can't afford to lose any ground in the House.
		Politico cites several Democrats in battleground seats, personally telling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer that they would protest the vote.
		Okay, I'll say this.
		I think it's true.
		I think people in this country, at a bulk, don't understand necessarily what will happen if they do something, right?
		If a Democrat says, I want a pay raise, then people will just knee-jerk reaction, say, oh no, you're taking money, you're stealing money.
		But there's real reasons why people might need a raise.
		Again, Cortez is maintaining a residence in New York and in DC.
		So, they do need a little bit more than, you know, the median.
		Sure, but D.C.
		and New York are really expensive, so it's a hard problem to solve.
		But I'll tell you what I want.
		You know what I would do if I were to ever run?
		I would just be a straight shooter the whole way.
		I'd be like, you know, look guys, we need a raise.
		I mean, I'll answer any question as long as it takes.
		We'll have a conversation about it.
		I will explain like I do.
		I will talk and talk and talk.
		And if it doesn't matter because people don't understand, so be it!
		Honesty is the best policy.
		Could you imagine if every politician just said, we are going to be completely honest about why we want to do these things?
		There would be less constraint.
		It's like, man, I've cited Bill Maher like 57 times today, but he made a really great point.
		He said, you know in private we're all politically incorrect.
		What we're doing online on social media is like our avatars for a social media nation that may not even exist.
		I don't know if Bill Maher said that part, but he said we're all politically incorrect in private.
		What I say on this camera is like 99.9% of what I actually believe.
		The reason I say 99.9% is because there's like Personal and private stuff that everybody wants to keep, you know, off public record.
		But for me, I'm like an open book.
		There's, like, small things pertaining to, like, my family I might not talk about.
		Damn near 100% willing to tell you exactly how I feel.
		You know what?
		Like, there's no secret.
		It's no secret.
		I don't form my opinions around, like, what's popular.
unidentified		Nah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I have no problem saying Dark Phoenix was not a woke movie and I thought it was fine.
		I have no problem saying that Black Panther was a fine movie.
		Not the best movie in the world, but not super woke.
		They did politics really well.
		I just said what I think.
		I think NSHU Ocasio-Cortez is correct.
		And if all politicians just said, you know, we're going to be honest, they would actually be safer.
		They're all hiding behind these shelves of public appearance.
		And that means, as soon as anybody peeks out of their little oyster shell, someone else is going to fire at them and say, Ha!
		This person's a bigot!
		Instead of everyone just talking calmly and reasonably and rationally and honestly.
		And that's why we get the politicians we deserve.
		A bunch of nonsense liars who just talk about whatever they want to get re-elected.
		So, you know what?
		Props to Ocasio-Cortez for just saying it like it is.
		They do need a raise.
		They do.
		Straight up, 100% agree with her on this issue.
		I will state, perhaps I need more education.
		I never think I'm the smartest person.
		I know that Ocasio-Cortez had a bunch of really dumb things in the past, but hey, broken clock is correct twice a day, right?
		I actually think Cortez has a lot more points.
		I actually agree with her on a lot of issues.
		Private prisons are bad.
		She's got this one down.
		I agree with her to an extent on climate change, but man, the Green New Deal was just complete far-left socialist regressive nonsense, which makes arguing for environmentalism Damn near impossible, but I'm gonna agree with her on this.
		So let's reel a little bit more when we can wrap up.
		She says, Members of Congress often vote to cut or keep their allowances low.
		This is from March 13th.
		It's a superficial gesture, because keeping congressional pay low is what creates the desperation and impetus for good, experienced staff to flee to lobbyist jobs.
unidentified		I agree.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		100%.
		Raising staffer pay helps get money out of politics.
		Completely agree.
		And we can see that AOC set a new bar for staff pay by offering 52K, where a bunch of other people pay way less.
		She says, same with member pay.
		Members are paid more than average, but jobs require two residences, plus we can't take tax deductions for work costs.
		No one wants to be the one to bring up increases, so instead people take advantage of insider trading loopholes and don't close them for the extra cash.
		Bravo.
unidentified		100%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Shut down the loopholes.
		We'll never close them all, but we can do something about this.
		Give them more money.
		I think so.
		If we can, I mean, I'm not, you know, hey, look, I'm center-left, right?
		I know money doesn't grow on trees.
		I know the revenue has to be generated somewhere.
		But I do think we need to figure out how to disincentivize the corruption, the absolute corruption.
		And it's people saying, what about me?
		What about my family?
		And that's where we have to say, what about the people of America that you are here to serve?
		You know?
		And maybe honor and integrity aren't enough to stop people from taking the kickbacks and using the loopholes.
		But maybe we can all come together as a country and say, we can start moving in the direction of weeding out
		corruption by offering better salaries and make it a lucrative position.
		Make it a good job to have.
		Look, I understand 170k, 174k, it's a lot of money.
		It is.
		But think about market competition, okay?
		Think about what someone at that level of skill could do if they were in the private sector.
		And this is one of the biggest challenges.
		I work for non-profits, okay?
		Let me explain this.
		One final thing.
		Executive directors make a ton of money at non-profits.
		Some of the biggest non-profits pay millions of dollars to their executive directors.
		And I would often hear people say, that's BS, they shouldn't make that much money.
		And when I started working for these non-profits, I agreed.
		I said, why should a non-profit be paying millions of dollars to their executive director?
		And it was explained to me very simply by one of the people above me.
		They said, listen man, The guy who runs this nonprofit, you know, the executive director, he gets like 1.2 million.
		It's actually like half his market rate if he was going to be the CEO of any private sector company.
		And he could be.
		And he chose to come here to do good, and we had to do what we could to compensate him to make it worth his while.
		So there's a challenge in balancing doing good versus making money.
		And, like, no one's immune to this.
		So when you have someone who's got a family to take care of, they're very intelligent and high-level, and you say, you could make ten million dollars as CEO, but we're gonna pay you a hundred grand, they're gonna be like, I'll take the ten million, and then invest that money in my own non-profit, right?
		There's other ways to do good.
		Instead, they say, we'll pay you something really good.
		It won't be as good as if you were a CEO, but you'll get paid over a million.
		And the guy says, I could take a million.
		And then I'm doing something good with my time, and I want to do this job in the nonprofit.
		So it's hard to just condemn it outright.
		I think the solution is make serving the public a lucrative position.
		There's got to be a lot of other laws around that, but perhaps it's a conversation we can have.
		You let me know what you think, because this admittedly is a complicated issue, but I'm going to end by saying I completely agree with Cortez on this issue, insofar as her public statements on the matter.
		And I'll leave it there.
		I've got one more segment coming up for you in just a few minutes.
		Stick around.
		Mr. center-left Tim Pool would like to remind you that regulating social media companies is probably a really good thing because it only ratchets in one direction.
		That means it'll protect free speech.
		And when you see this story, perhaps you might agree with me.
		I think it's funny when people criticize conservatives for agreeing with regulation because it's like They have this belief that conservatives have always opposed all regulation, always, forever.
		That's just ridiculous.
		Conservatives tend to oppose some regulation, liberals tend to support some regulation, liberals tend to support regulation more, conservatives less, but it doesn't mean either group is for or against all regulation all the time.
		I've made the facetious point before.
		Where are the liberals who support regulating massive multi-million dollar corporations?
		But just because this issue I think regulation is important doesn't mean liberals are being hypocritical because they don't support every regulation.
		And the same as conservatives for now wanting some.
		In this story from the Daily Wire, watch.
		Google CEO flatly admits that YouTube practices censorship.
		And they're gonna censor more!
		Congratulations!
		Welcome to the future.
	Who knows how long I'll be here.
	And so I guess this is the perfect time to say, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work, because Google openly practices censorship, according to one story, and I could get banned at any moment, and then I'll just go live in the mountains, man.
	I don't even know.
	But you can donate through PayPal, there's a cryptocurrency link, there's a physical address, but of course, commenting on the video, subscribing, liking, engaging with the content, really, really does help.
	Quote, the thing we are trying to do is bring more authoritative sources and fact checks on videos which may be controversial.
	I have some good news potentially coming up soon, I don't know if I can reveal yet, but I will say this, the good news is, I believe YouTube views me as an authoritative source, And they respect me.
	So I do have a YouTube partner manager.
	It's not like that does much.
	But I will be at VidCon this year.
	Surprisingly, because they reached out to me.
	And more than just YouTube, they were like, Tim, we want you here.
	And that shocked me!
	I'm not going to be speaking or anything, but I'm like, whoa, VidCon!
	Tim Pool!
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's weird.
		That's not the politics they usually have there.
		Admittedly, like, centrist moderate politics.
		I guess it's enough, though.
		And I think there's a lot of people, especially at Google, who, you know, I've talked to, and I assure you this, I have sources in the company who tell me it's not as bad as you think, but the regressive ideology is like triple the national average.
		So that's a lot, but it's like 30% or something.
		That's a lot.
		It's scary, but there's still a lot of really good people who are real liberals who push back on this.
		They lose out a lot.
		And we're seeing it now with this story.
		Speaking with a journalist from Axios, Google CEO Sundar Pichai doubled down on recent statements made by Google's YouTube, openly admitting that YouTube acts as a publisher, not a platform, as they censor what they deem to be too controversial to exist on their sites.
		By definition, publishers edit what is on their sites, which means they are responsible for the content, while platforms eschew censoring and are thus not responsible for the content on them.
		However, all that means If you win that fight, publisher or platform, it means you can sue them for libel.
		Who cares?
		People are allowed to lie.
		They are!
		Your right to lie is protected.
		However, if you defame somebody, slander or libel, then you can sue them.
		But what I mean by lie is, if I told you the moon was made of cheese, that is my free speech right to do so.
		If I say you are made of cheese, well, that's a false statement effect, right?
		So that's the difference.
		The point I'm trying to say is I don't like liars.
		I don't like fake news, but I do really, really like free speech and understand that you should not let the line erode because gosh darn it, they will come for you in a heartbeat.
		Let's read on.
		As Adam Kandob, Law Professor and Director of the Intellectual Property, Information, and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University, and antitrust lawyer Mark Epstein explained in the City Journal May 2018, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users' defamatory, fraudulent, and otherwise unlawful content.
		Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate forums for a true diversity of political discourse.
		This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
		But they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication, not curators of acceptable opinion.
		So it is bad news.
		I'll put it this way.
		The argument is actually, it's still a good fight to be made, because it's not so much about suing them for libel, it's about the fact they could be, and thus they'd have to basically shut down.
		Think of it this way.
		If you take away their libel protections, Google will say, okay, we either remove literally everything from search, because if it's libelous, we'll get sued, or we stop curating.
		Plain and simple.
		There is a big challenge with YouTube, however.
		You have no right to monetization, you have no right to recommendation, and I believe that to be the case.
		Steven Crowder has no right to be monetized by YouTube.
		However, there is an argument to be made that if there is a standard applied evenly across the board to everybody who signs up, Arbitrarily removing that from some people is a violation of standards on YouTube.
		If they want to create an invite-only partner program, fine.
		And here's the thing.
		We're there right now.
		To get into the partner program requires certain guidelines and restrictions.
		They've actually made it very, very difficult.
		It used to be for everybody.
		But now that it is, Back to being a privilege, I'm not gonna argue in defense of Crowder's right to be monetized, but he does have a right, in my opinion, to be on the platform and for everyone who subscribes to him to be able to get his videos in their feed because that's what subscriptions are for.
		The point I'm trying to make here, when it comes to censorship versus privileges, is that YouTube is actually a bunch of different things.
		You're not being censored if YouTube allows you to upload your videos.
		If YouTube recommends you, that's YouTube doing you a favor.
		Your speech still exists.
		Removing you from search?
		Nah, that's a violation of speech.
		But not putting you in recommendations?
		Well, listen.
		Recommendations are YouTube's choice, whether or not to deliver your content to somebody.
		If a PR company says we won't work with you, that's too bad, right?
		So because Google is doing all of these things, they're entering murky territory.
		There is an argument to be made that YouTube should neutrally recommend content people may like if they do it for everybody, and this is where the challenge comes in.
		If YouTube was three companies, a marketing agency, hosting service, and ad agency, then you'd have no rights to any one of these three things.
		However, if the door is open for anyone to publish content, then I think they shouldn't be able to restrict you, you should have free speech.
		Whether or not you can get marketed effectively, well, that's up to the marketing agency.
		Whether or not you can get ad sales, that's up to the ad agency.
		But, it gets interesting here, because Google does all of these things for everybody, it now does become a form of suppression if they take away recommendations from you.
		I'm still of the opinion, however, that, you know, if you get recommended, well, that's YouTube's choice.
		It is.
	Maybe that's why Google likes me, I don't know, because I kind of lean on their side to a bit.
	And I will stress this, too.
	I will always, always come out in defense of Mumkey Jones, a YouTuber who had his channel deleted with no strikes, no warning.
	And there are others.
	And I will always criticize those who deserve criticism when they do things wrong.
	But I say this to stress.
	Steven Crowder was not banned.
	He still reaches his millions of fans.
	He's getting millions of views on his video.
	He won that fight.
	Hands down.
	He's already demonetized.
	That I don't like.
	You know, it's complicated because you can't force advertisers to pay for ads.
	But Crowder won in that capacity.
	So there you have it.
	His free speech was protected.
	He's still getting recommended.
	People can still watch him.
	He totally won the fight.
	Whether or not advertisers are going to be running his content is up to the ad agency.
	But let's read on.
	What are they talking about?
	Pichai was interviewed by Axios' chief technology correspondent, Ina Fried, who stated,
	I think maybe a good place to start is YouTube, and obviously it comes up a lot.
	What goes through your mind when you watch a video like the recent one,
	you had this teenager who had appeared to be donning Muslim garb,
	spewing a lot of anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic hate?
	What goes through your mind when you see a video like that and see that it's gotten 350,000 views?
	Pichai answered, you know, I don't know all the details of this specific video, but in general, look, I mean, all of us, you know none of us want harmful content on our platforms.
	I think last quarter alone we had more than 9 million videos from the platform.
	We had more than 9 million videos from the platform.
	What, removed?
	Is it missing?
	More recently, we have introduced, just like today, we do this in search, we rank content based on quality.
	And so we're bringing that same notion and approach to YouTube so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content.
	Content which doesn't exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.
	And so we are working hard.
	It's a hard computer science problem.
	It's also a hard societal problem because we need better frameworks on what is safe speech and what's not.
	And how do we as a company make those decisions?
	Let's scale and get it right without making mistakes.
	So, they freed-pressed him.
	Pichai responded, look, we aren't quite where we want to be, but I think it's a generally hard problem of how do you, YouTube has, how do you, YouTube has a scale of the entire internet, I think.
	We're making a lot of progress.
	But the thing we're trying to do is bring more authoritative sources and fact checks on videos, which may be controversial.
	It's a case where we got it wrong, but that's what we're trying to do, and we're working hard to improve.
	In this tweet, Cliff Simms said, this is scary.
	CEO of Google openly says as a company, they're deciding what's hate speech, what's too controversial to be on YouTube.
	They're not acting as a platform, they're acting as a publisher.
	I think they are.
	I think that's fair to say.
	And I think that's why I opened this video on purpose with regulation, because Sundar should not be choosing based on an international standard what American citizens are allowed to say.
	Plain and simple.
	Whether or not recommendations are going to be a part of free speech or not, it's a conversation to be had and you can comment and let me know what you think.
	I personally don't think YouTube has an obligation to put you in their recommendation section.
	Search?
	Same thing is true, it's difficult.
	Because search can pull up like 20 results on the front page, why should you be included in that?
	I do think there should be a simple algorithm And they shouldn't decide to remove you for political content.
	If somebody wants to search for immigration, you should get the most relevant content based on neutral algorithmic standards.
	How we regulate this is really, really difficult.
	But at the very least, they shouldn't be restricting or banning channels.
	Where we go from there?
	That's a debate to be had.
	Let me know what you think.
	We'll keep the conversation going.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Stick around.
	More content to come starting tomorrow at 10 a.m.
	on this channel.
	For those on the podcast, every day around 6, 30, or 7, the podcast will be up.

▲