Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously
Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously. Recently there was a big story released by James O'Keefe and Project Veritas about Pinterest censoring conservatives. The story was covered by many outlets including far left and leftist digital media.My video was me reading publicly available information from a website and no new information was revealed. Yet for some reason my video was quietly removed without any notice on youtube.I only found out because someone emailed asking why I was being censored. The official reason? A Privacy complaint. But from who?Not only did I get a complaint but James O'keefe and Steven Crowder got complaints. In fact the origianl report has been removed and Steven Crowder got a privacy complaint for interviewing O'Keefe about it.Social media censorship is now coming for journalism not just commentary. Perhaps this is in result to recent reports, like from Vox, that conservatives are winning the internet. Maybe this wave of censorship hitting Youtube is a result of far left social justice activists taking the only action they have left.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
And there's a lot of really weird things going on that I need to talk about.
The story in question.
Pinterest is censoring conservatives.
Carried by basically everyone, and I'll show you examples.
In this video, where you can see, it's on YouTube, it says, video unavailable.
This video is no longer available due to a privacy claim by a third party.
The only thing I can think of as to who claimed this is either Pinterest as a corporation or one of the employees of Pinterest who was named in the article.
However, I was reading from a public website.
Nothing here was me exposing any new information, okay?
YouTube has taken out a video without telling me.
Nowhere on YouTube was I notified, but I tweeted this.
The other day I said, YouTube has removed my video on censorship at Pinterest without notifying me or explaining what happened.
I have no opportunity to appeal.
The video is backed up.
It does exist on BitChute.
Here's the thing.
I eventually found the email.
I went to my email, and I searched for YouTube privacy, customers, you know, YouTube support, etc.
I found nothing.
Literally nothing came up, and I looked through, and nothing was there.
But, I found an obscure, uh, the social tab, which I never check.
There it was.
From, uh, I believe it was from the 13th.
It said, we received a privacy complaint, and upon review, we will remove the video in question.
On YouTube.
This is my second channel, by the way.
Not this channel.
I'm doing it on this channel because I want people to see what's happening.
On my second channel, there was no notification.
Nothing.
I didn't even know the video had been removed.
Now, I will say this.
The video was monetized, it already made money, most of the views were already done, everyone's already seen it, so I have no idea what the point of filing this complaint is, because news videos, and videos for the most part, spike right when they're launched, and then fizzle out and people stop watching them.
There's not a lot of reason for people to go back in time and watch an old news video when there's updates.
So, I don't know what the point of removing it was, but I only found out because someone emailed me through my website and said, hey, I'm just wondering why this video was taken down.
And I said, what video was taken down?
But I'll tell you what.
I expected this.
Because, uh, this is an article from Louder With Crowder.
YouTube purge continues with moves against Project Veritas and Tim Pool.
You know the adage, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
It applies to conservatives who happen to be successful while on social media.
Because not just us, the YouTube- YouTube-ins are after.
Today, both Project Veritas and Tim Pool had videos stricken from the record over the scandal I can't believe is real, Pinterest.
James O'Keefe tweeted this on the 12th.
He then said to support him.
So here's what James O'Keefe got.
James O'Keefe, I don't care if you like him, I don't care if you disagree, he produced investigative journalism.
A whistleblower came forward and provided evidence that Pinterest was censoring pro-life individuals.
Whether or not you agree with any of that doesn't matter.
The fact is, it's a common practice.
How long ago was it that the Daily Beast published the name of a man because he shared a meme of Nancy Pelosi reportedly with the help of Facebook?
How is that not a privacy violation?
Granted, that wasn't on YouTube, I understand.
But you can see here the double standards we're facing in culture right now.
That James O'Keefe is an on-the-record whistleblower Privacy violation.
I commented on a publicly available website that anyone could read that was carried by numerous news outlets.
My video got removed.
I tweeted.
So, I don't know if... Well, I'll do this too.
Before we get into any more, I want to make sure I comment on this.
A lot of people are saying that it may just be that the woman who was named in the story filed the complaint.
However, Stephen Crowder tweeted, looks like YouTube is claiming that even having you on to
cover the scandal is a privacy violation.
This is an email that Crowder says came to him from the YouTube support team.
Dear Steven Crowder, this is to notify you that we have received a privacy complaint from an individual regarding your content.
The information reported as violating privacy at, and I'm assuming those are timestamps, the complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube team and may be removed pursuant to our privacy guidelines.
And then they say, for more information, check out our guidelines.
I reached out to Team YouTube, and they ignored me for several hours, then finally gave me the generic response.
Privacy violation.
What violation?
When?
Who?
It's a publicly available website.
I exposed no new information.
But the video was taken down.
You know what this means?
YouTube, very quietly, took down my video, and it's all very strange, and I'm gonna show you some screenshots of how weird it gets.
Without saying anything to me other than this generic email that tells me nothing, And then they're doing it to Crowder's video, talking about the issue.
Why?
It's very, very weird.
I will say this.
Whatever this story is, James O'Keefe has finally struck a huge nerve.
Now, of course, O'Keefe and Veritas have pissed off a lot of people.
As do a lot of journalists.
Whether you agree with them or like them or not, doesn't matter.
He did.
But this is the biggest nerve I have ever seen hit by anybody.
I'll put it this way.
I can understand that Pinterest, YouTube, and Silicon Valley are outraged that they were exposed by a whistleblower.
It's not just about whether or not the story is bad, it's about encouraging more whistleblowers.
That's dangerous.
They don't want a culture of people blowing the whistle, because I assure you, within Google and its other companies, there are conservatives and there are liberal people who believe in free speech and oppose censorship.
That's dangerous.
So now it would seem that they're absolutely trying to take action to prevent this kind of stuff from appearing on their platforms.
But let's move on, because I've got a ton to go through.
A lot to go through.
This is the response I got from Team YouTube.
They said, We have removed the material in question for a privacy violation.
For more information, blah blah blah.
Nothing.
I said there is no privacy violation.
The information is all publicly available.
If it was the woman from the video, the only thing I could say is that she has become an involuntary public figure.
This is normal.
The Daily Beast published the name reportedly with the help of Facebook.
You wanna know what really blows my mind?
Any strategist, anyone, marketing will tell you the only thing this censorship will do is make the story last longer and get bigger.
It is the Streisand effect.
Now I'm talking about the censorship and I'm going to show you all the weird things that happened.
I can't imagine that the goal was actually to censor the story.
As I mentioned earlier, the video had already gotten most of the views it would have gotten.
I already made money in ads off of it.
People saw it.
It was done.
Why remove it?
It's possible it was a knee-jerk reaction from someone who just doesn't understand the internet.
But I will say, it may go beyond just perhaps a privacy violation.
I got a screenshot for you.
So here's the thing that I want to showcase first.
They are in no way silencing the story.
BuzzFeed covered it.
The Huffington Post covered it.
The Daily Mail covered it.
Fortune covered it.
The Hill covered it.
These are all mainstream, either left or non-partisan sites.
And you can pop over to Google and see there is a huge... It was a huge story.
Apparently the video had over... James O'Keefe's video had over around a million views or so.
So they took it down, but these videos are backed up.
They still exist.
They're on Twitter and other platforms.
What were they thinking?
Why would they do it?
Unless their goal was to make sure the story got more attention.
Just before I did this video, I recorded a video about Sundar Pichai, the Google CEO, begging regulators not to regulate, lawmakers not to regulate Silicon Valley, saying Google needs to be big to be innovative.
Why would they then do this?
This is overt censorship with no explanation.
I've got some screenshots and some videos I want to show you that are very strange that I've never seen on YouTube before.
Things that are happening.
It feels to me like this is a manual maneuver by someone and I don't know why.
I will say though, I have reached out personally to YouTube, because I do have contacts there, and they did escalate the situation.
I have yet to hear back on that end, but it'll be really interesting if YouTube's internal team doesn't respond to a Google employee about the issue.
However, I contacted directly YouTube support in a chat, and we talked for a little bit, and they came back with, we're going to have to escalate this, and I'm going to have to send it to an internal team for an investigation.
I'm going to send our chat.
I have never heard that before.
YouTube support couldn't tell me what happened or why, and they needed to escalate this.
So now I have a Google employee saying, you know what?
We're going to escalate.
I have no idea.
And then actual creator support saying, we don't know.
We don't know either.
But let me show you where it gets really interesting.
So first, this is the email that I got.
I should have shown this earlier, but I found it on June 13th.
I did say initially I wasn't notified, but more importantly, it was just buried.
It was Google, you'd think they could have sent it to- When I get emails about YouTube, they come to my regular email.
I got nothing.
I was like, YouTube, YouTube, YouTube.
Nothing there.
Then I searched.
I did a search for terms YouTube privacy.
Nothing.
Then I went to the social tab and there it was.
It says, we have received a privacy complaint regarding the following video.
Pinterest caught censoring conservatives, but it's worse than you think.
Upon our analysis of the claim, we have removed the content in question.
No chance for appeal.
Nothing.
Check this out.
This is what my YouTube tab looks like.
Here's the video.
Nothing.
It's blank.
That's never happened to me before.
I have had videos removed for various reasons.
I have videos- I have had community guideline strikes, which were false and later reversed.
I've had other videos taken down for- I can't remember exactly.
The point I'm trying to make is, there's usually something written here.
Something is here that tells you why your video is gone.
Instead, there's just nothing there.
And you can see, all the other videos look like normal.
There's the one I did on Keanu Reeves, got 732,000 views.
Crazy, that's like the most I've ever gotten on a video in like a day.
But you can see, just, it's all normal, but then this one video, just nothing.
Now, I will point out another thing too, in terms of the strange circumstances of YouTube, you'll notice the green icons.
For those that are listening, all of these videos are monetized.
In this video, you can see that zero videos successfully updated, one video didn't get updated.
Let me explain what this is.
In this screenshot, I clicked this little box and tried to enter the video through a backdoor.
See how it says edit here and there's nothing here?
For those that are listening, there's no buttons I can click.
So I clicked this and then I tried to change it through a workaround.
The result was it saying zero videos successfully updated.
So I decided to click view report to see what had happened.
And this is what pops up.
You can see that I've tried several times.
It says, one failed, one failed, privacy, privacy.
You cannot edit a rejected video.
Deleted video, there's no thumbnail, and that's it.
The following video has had errors.
That's what I get when I try to edit it.
No notifications, no chance to appeal.
Now I do want to make another point while we're here, while you can see.
At the time of recording this, I took a screenshot earlier this morning.
You can see that these three videos are demonetized.
This is how it works.
All the videos after are monetized.
However, 90 plus percent of the views come in the first 24 hours.
The video is demonetized, I request a review, and then unfortunately I don't actually get monetized until a day later and there's no views left and the videos end up making like 80% less money than they normally would.
So that's an aside.
The main thing I want to show you is what happened when I actually tried to update the removed video.
But let's move on because I've got more to show you.
This is what I see in my phone, and it may shine a light on something else happening.
It says rejected legal complaint.
Legal complaint?
This just changed the game.
What does that mean, a legal complaint?
When you click the video, it says a privacy violation.
I can't imagine there is a legitimate legal complaint against Google over my commentary on publicly available information.
If somebody filed a complaint against me, I have yet to receive any information from anybody.
If someone filed a legal complaint against YouTube, So YouTube took it down.
That would be YouTube admitting it is a publisher and not a platform because under Section 230, YouTube would be protected from me posting this video if in any way it violated a third party's rights.
Why then YouTube took it down, I don't know.
I did not receive a guideline strike over this.
It just was gone.
So I really don't know what I can say other than this is YouTube targeting journalism.
So I want to stress one point.
I get, I get someone going after James O'Keefe.
It's wrong.
Project Veritas should not be targeted over this.
Welcome to journalism.
Play the game.
That's how it works.
He's in every right to publish newsworthy information.
You can't take it down.
It's a violation of the press.
My video is commentary on it.
Steven Crowder got hit with a complaint over interviewing James O'Keefe about it.
This is where it gets Ridiculously weird.
I don't know why they would do this.
I really don't.
You can comment and let me know what you think.
But the only thing this censorship will do is result in more people hearing about the story.
And I want to run through this one more time before I close out with a couple points.
BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, The Daily Mail, Fortune, The Hill, etc.
The story was picked up by everyone.
If I made a video about this using a BuzzFeed article, am I gonna get a privacy complaint again?
Is this video gonna get taken down because I referenced the story on BuzzFeed?
It might.
It absolutely might.
I don't know.
But you know what?
I don't take things lying down.
So I will do one more thing.
Give a shout out to Stixx Hexenhammer for talking about the censorship in a video.
I appreciate people who are, you know, when you come to my defense when I get censored.
I will point out, however, that Stixx, for some reason, put an E in my name.
Thank you, Styx.
I appreciate it.
I am continually impressed by people's ability to add an e to the end of my last name, to
which he responded, Timothist Provolone, and then tweeted out the link again, calling me
Timothy Paulos.
Thank you, Styx, I appreciate it.
And then, finally, I wanted to make one more point about demonetization that I thought
was kind of funny.
Censorship comes in many forms.
I am outraged that YouTube has taken down my video without explaining to me what happened or why.
This is, uh, it's outrageous.
This is news information, it's my commentary on a newsworthy situation, and I'm talking about only publicly available information.
But there are other issues that don't bother me so much.
When I get demonetized, I shrug and say, well, look.
It's one thing to say you'll protect someone's speech.
It's another thing to say you will hire an ad agency to sell ads against your content.
I do not believe monetization is a right, for the most part.
So when I get demonetized, I say, well, you know, it is what it is.
And that's why I ask people to go to TimCast.com slash donate support my work as a safety net in case, you know, I get a wave of demonetization.
It happens.
But here's something interesting.
A video of mine got partially demonetized, and it's just me talking about cable TV ratings.
I was talking about Rachel Maddow.
There was a note added, so there's a certain thing that I don't know if I'm supposed to talk about, so I guess I won't get into too much detail about the pilot program.
I got a note on my video saying, specifically, it was a partial demonetization because of simulated violence.
That confused the hell out of me, because in my video it's just me reading cable news articles, but at one point I read a tweet from someone, and someone responded to that tweet with a video of Alex Jones ripping off his shirt.
I'm assuming that's what it must have been.
I said, at one point I was reading a tweet, a GIF of Alex Jones ripping off his shirt played, that was it.
I'm assuming that was it, because other than that it was me looking at articles, but someone manually reviewed it and put a note saying, this is why you're demonetized.
Um, now the information as to why people get demonetized is actually publicly available.
There's a YouTube video, um, from creator- uh, from in- creator- uh, in- in- I forget what it's called.
YouTube Insiders or something?
Creator Insiders.
And it's publicly available.
It's called Self-Certification.
So if you want to look at their criteria, it's all- it's all there.
But this is one of the notes that I got in regards to this.
So, here's what I want to say.
I am a member of the Online News Association.
I have been a journalist for several years now.
I've worked for Vice Fusion.
I've done contract work for other publications.
I've produced some TV shows.
I've produced documentaries.
I've received accolades and awards.
And this video that was removed is me talking about censorship.
It's me looking at a publicly available website, and YouTube took it down.
And they can't give me an answer.
This is the dangerous future we're looking at unless something can be done to protect speech.
YouTube should not have the right to remove journalism.
They do, unfortunately.
And I oppose it.
The freedom of the press is a part of the First Amendment and it must be protected at all costs, so...
Let me know what you think in the comments below, and hopefully this video won't get removed because I talk about the same issue.
I will see you at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
And again, final note, this video that was censored was on that channel, so hopefully I'll see you there.
Perhaps we really are in some kind of civil war, or at least a precursor to it.
And a lot of people have, I've gotten a lot of different responses from people when I made,
I made a video on my main channel, it kind of blew up a couple, you know, like half a
million views almost, talking about the potential for a real second civil war.
And I want to always start with a caveat.
I'm not talking about, you know, two armies side by side.
It's a bit, you know, hyperbolic or facetious when I say civil war.
It's meant to be somewhat in jest, right?
Like the cultural issues and social upheaval we're seeing is some kind of big conflict.
But it is also possible, based on some of the things I've heard from people, that this could just be the resource-gathering phase, where lines are being drawn every day, and we're coming to the point where both sides view each other as inherently evil.
Both sides view each other as denying human rights.
In this story from TechCrunch, there was outrage over Will Hurd, who was to keynote the Black Hat Conference.
And of course, we saw the social justice outrage mob come in, and then ultimately, the announcement that he has been removed.
So what I want to do is I want to go through the reasons as to why, but I also want to talk about what we're seeing in terms of parallel worlds forming.
A lot of people right now have a bias.
It's an optimism bias.
It hasn't happened before, so it can't happen now.
The U.S.
is resilient.
Nothing bad can happen.
People think this way.
It is a terrible way to think you're biased.
Simply because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.
We don't know what will happen.
I'm not saying simply because there's lines being drawn in the sand, it means it... Let me rephrase.
I'm not saying simply because we're seeing lines drawn in the sand, that means we're going to see some kind of dramatic conflict.
I will say, however, This is a guy, Wilherd, who is pro-life.
He was just removed from a cyber security conference because he's pro-life.
Tell me, what does being pro-life have to do with cyber security policy?
It's very important, for those that aren't familiar, I should have done this first, Black Hat If somebody's making policy in this area, it would be great to have him speak and explain why.
They've removed him because of something completely unrelated.
So now it's an issue of, your tribe and your beliefs exclude you from various parts of society.
We're seeing people debanked, banned, YouTube channels shut down, lines are being drawn in the sand, and it's getting worse every day.
There's a really good example in this story that goes beyond just talking about the culture war reaching the hacker community.
But it's that they said this guy denies human rights.
That's what they said, straight up.
He is pro-life, and he accuses them of denying human rights.
I'm not saying he's actually said this, but this is the pro-life argument that, you know, babies are human life, and they have rights too.
So which side do you think is right if they both think human rights are being denied?
Well, let's read what the outrage is.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, Like, comment, share, subscribe, engagement on YouTube.
Tells YouTube that my channel is great, and they help promote the content.
So this is from two days ago.
They say, A decision to confirm Rep.
Will Hurd as the keynote speaker at the Black Hat Security Conference this year has prompted anger and concern by some longtime attendees because of his voting record on women's rights.
Because now there's gonna be a big backlash, and I will tell you this.
In my experience, what I've seen, there's been something really interesting happening in the hacker community.
It's kind of split.
Most of my friends, who are longtime hackers, are hardcore anti-SJW.
And I get messages and emails from them, like, filling me in on what's going on in these events.
But the problem is, they're also not willing to take arms, metaphorically.
They're not willing to stand up and get active.
These people are.
And these people, in my experience, because I know a lot of these people, I grew up in My own little hacker community, and then went and became a member of some hacker spaces, and I know a ton of people.
The most skilled people I know tend to be anti-SJW.
And I know a lot of people who are moderately skilled, who are social justice warriors, or SJW, or whatever you want to call it.
And I don't mean social justice activists, I mean literally the regressive, you know, crazy, shut everybody down, no free speech, authoritarian stuff.
They're not as skilled, but they have collectives.
The issue with cybersecurity is that one person of moderate skill could easily, easily infect fish, you know, put a remote access tool or something on someone's computer.
So anyway, the point is, I think this is like, there's gonna be a weird split here.
And most people I know are messaging me saying, like, this is insane.
Like, why is this guy being removed?
He's being removed for things totally unrelated.
And I think this could escalate to something really interesting.
Though it's not the first, you know, kind of... I think this may be the biggest issue related to the culture war hitting the hacker community.
I could be wrong.
I know there's a lot to do with a conference called DerbyCon getting, you know, shut down, essentially.
But let's read on.
I don't want to deviate.
They say, Heard!
An outspoken Texas Republican who has drawn fire from his own party for regularly opposing the Trump administration was confirmed as keynote speaker in the conference Thursday for his background in cybersecurity.
Since taking office in Texas' 23rd district, the congressman has introduced several bills that would aim to secure Internet of Things devices and pushed to reauthorize the role of a federal chief information officer.
Sounds like a good idea.
But several people we've spoken to have described their unease that black hat organizers have asked her, a self-described pro-life lawmaker, given his consistent opposition to bills supporting women's rights.
I ask you, TechCrunch, why did you not reach out to any of the other hackers who disagree?
Notably, my friends, who are wondering why no one talks to them about these issues when they would push back.
Why is it that TechCrunch didn't actually try and talk to people who wanted him to speak or didn't?
And it's mostly just about how everyone's outraged.
They say this is where it gets really funny.
Kat Fitzgerald, an InfoSec professional and regular conference speaker, told TechCrunch that Hurd's choosing was a painfully poor choice.
Simply put, in 2019, women and minorities continue to be ignored, she said.
That's the picture of the guy.
You may notice, for those that are watching the video, Will Hurd is not a white man.
He is, my understanding is he's African-American.
I don't know what his full ethnicity is, but he's been referred to as African-American.
So, this is a minority who has an opinion, and now he's just been cancelled by a bunch of wealthy white progressives.
Isn't that funny?
So we can see here, this individual on Twitter said, wow, this is disappointing.
Now, here's what's interesting.
Zach Whitaker, who wrote the story, also tweeted, Rep Wilherd to Keynote Blackhead later this year, he's one of only a few lawmakers who get cyber, but he has a terrible voting record on women's rights.
Journalism, I love it.
A terrible voting record?
Well, if you were to ask a pro-lifer, he has a stupendous, wonderful voting record on human rights.
And this is the inherent issue.
Zach Whitaker tweeted this out and then uses a response to his own tweet in his TechCrunch story.
This is why I say, you know, so let's, you know what?
I'm done with this.
Look.
Here's Black Hat's official statement.
Black Hat has chosen to remove U.S.
Rep.
Will Hurd as our 2019 Black Hat USA keynote.
We've posted a statement here.
I was a regular attendee at Black Hat and DEFCON.
I didn't go last year for very complicated business reasons.
There's a lot of stuff going on.
But I've been a regular attendee to DEFCON and Black Hat, two of the biggest hacker conventions in the world in Las Vegas.
And it's some of the most fun you'll ever have.
And they've just... DEFCON's fine.
There's some issues with DEFCON getting overrun by activists who aren't hackers, and this is a really interesting phenomenon.
But Black Hat choosing to do this?
I'll say this, I'm done.
I will never, never go to Black Hat.
And I'm not pro-life.
By no means.
It's because we need to confront these people.
Okay, you want to talk to somebody, you're upset about someone being pro-life?
Removing him from Black Hat does literally nothing.
And this is an individual who is passing policy on cyber issues.
Let's hear what he has to say.
And then after he's done talking, you can say, I disagree with you on pro-life, and say whatever you want.
You need to confront these ideas.
But of course, it's all complete nonsense.
What we're seeing is regardless of what your skill is, social cohesion isn't working.
So, you know, I made the video the other day about the coming civil conflict or whatever it could be.
In response to Eric Weinstein saying that he thinks the political world is coming apart.
But let me just put it this way.
Let's say you like the president a little bit.
Well, then you get disinvited from something unrelated.
Let's say you disagree with Antifa.
They shut your bank account down.
Activists will actually tweet out, this man has a terrible record, and then use responses in his own story.
It's not journalism.
This is an activist blog.
Disguised as journalism.
What do you think happens when for unrelated reasons people are being removed from certain portions of society?
This is where the lines get drawn.
I don't think we're gonna see anything like North-South.
I don't think we're gonna see, like, two marching groups.
I think what we're gonna see is, in, like, in small-scale skirmishes, we've already seen pockets of, um, pop-up violence, I don't know what you can call it.
It started with the Trump rallies, where, uh, people would go up and talk about Trump, and then Antifa would show up and beat the crap out of people.
And now- then- then you have, now, people just walking around, getting attacked.
There have been, like, 800 instances of Trump supporters getting attacked.
So the violence is here.
But the important issue is a division in society straight up.
Let's take a look at what happened with Mythicist last year.
For those who are not familiar, Mythicist is a conference that hosts a lot of atheists, traditionally atheists, but now commentary on the culture war and politics.
I'm going to be working with the Mythicist guys for an event at the end of August in Pitman, New Jersey.
It's a Philadelphia area.
Someone called it a bomb threat.
Tried to get the event shut down.
Why?
No one there did anything.
No one there— I'm 99.9% sure all the speakers were, like, moderates.
Like, center-left to center-right.
I think we actually had— there was actually many progressives there.
There was no alt-right.
There were no racists.
It was literally, like, liberals and some conservatives and progressives.
It was literally swinging to the left, and someone called in a bomb threat to get shut down.
We don't know who, and it doesn't matter who.
The point is, they are not allowing social cohesion.
The outrage activists are wielding power that is causing irreparable damage to our institutions.
Why Blackhat would remove this guy, it's absolutely insane.
And they said some stupid nonsense about, they say we are still fully dedicated to providing an inclusive environment and apologize.
This decision did not reflect that sentiment.
You're right, because you removed a minority.
A keynote minority.
These people don't care about the politics they're preaching.
They don't.
They say, oh, but we have to talk to the minorities.
Well, he was going to keynote.
That's kind of a big deal, right?
Why would you do this?
They say, Black Hat has chosen to remove U.S.
Rep.
William Hurd as our 2019 Black Hat keynote.
We misjudged the separation of technology and politics, said a statement.
We will continue to focus on technology and research.
However, we recognize that Black Hat USA is not the appropriate platform for the polarizing political debate resulting from our choice of speaker.
No!
No matter who you pick, they will come for you.
Check this out.
This made me laugh.
FireEye.
We are pleased to announce that former U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a featured keynote at our FireEye summit in October.
Secretary Clinton will engage in an intimate Q&A keynote discussion with Kevin Mandia.
Why is Hillary Clinton speaking at a cyber defense summit?
She destroyed servers using a software called BleachBit, and then I believe it was her aides took hammers to smash her phones.
Listen, BleachBit is pretty good.
My understanding is it's not perfect, and there's always ways to recover data from a server.
But let me just give you some advice.
If you want to wipe all of the data from your phone, I would recommend, first, actually wiping the phone.
I would recommend then downloading, getting a specialized software, something that's akin to BleachBit, to do a sweep.
You want to do like a rewrite seven times.
I would then recommend smashing it with a hammer.
I'd then recommend putting it through an industrial grater.
I would then recommend lighting it all on fire and pissing on it.
Because let me assure you, smashing it with a hammer will do literally nothing to stop someone from recovering data.
I mean, potentially, it makes it harder.
But you can actually burn a device and people are able to recover data from these things.
You would be surprised.
You would be... Maybe you wouldn't.
But let me assure you, what Clinton's people did in terms of smashing things with hammers sounds like a bunch of kindergartners—it reminds me of Zoolander, when they're like, the files are in the computer and then they throw it and destroy it.
Like, that's how they think things work.
You could absolutely recover data from this.
So here's the point I want to make, because we won't go too long on this one.
They talk about, literally in this story, that minorities are being ignored.
Like, what are you talking about?
This dude's a minority!
I'd be willing to bet this woman, Kat Fitzgerald, is a white woman.
Not that it necessarily matters, but it's an issue of white, wealthy progressives attacking minorities while claiming to be anti-racist.
Isn't that funny?
That's actually really hilarious.
But the last thing I want to end on and reiterate is the issue being when it hits the hacker community.
I think there's a big potential for a dramatic escalation in that Black Hat hackers... Let me stop, though.
Black Hat is a very corporate event.
It's like people from offices.
But the people who do show up, who do have these skills to actually break into systems, to phish, you know, implanting remote access tools, taking over devices, doing really crazy things, they can do this from the shadows.
They can do this overseas.
It's very difficult for law enforcement to find who these people are.
Which means if this really does get to the point of full-on conflict on the scale, look, when you see Trump supporters and Antifa fighting in the streets, these are people whose skills lie, you know, elsewhere.
So they're fighting.
What do you think happens when the same kind of conflict erupts between hacker communities?
We're going to see data dumps, leaks, et cetera.
And we've already seen groups go out and try and leak chat messages and emails and things like that.
So I think this escalation is going to be much more insane.
But again, the final thought I want to make is if you can't even speak at a conference because you have other political values which are held by about half the country, well, I don't know where we're going.
It's just the divide is getting crazier.
The Democrats have took a massive shift to the left.
The Republicans have been slowly veering to the right.
And I think what we're going to see moving forward is both sides view each other as evil.
They say you're denying women's rights.
The pro-lifers say you're denying human rights.
And you will never convince either that they're denying anyone else's rights.
So what happens?
If you can't come to an agreement, and you're both accusing each other of violating human rights, you're gonna see something really bad happen.
I'll leave it there.
Whatever, man.
I don't know.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
Next one at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you in the next story.
Regulation is looming for Facebook and Google, and they're not too happy about it.
Facebook's been stocking up on antitrust lawyers, and now we have this story from the Daily Mail.
We need to be big so we can invent the future and own that too.
Google CEO begs regulators not to split the company up so that IT can dominate advances in AI and quantum computing.
Here's the thing.
That's not entirely the reason why Google needs to be regulated and broken up.
It's because they have a disproportionate amount of control over politics, public discourse.
Everything flows from there.
The opinions held by people are being skewed by social media, and it's warping their minds, and we need to do something about that.
The problem is... So listen, I'll put it this way.
Social media is always going to have these problems.
Maybe we can do something, maybe we can't.
But what we can do is stop them from unilaterally deciding who is or isn't allowed to speak.
That is up to the public to decide, not a massive privately, you know, or publicly shared, but a massive international billion-dollar corporation.
It's people like Sundar Pichai who says, we're going to ban certain speech.
Well, who gave you the right to tell people what they can or can't say?
And don't give me that private platform nonsense.
We're talking about civics, not a private business.
We're talking about telephones, platforms.
Is YouTube a telephone?
Or is YouTube the Wall Street Journal?
Pick one.
You can't be both.
Could you imagine if you called your friend and said, man, I don't like X. And then all of a sudden your phone cut out and they canceled your service?
Yes.
That's a platform.
Pick one and stick with it.
So here's what we'll do.
Let's read this story and see what Sundar Pichai had to say.
Before we get started, head over to... where is it, Tim?
TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, liking and commenting are the best things you can do, outside of sharing the actual link, but subscribe as well.
Engaging with the video, like, helps it in the algorithm or something, I think.
Google's CEO has made an appeal that the company should not be broken up as federal regulators and Congress are directing increasing scrutiny at the tech goliath.
Google's massive size allows it to invest in future technologies without worrying about short-term profits.
Yeah, and you can still invest in other companies and not worry about short-term profits.
A lot of investments are long-term investments, taking several years before you see any returns.
Scale does offer many benefits.
It's important to understand that, argued Pichai, big companies are what are investing in technologies like AI the most.
Yes, and other people would invest if it wasn't a massive international billion-dollar corporation restricting speech and people's rights.
Pichai even hinted that if Google were subject to antitrust regulation, it would spell doom for American innovation, allowing competitors like China to seize the advantage.
Well, I'll tell you what, China's already stealing our technology, so I don't know what you're doing to stop it in the first place.
He said, There are many countries around the world which aspire to
be the next Silicon Valley, and they are supporting their companies too.
So we have to balance both, he said in response to a question about China.
It comes as Google and other tech giants face withering scrutiny over privacy practices,
censorship, the gutting of local journalism, and potential anti-competitive practices.
Yes.
Because I- I- I- Many of you may know this.
One of my videos has been censored.
I have a video- It's going on my main channel.
I'm gonna- I'm- I'm making sure this one's a big issue.
YouTube is censoring journalism.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that, quite literally.
So I'll get to all of that, but the quick note, I guess, is that Project Veritas published an expose, some investigative journalism.
Apparently, anybody who talks about it is getting flagged for privacy, even though all the other outlets are covering it.
So this is a serious issue.
But I'll go into depth on that in the next segment at 4 p.m.
Those on the podcast may have already heard this, but the point I'm trying to make is They have too much power.
And you're gonna get regulated.
When you cross the line and you violate public trust, you get regulated.
The people have more power than the corporations, period.
That's what the government's supposed to be doing.
Let's read on.
They say it emerged earlier this month the Justice Department will look at Google and Apple while the Federal Trade Commission will probe Amazon and Facebook to determine if they abused their massive market power, setting up what could be unprecedented wide-ranging probes of some of the world's largest companies.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee is launching its own antitrust inquiry into the tech industry, including Google, asked about the various probes.
Is it Pinchai?
I thought it was Pichai.
Did I spell it wrong?
Yeah, it is Pichai.
Senator Pichai.
They say, Pinchai, misspelling, tried to project an air of equanimity, saying it was perfectly fine for companies like Google to be scrutinized when they get big enough.
Scrutiny is right, and we'll participate constructively in these discussions.
And hopefully, the government actually does something and implements some kind of policy and regulation.
And I always want to add this caveat, because a lot of anti-regulation conservatives say no, because of free speech fears.
The government can't restrict speech, they can only protect it.
Any regulation on Google, Twitter, Facebook, or whatever, pertaining to speech, will ensure it, not restrict it.
The story says the growing hostility to Google's market dominance has also appeared on the presidential campaign trail, with Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat seeking the party's nomination, explicitly promising to break the company up if elected.
I think there needs to be healthy debate, Pichai said, when asked about Warren's vow.
Any campaign has moments around that, but what matters to me is the healthy, thoughtful conversations around it.
I worry that if you regulate for the sake of regulating it, it has a lot of unintended consequences.
And that's another good point.
Simply saying we need to break them up and promising to do so speaks nothing to me.
I don't care if Google is one company or a hundred.
I care about what they can and can't do.
Okay?
So you look at YouTube, for instance.
YouTube is a video hosting platform.
It's also an ad agency.
Okay?
I don't care if you separate them to different companies.
I really don't.
The same thing will occur.
You know what I mean?
The issue is whether or not Google has a right to censor legally protected speech.
So put them in the same thing, fine.
It'll streamline things, okay.
But protect the rights of individuals.
On Tuesday, the U.S.
Justice Department's antitrust chief suggested he'll take a broad view of how competition is harmed when assessing whether big tech firms should be broken up.
Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim also was clear in a speech in Israel that he is well aware that just two companies dominate digital advertising, though he did not name the two Google and Facebook.
Absolutely.
And it makes it really difficult for any competitor.
Now I will say this, I'm really confused as to why, maybe I'm just ignorant of the issues, why other social media platforms haven't rolled out partner programs.
I don't know how Twitter would do it.
I got like 3 million impressions on Twitter yesterday.
There are people who get way more for sure, but 3 million, that means my tweet appeared in the feet of people over 3 million times.
Or around 3 million, it was like 2.8 something.
So, I don't know how you necessarily monetize something like that unless you put ads on my profile or in a tweet thread.
It doesn't really seem to make sense.
Maybe you could, like, put an ad underneath someone's tweet.
I don't know.
All I know is that YouTube does have a monetization system.
Why doesn't Vimeo?
Why doesn't any other outlet sell ads?
Google and Facebook definitely dominate the ad marketplace, but they're not the only game in town.
What's stopping any of these other smaller social platforms from doing partner programs?
That's what gives YouTube the monopoly.
Now, when it comes to AdWords, it's a complicated system, but I will say, Google taking a massive cut of people's ad revenue is absolutely displacing journalism.
And then when they go and censor my journalism, yeah, things start to look like a serious, serious problem.
Let's read on.
Google and Facebook's free-to-consumers services have long been used as an argument against antitrust action, with the companies arguing that their market dominance doesn't cost consumers.
Consumers actually enjoyed lower prices during the height of Standard Oil's dominance, Delrahim pointed out, referring to the company that was ruled an illegal monopoly and broken up in 1911.
The current landscape suggests there are only one or two significant players in important digital spaces, including internet search, social networks, mobile and desktop operating systems, and electronic book sales, he said in the speech, which was published on the DOJ website.
This is true in certain input markets as well.
For example, just two firms take in the lion's share of online ad spending.
So I'll do this.
I want to stress, I am less concerned about the fact that Facebook and Google control a lot of, like, they have control over a lot of different sectors, and I'm more concerned about violating human rights.
There's actually some really great benefits to, uh, some really great benefits to actually being a large company and only having a few companies.
So let me give you some examples.
Cell phones and banks.
Banks can be a problem, for sure.
But there are some pros that we should absolutely talk about, because I don't want to sit here and just, you know, kind of point everything in one direction.
I remember the early days of cell phones.
I remember, I think it was my mom had a cell phone that basically only worked in downtown Chicago, and if she tried to use it at home, it was like long distance or something.
Because the cell company only had towers in downtown to service people while they were at work.
For a while, there were a bunch of other companies.
I remember I had a Cellular One plan back in the day, and it was insanely expensive.
I couldn't even send text messages.
But then something happened when they started to consolidate.
Now, one phone works everywhere.
In fact, you can use T-Mobile anywhere in the world.
Well, mostly anywhere.
That's kind of great.
I don't gotta worry about switching plans or calling anybody.
My phone just works.
Also, think about banks.
So, when you have a big national bank, you have ATMs everywhere, it's actually way more convenient.
The bank that I use is, I use a credit union, and it exists in very few places, which makes it really, really hard for me.
So when you look at the, you know, one, you know, a very few companies controlling a lot of, having a lot of territory and being massive, there can be benefits.
But I want to make sure I stress, I'm not here just to talk about monopolies being great.
Quite the contrary.
They're extremely problematic.
They need to be broken up to a certain extent.
We need to figure out what parts of Google and what parts of Facebook need to be removed, because it quite possibly could just be the advertising agency.
Maybe we need a rule that says if you're a platform, you cannot host your own ad sales.
It has to be delivered by third parties.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Because I definitely don't want to create a domino effect that destroys everything.
So I want to make sure there's balance here, and my bigger concern is protecting civil rights.
Individual rights.
If Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
dominate the public sphere in terms of conversation and advertising, well now we've got a problem.
And perhaps the answer isn't breaking them up, but after a certain size, you must adhere to constitutional law.
Period.
Because otherwise, you're disrupting our civic process.
So I'll leave it there.
I am now going to record on the censorship I face.
So stick around.
That video will be up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
I'm rightly angry, and I have a lot to go through, and it's really interesting stuff.
So, uh, stick around, and I will see you shortly.
I covered a story a little while ago about a guy named Dr. Ewan Lenihan, and he did some research where he correlated some Twitter accounts and found several journalists that were deeply connected with Antifa.
And I pointed out that it would, you know, take it with a grain of salt just because they're connected on social media doesn't really mean anything, they could be arguing with each other, they could just follow them, they could be a journalist who covers this stuff, which they do, and I think anybody who presents you with this weird crime web and tries to do a guilt by association thing should be, for the most part, ignored, right?
But I did talk about it because some of the people that were implicated I knew personally were working with Antifa, you know, so it is what it is.
We see this story from Columbia Journalism Review.
I did highlight this story on my main channel, but I want to get in depth because new information has emerged.
The story is from Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch, who's writing for the Columbia Journalism Review.
And I want to be a dick or anything, but this is just not news.
Apparently, information has leaked showing that Jared Holt has purposefully lied, I guess?
Made fake news?
The story's titled, Right Wing Publications Launder an Anti-Journalist Smear Campaign.
We'll read some of this.
of this.
Last month, a number of media outlets ran stories touting claims from a study posted
on Twitter that alleged nefarious connections between anti-fascist activists and national
level reporters who cover the far right.
On May 15, Eowyn Lenihan, a far right social media user, I don't know what that means,
far right, presented a report.
what he said were excerpts from a data set that proved prominent reporters who
cover extremist movements were closely associated with anti-fascist activists.
Whether or not his research is legitimate, I don't know. I take all of
that with a grain of salt and correlation is not causation and simply
because they interact on Twitter doesn't mean they support each other. I interact
a lot with Antifa accounts as well. You wouldn't call me pro-Antifa. However,
several of the journalists implicated I know personally have seen their private
communications and can say yeah these guys are literally working with
activists on fake news.
But let's read on.
He identified himself as an online extremism researcher despite having no association with any previously known organization that researches extremism.
That's actually not true.
We have a story here from the Daily Caller.
It says behind the CJR's hit job on a researcher exposing anti-vote journalist connections.
Apparently, Dr. Ewan Linehan published a massive response on the 6th of June to Jared Holt, answering all of his questions in depth, and we actually have, excuse me, there is a publication which has accepted his research paper, of which he is associated.
The paper was submitted in May.
So, for some reason, we have fake news up on CJR.
Let's read more, because it does get really interesting.
They say, in reality, Lenihan was already an established right-wing troll, now blanket banned for violating rules against managing multiple Twitter accounts for abusive purposes.
However, this is apparently also omitting really important context.
In reality, the account run by Ewan Lenihan, Progressive Dad, received a suspension for mocking the alt-right, apparently.
So, I don't know if you can call it far-right.
I don't really know anything about the account.
Just that, at least in some capacity, it wasn't just targeting the left.
But according to Ewan Lenihan, I guess, he said it was mocking outrage culture from the left and the right.
Jared Holt writes, Lenahan's Twitter thread was met with enthusiasm on the right.
His claims among them that one writer is an eco-extremist, that a website that posts court documents is a doxing site, and that Antifa is often more violent than right-wing fascist groups were taken at face value by outlets including Breitbart, PJ Media, Red State, and Human Events and RT.
Except some of these were commenting on them, and it's— Breitbart, I'm not a fan of, you know.
Some of their stories are okay, but they definitely swing things, and so does— You know, I gotta say this.
Outside of Human Events, I think Human Events is pretty good.
They've screwed up, I've criticized them before.
The other ones, you know, I take— I very careful— I tread very carefully whenever I use any sources from them.
It's not that it's fake, but it's just so bloated with hyper-partisan nonsense.
It is the latest example of unreliable information circulating rapidly through an ecosystem of fringe outlets without even the appearance of due diligence, such as baseless reports that tech platforms discriminate against conservatives, or that leftist agitators are trying to foment a new American Civil War.
Well, the second one I think is absurd.
I think, no one's trying to make it happen, it's just people are getting divided.
But I think it's, and what is this a link to, PS Mag?
Discriminate against conservatives, this is just ridiculous like fake news.
Pinterest admittedly, like, was censoring conservative groups.
Jack Dorsey said they were too aggressive.
Like, they're on the record.
We're past this now.
But I guess, you know, Jared Holt doesn't really care.
I don't know.
Now here's where it gets funny.
So, you know, when I saw this crime web thing, I'm like, you know, here we go.
They did the same thing to me.
I take it all with a grain of salt.
Some of the people on there are self-admitted Antifa.
I don't think it's an issue.
And, you know, he says that they're connected.
You could be connected to Antifa because you rag on them all the time, I'm sure.
If Sargon was still online, he'd be very connected to them, so it's kind of silly.
However, Jared brings up Quillette, a publication dedicated to free thought, that gave Lenahan a bylined article on its site to share his claims, where Lenahan embedded posts from his Twitter thread, echoed his assertion that reporters were working to promote Antifa activists, some of them are, yes, I can confirm that because I have leaked documents.
I shouldn't say leaked documents, I've seen their private communications, is a better way to put it.
And accused them of, like, their messenger stuff, I've seen it.
and accused them of violating professional ethical standards. I mean, that's kind of
paradoxical. Like, literally, CJR is violating ethical standards because Ewan Lenihan sent
this huge email thread to Jared Holt, of which he included none of the relevant context,
such as the fact that he was banned for mocking a right-wing group or something like that.
When C.J.R.
reached Quillette founding editor Claire Lehman for comment via Twitter, she first inquired what issues C.J.R.
found with Lenihan's study.
When C.J.R.
responded asking how Quillette determined Lenihan's allegations were legitimate, and whether Lenihan's story underwent a fact check or legal review prior to publication, she declined to comment.
And?
So she doesn't have to comment.
You wanna know what's funny?
What really makes me angry about this story?
Check this out.
September 19th, 2018.
YouTube's secret life as an engine for right-wing radicalization.
They published the infamous AIN report, the Alternative Influence Network, which has no data, which makes false connections, false statements of fact.
And when I reached out to CJR for comment, they ignored me.
I made a video debunking it and criticizing several outlets.
I didn't reach out to a major publication saying, I need to publish in your outlet.
I reached out to several journalists and said, hey, can you tell me how you fact check this?
Same as Jared.
The only issue is, Ewan Lenihan provided all of this information to Jared, apparently.
And there's even, according to the Daily Caller, They say, Holt also insinuated that Lenihan was hiding something because he did not specify which journal was considering publishing his study.
But Lenihan says he was never asked.
The screenshot below confirms the article is under review by the journal Social Networks.
I don't know what Social Networks is, but it is, there's a screenshot of it.
And we can see that, um, look at this huge response that Ewan Lenihan gave to Jared Holt, of which Jared Holt didn't publish.
Then we have CJR itself publishing overt fake news.
So, so what is this?
Well, what I was trying to say early on, um, or maybe it's a different video.
I can't remember.
You have journalists who are either lying.
In this instance, I am going to directly accuse, uh, Jared Holt of lying.
I will, I will say that it, and, and, you know, I've, I've talked with him in the past.
I've met him in person and I'm going to say.
It is my personal opinion Jared Holt is lying outright and knows full well that he's lying.
It was not an accident.
It is an outright lie.
We can see here what the bias of Columbia Journalism Review.
The fact that they would publish the Alternative Influence Network, which claims Chris Ragon is connected to Richard Spencer.
I kid you not.
If you don't know who Chris Ragon is, he makes games about, I'm sorry, he makes videos about games and jokes.
Richard Spencer is alt-right.
I don't even think either of these guys have ever said their names until this thing was published.
I bet Spencer doesn't even know who Chris Raygun is.
The article connected me to Stefan Molyneux.
Met the guy one time recently, like a few months ago, when he was like, oh, hey, Tim, nice to meet you.
I'm like, how's it going?
And that was it.
The most I've ever talked to him.
They claimed we did a guest collaboration.
Ridiculous lies.
I also had a conversation with a New York-based journalist who confirmed from Data & Society, quote, some connections are not actual.
Did CJR do any fact-checking?
No.
Did The Guardian?
Did Fast Company?
No.
None of these people did.
So I have to assume, because Jared Holt has shared this study in the past, and he didn't fact-check it, he's lying!
Plain and simple.
Jared, if you're watching, I'm calling you a liar.
I'm calling you a liar because I know you know what this report is, I know you've read it, I know you know it's factually incorrect, because you never fact-checked it.
Hold on, let me stop.
I'll say this.
You're a liar because...
You didn't fact-check this report, but you shared it.
Other outlets shared it, including CGR, who did not fact-check it.
You never confirmed this.
You never bothered to confirm it.
So you either just don't care, which means you're lying about whether or not you're actually concerned if Quillette did any fact-checking, or you know full well you personally have published outright fake news and you're willfully manipulating people because, I don't know, you're a bad person.
And this is actually really interesting, too, because I was in Portland for a protest, and there was a journalist, actually, interestingly enough, one of the people named in the Ewan Lenahan report, who lied to a ridiculous degree about what happened in Portland.
And I was just like, wow, none of that happened.
And Jared Holt actually got the story pretty spot on about the conflict between, like, Proud Boys right-wing and left-wing groups.
I was like, wow, you know, probably the best write-up came from Jared Holt.
So I have to wonder why he would publish this nonsense.
And why C.J.R.' 's editors would allow these two stories to coexist when they quite literally contradict each other.
How can you have one story claiming you didn't fact check a dubious report, but they also didn't fact check a dubious report?
And also, I know for a fact C.J.R.
knows it's dubious because I've reached out to them and sent them many messages.
So I doubt they just... Maybe they just click delete when they see my... Oh, it's Tim Pool, just delete it.
Even though I've spoken at Columbia on more than one occasion and given a guest lecture to a PhD journalism class.
I don't know if they're associated with Columbia necessarily.
I don't know what CGR, if it is, but I will say this.
I'm not going to read to the Daily Caller story.
You know, I don't care if all of this proves all of their, you know, Jared Holt's lying or whatever.
I think we're seeing a decent amount of evidence that Elon Han provided some in-depth information pertaining to what his study was about, and we can see that it is up for review, at least with his social networks.
All that really matters is that CJR is full of it, because they published fake news Overt fake news without fact-checking it.
And then Jared Holt complained that someone else did literally the same thing.
I guess it is kind of different considering Ewan Linehan actually does have a data set he presented, and the AIN report literally has no data set, I kid you not.
The woman from Data Society literally just used, like, she just made connections up.
She claimed that I was connected to a bunch of people I never met before.
She drew a line for me to Andy Warsky.
I don't even know who that guy is!
It's ridiculous.
But the line from me to Stefan Molyneux, it's like, dude, I know who that guy is.
I've said, like, hello to him one time, and that was, like, three or four months ago.
And this study came out, like, in September.
Never met the guy before.
So, outright lies.
False statements of fact from Dana Society.
But you know what?
I don't go around calling their sponsors and doing any of that stupid nonsense.
I don't publish this story, you know, contradicting my own publication.
So, you know what?
I'm gonna leave it there.
I don't care for this story anymore.
But I will end by saying, I believe, it is my personal understanding, that because Jared is familiar with the AIN report and didn't fact check it, he's either just...
He's either lying, like he knows it's fake news and he's sharing it because it's politically expedient, and then doing this because it's politically expedient.
You know, he has no principles or standards.
Or the issue is he's just really, really bad at his job.
Which I want to stress, I don't think is the case.
I'm really confused because, like I said, his report for Right Wing Watch from Portland was the best report out of any of the stories that had come out.
Save for, like, a few independent journalists.
Like, Huffington Post, Daily Beast.
Like, this wrote nonsense.
It's, like, overt fake news.
And then he wrote for Whitening Watch, like, with actual nuance and understanding.
I'm like, oh, wow!
And then I see this, and I'm like, what are you doing?
So maybe it's the editor.
Maybe it's the editor from CGR.
So, I don't know.
But we'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got some more segments coming up in a few moments, and I will see you shortly.
From Quillette.
The new inequality, the decline of the working class family.
Interesting article, and Quillette I think is a pretty decent publication.
I say decent, I'm not gonna act like they're the best in the world, but I think they do a fairly good job.
Although not always, there have been a few things they've published that have been rather frustrating.
And I'll call it out.
Specifically, it's when they decide to criticize the intellectual dark web by ragging on Dave Rubin.
It's like, listen, I get it.
You don't have to like Dave Rubin, but Dave Rubin is not the intellectual dark web.
There's other people involved.
And whatever this critical space is that many of us happen to inhabit, not saying, you know, the intellectual dark web is very specific, but there's a peripheral group of which people have associated me.
And it's, I don't want to get too much into it because I don't want to be associated with any group.
But it's like, if you're going to come after the critics, the liberals, whatever, just stop.
Dave Rubin is not the poster child for literally every YouTube channel that's critical of the regressive left.
Please.
Rant over.
Let's read the article about families.
The family has been called the cornerstone of society, and for good reason.
According to studies, children born to married parents are more likely to go to university and less likely to receive government benefits.
Children raised in fatherless homes, however, appear more likely to face worse outcomes when it comes to well-being, education, and mental health.
Married people also appear to be healthier and happier.
Oh, good for them!
I'm 33, single, and childless.
And why is that?
And that's partly why I wanted to read this article.
I'm successful.
I have relationships.
I have some on-and-off people right now.
Maybe saying I'm single is a bit unfair, but I would say I'm not in any overtly committed thing with anybody.
And I will stress too, the reason you're not gonna hear from who my female companion would
be is because I don't want them getting death threats, if you know what I mean.
But there's probably one person, but I guess it's interesting why millennials are not married,
they're not having families, they're not having kids, and now we're seeing a decline in families,
and I wonder what this is going to mean. So instead of just deviating and ranting,
let's keep reading. According to a report, before the 1970s, there were no large class
divides in American family life.
Most people got married and stayed married, and the children were raised in two-parent families.
This trend eventually changed, with poor and less educated people becoming less likely to get married and stay married.
The decline of marriage is also correlated with the rise of single mother households.
A similar decline of the working class family appears to exist in the UK, with men from poor backgrounds being significantly more likely to be single in their 40s than richer men.
Interesting!
I have a hypothesis, but let's read on.
Marriage is correlated with several positive outcomes for both men and women.
But the effects appear to be larger for men.
Married men tend to live longer and be healthier than men who never married or were divorced or widowed.
There could be a number of reasons for this.
For example, perhaps healthy men are just more likely to be married.
However, research suggests this is unlikely.
Unhealthy men actually marry earlier, are less likely to divorce, and are more likely to remarry following divorce or bereavement than healthy men.
Another factor is that men suffer from loneliness more than women, as it is harder for them to form friendships and they participate in social activities less often.
While married men can be encouraged by their wives to be more social, single men tend to become isolated as they grow older.
They go on to say that divorce also increases the risk of suicide more in men than women.
This is likely because divorced men tend to have less contact with their children and also because of reasons related to increased isolation.
So it could, they're going to say, it could also be that men are less likely to seek therapy for their mental problems than women, possibly because of the masculine ideals of self-reliance and resilience.
The fact that psychotherapy is a field dominated by women might be another factor that discourages men from seeking help, as some may view it as female-centric.
Well, I'm not going to get into a little bit, I want to move on and talk about some more issues pertaining to family and where we're going, but I do want to say one thing.
Why I think I'm not married and don't have kids Actually has to do with gender norms in society.
I believe that if it was in the 1950s, I would have been married eight years ago.
Obviously, you know, society was very different.
People got married at a younger age.
But I think it has to do with more with feminism.
So I was in, I don't know, I don't want to call it a serious relationship, with a woman that I found both attractive mentally and physically.
And it ended because she had a career.
That's seriously it.
I work 24-7.
I take no days off.
That's not going to change.
So if I'm going to be with someone, it's going to be with, you know, a woman who wants to raise a family and basically be a stay-at-home mom.
It's actually really difficult to find these days, especially for someone who, like me, like, I'm a liberal dude, you know?
So that means my politics for, like, I'm not gonna get too much into my politics, but I'll just leave it there, like, I'm a center-left liberal.
Fairly moderate, so I do get along with conservatives just fine.
But our values are at odds with each other.
And so, I find that most of the women I end up meeting have careers and have goals outside of family.
Okay, well, so do I. And I'm interested in having a family, but that means I need someone who wants to be, like, professionally running the family, while I professionally run the business.
Can't really find that.
Can't.
And I've been in relationships with women where we've had the conversation, and then it results in, you know, her basically saying, like, my career comes first.
And hey, man, more power to ya.
Freedom and liberty.
If that's you, go for it.
And we don't break up because of it.
We break up because, like, the one relationship that comes to mind, we both traveled all the time, and we were in foreign cities all the time, and then we were never around.
I'm like, I guess we're not dating anymore.
It's like, there you go.
So, for me, as an urban-dwelling millennial, you know, center-left person, I'm finding most women, you know, they might want to have a family, but they're not doing it.
I don't know.
I can't tell exactly what they want.
I guess a lot of them want to have jobs and, you know, do the same thing as guys.
And, again, more power to you.
I have no problem with that.
But it does mean that, in the end, there will not be a relationship.
There will not be a family.
And while I'm not saying that will never happen, I'm saying at least now it's delayed up until the woman decides she wants to have kids.
And there's a lot of social issues that are arising from this.
A lot of stories about women who are waiting too long, and women have a biological clock, men don't.
So for me, I'm kind of like under no pressure.
I'm doing great, business is booming, I'm having a good time, I'm working non-stop, and I can basically have kids whenever I want.
But the women my age that I'm attracted to are doing the same thing as me.
And while I hold no disdain for that, it just means there's not going to be a relationship.
You see what I mean?
So this ultimately results in the decline of the family, I suppose.
But let's read what they say.
I thought that was an interesting thing.
I've talked about this before, but we'll read on.
Why did the working class family decline?
Some people will speculate that working class families are more financially insecure, and that's why they face more hardships when it comes to marriage.
Of course, this is likely true to an extent, but it does not explain why working class families used to be more stable before the 70s.
Since the decline of working class family appears to have started around the time of the gender revolution of the 1960s and change in cultural norms that followed it, it's possible that these changes affected those from the lower classes differently than those from middle and upper classes.
One can speculate that people from less privileged backgrounds have fewer resources to succeed in the world of casual dating.
The scholar Amy Wax argues that the moral deregulation of sex and marriage made things more difficult for working-class people because they often don't approach these matters with a long-term perspective the way that wealthier people do.
Another problem appears to be that working class men are considered less marriageable, something that is likely the result of the job instability they face.
Indeed, the labor participation among men appears to have fallen.
Things might even get worse in the future, as one British estimate predicted that traditionally male jobs are at higher risk of being automated than traditionally female jobs.
Women are also more likely to go to college than men.
Yada yada.
So, Tucker Carlson and the response of the left, interesting.
They say, the conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson has made several references to the decline of the working class family and working class men in particular.
No matter who Tucker Carlson is and how questionable some of his views may be, he appears to be right in this case.
It's also likely that the decline of working class men contributed partially to the recent rise in populism, as both Trump and Brexit were supported in large part by the working class.
The left often shies away from making a strong case for family values, despite the fact that family stability may be immensely beneficial for the working class and for black Americans, who have high rates of single mother families.
It's not hard to see why, as the progressive left is anti-traditionalist.
It has also strongly supported the feminist revolution, we'll call it that, and the empowerment of women, so it's understandable why some might be disinclined to admit that these changes could have had some negative results for certain groups of people.
Some on the far left even view the nuclear family as an oppressive structure.
Which is insane.
That is not to say that the revolution or women's empowerment have been bad for society overall, or that conservatives have a clear solution for many of the issues mentioned above, but the left is missing a huge opportunity by neglecting the value in marriage.
So, I'll put it this way.
In my opinion, I think one of the issues I take with modern feminism Is that there is a balance between nature and nurture.
Should women have the opportunity to pursue any career in any job they want 100% without obstruction and anybody who would discriminate against any woman, any person based on their race, gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ status, wrong.
Everybody has the opportunity.
I think it becomes dangerous when we get to equality of outcome, which of course many people
talked about, and they still talk about. But the issue, I guess, is that women are being told today,
at least this is how I see it, obviously it's not universal, just in my world, the women I know,
are being told you have to have a career, don't have a family. There's no one encouraging women
to have families. There's no one encouraging men to have families, right? No one comes to me and
says, where's your kids? Certainly, I think women probably get it more than men do, because no one's
ever come to me asking me when I'm having a family. And I know some women who talk about
about how their grandparents ask them.
But I feel like society only cares about career.
And so look how it's affected me.
I never take days off, right?
This isn't my life.
I just work non-stop.
And so that is also, you know, my fault in a sense in why I don't have a family.
If I took more time off to focus on dating and finding someone to raise a family with, probably find them.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
There's been obvious detriment to the decline of families.
But I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Should female athletes be paid the same as male athletes?
The answer is a resounding yes.
But what does that mean, paid the same?
I believe it means, well first, it's kind of a balance, but I believe for the most part it means you are paid proportionally to the amount of money your business makes.
Period.
If I own a bakery, and my bakery sells $100 worth of cupcakes every day, and a block away is a bakery owned by a woman that sells $10 worth of cupcakes every day, I'm not going to then, like, the government can't come in or whatever and be like, you better pay the woman more because the men are getting paid more.
It's like, dude, no one's buying their cupcakes.
Like, the money's not there.
However, there is some nuance here.
We have this story from Pluralist, and I try to be careful using Pluralist because it's very, like, sensational.
But they say, U.S.
WNT fans say teams should be paid more after 13-0 win.
Get reminded of loss to U15 boys.
So this is a really interesting debate of which I have personal experience in as I have friends who are female skateboarders.
And there's a really interesting story.
Maybe apocryphal, but, you know, I was there a few years after this interesting thing happened.
I was told some interesting information.
So let me just... Let's just get started, right?
Actually, before we do, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
You get it.
There's a bunch of ways you can donate.
But also, like, comment, share, subscribe, the engagement really helps.
But anyway, back to the point.
There are a lot of people saying right now that because women's sports doesn't attract enough fans, they don't have the money to pay women the same as men.
A male soccer player might get paid, you know, six figures, and a female might get paid, you know, forty or fifty thousand.
The activists, the social justice crowd, is saying that's unfair.
They're the best females in the world.
They should get paid what best females should get paid.
To an extent, I completely agree.
If you have the best of the best, it doesn't matter what division it is, that you should be paying one more than the other.
The issue is, they're presumably two different businesses.
So, what do you do?
Look at it this way.
Back to my cupcake analogy.
If my female employees came to me and said, the men working at the Starbucks across the street get paid twice as much as we do, we want more money, because they're men, I'm gonna be like, but we're a different business.
Like, I get it, we sell coffee and cupcakes too, but we don't make the money they make.
They're Starbucks.
I can't just give you a raise because other employees at a different company are making money.
Now, some people have pointed out that female athletes just aren't as good as male athletes.
And that is true.
Period.
Obviously, there are some issues like, you know, I don't know, skateboarding's a really good example.
Well, actually, skateboarding's not necessarily a good example because there is a clear, you know, skill divide.
But there are some sports that are judged.
Skateboarding is one of them, but skateboarding's a bit different because there is a technical aspect to it.
But there are a lot of sports where you can do something and then a judge determines whether or not he thinks you are good at it.
And so you could say, sure, to an extent, the guy's better than the girl, that's a bit different.
Skateboarding is where my experience in this comes in.
But you know what we'll do before I get to the anecdotes?
I want to point out the point of this story I have pulled up.
They write, this conversation comes amid a controversy over an alleged gender pay gap in sports.
The women's team set a World Cup record for most goals in a single game by beating Thailand 13-0 in its tournament opener.
Thailand's players were in tears when the final whistle was blown.
Some criticized the US women for continuing to enthusiastically celebrate goals, even if the game was clearly decided.
This is an issue of women competing against women, and one team being just really, really bad.
Just because the women won 13-0 doesn't mean those women are better than men.
It means the team they were playing against was trash.
But other fans used the win to argue that American women's players should be paid as much as their male counterparts.
I have a really good argument, so hear me out.
We really ought to be paying men more when the USWNT just scored 13 goals and got the all-time world record for most World Cup goals in one match, wrote one commenter whose tweet garnered more than 1,300 likes and 400 retweets.
All the insecure men in the reply saying they lost to a U15 team are making my brain melt.
What 30-year-old national champions having a scrimmage with 15-year-olds when they have a real game the next day would play even close to their hardest?
Oh, please.
The pro women played against 15-year-old boys and lost.
Period.
Okay?
So if you want to argue it's skill-based, sure, but none of that even matters.
This is a stupid argument.
We know that women aren't as good as men at many, many sports.
Skateboarding included.
And this argument does nothing to advance the conversation of what women do or don't deserve.
Now let me break it down for you with some facts as to what... First of all, this is all nonsense, okay?
It doesn't matter if they scored 13-0.
Not an argument.
Just because a team is bad doesn't mean that you deserve more money, okay?
You won against somebody and set a record, sure, because you're playing against people who were really bad and you were good, or they had a bad day.
And just because a soccer team lost to 15-year-old boys doesn't change anything about how business runs.
So let's get back to the cupcake analogy.
Let's say I run a cupcake shop, and you run a cupcake shop, and you pay your staff twice as much as I pay my staff, but you make more money.
Yes, I'm not going to pay my staff more simply because across the street a different business is making money.
However, if I personally own two cupcake shops, and one shop has dudes and one shop has females, and people keep going to the dude shop, and I'm paying the females less because their shop across the street is making less, That is where the question becomes more interesting and complicated.
You could argue your shop doesn't pull in the money to pay as much as you want.
I'm sorry.
However, you could argue you own both businesses.
They're both employees of the same business, just two different locations.
You should pay them the same.
Now I'll give you my opinion on the matter because I have friends who are female skateboarders who are top tier and make a lot of money.
For a long time, female skateboarders were paid something like... It's been like a decade since I've been down at the X Games, but I was a sports organizer at the X Games one year, and I was also there as a faux team manager for one of my friends a few years before, so I've had experience specifically with the female skateboarders, of which some of them are my friends.
They were getting paid, I was told, around 10%.
I know the winnings from one of my friends, and it was abysmal compared to what the men were getting.
The argument from the industry was, people don't come watch the women skate, and if the money isn't there, we're not going to pay them.
However, I completely disagree with this.
It was one stadium, With events happening within one week, and yes, it's true that people didn't want to come see the women as much as the men, but that's not the fault of the women.
It's the fault of your business!
Now, you can argue.
Some people just... We can change the analogy, because I often use ice cream.
You could argue that women's skateboarding is, you know, mint ice cream, or, like, spinach ice cream, and that men's skateboarding is chocolate, and people just naturally flow towards chocolate.
I think that analogy could work to a certain degree, and I welcome the argument, because I often make it, but I think in this capacity, when you look at Serena Williams, who may be, you know, her and... Who's the other guy?
Federer?
They're both absurdly famous.
And yes, people go and watch Serena Williams play, and she makes the news all day.
The issue is cultural.
We know that Serena Williams is not nearly as good as the best guy.
We know that she competed against some dude in, I forget what you call it, just like an exhibitionary match or something, and he was ranked like 203 in the men's, and he beat her.
Of course!
That's not a surprise to anybody.
Guys have more testosterone, fast-firing muscles, all that other complicated stuff.
The issue is marketing, okay?
Women's tennis is valuable.
Very, very valuable.
Very culturally significant, and does make a lot of money.
And Serena gets paid a lot of money.
I don't know if she makes more than the dudes, but she's famous.
The issue of whether or not sports teams should be paid more has less to do In my opinion, with whether or not they're selling enough tickets and more to do with, is the business marketing the event and trying to bring in customers?
In my experience with skateboarding, the answer was no.
All of the coverage was on the men's.
Because admittedly, the men were visibly better.
But that doesn't mean people won't watch the women's skate.
I watch both.
I think it's both really interesting.
Like, I like watching skateboarding.
I'll watch anybody skate.
Skateboarding may be a little different because...
Skateboarding has... There's different scales of what is good and what isn't.
You know, a female skateboarder could absolutely throw herself down the biggest stair set in the world, because that just takes bravery.
We still don't see women doing nearly as big of gaps and tricks that men do, but you can still watch women skate the same course and see the same... I don't want to say level, but same application of obstacle.
So a guy might do a trick that's very difficult down a big... I'll call it a railing for those who aren't familiar with skateboarding.
It's called a handrail.
They jump up, they slide down it.
The thing you actually use... I don't know if you're familiar with skateboarding.
A guy will do something ridiculously difficult and I'll go, whoa!
A woman will do something basic but down the same obstacle.
So you're still seeing the same kind of level of action.
There's a skill gap, however.
So ultimately, when I was at the X Games, when I've seen women skate, I felt like there was an underwhelming support for the marketing of the events.
And it may be due to the fact that the companies were like, we don't think anyone wants to watch it, so we're not going to bother promoting it.
But I assure you, if they just promoted it as a street competition, you would get a lot of people coming there.
You could market this and say, there's going to be a street skating competition.
Two of them.
But what ends up happening is they ignore it, then people don't show up, and then they end up saying, well, we don't have the money to pay for it.
Well, I don't know.
I guess I'll throw it to this.
I think this argument is all wrong.
All of it's wrong.
All of it's wrong.
I don't care if they lost to high school boys.
I don't care if they got 13-0.
None of that matters.
What matters is you're running a business, you're selling a product.
If you're not selling enough of the product, then you don't pay your staff that much.
Unfortunately, you don't have the money.
If you're running a business that includes two divisions, and you're underfunding one of them, or people aren't buying, I don't know.
Then it gets more complicated.
There's still your employees doing the same job in a different area.
