Trump Slams Google As Veritas Censorship Controversy Escalates
Trump Slams Google As Veritas Censorship Controversy Escalates. Donald Trump made a statement in the early morning regarding the Veritas censorship expose. He called for Google and Facebook to be sued for political bias and censorship against conservatives.Before this the press had been largely silent on the issue but with Trump comments he has forced the press to address the issue. While many still argue the story is face of such overwhelming evidence, we need only look back to 2018 for definitive proof.Many outlets, such as the far left The verge, reported on a video showing Google cofounder Sergy Brin saying that he was deeply offended by the 2016 election and that Trump voters don't share their values. This statement echoed the words seen by the google employee in James O'keefe's Project Veritas expose.Its all but confirmed not that deep within google lies a dark bias that they likely don't even realize. If we want to be fair we can say simply that they are so blind to their bias they think that they are being rational, they aren't. For now it seems that these big tech giants will continue to push social justice rhetoric and reject any attempt at regulation.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It has now been two days and finally we are seeing mainstream news outlets picking up the story about Google bias and censorship.
Except they're actually talking about Donald Trump's statements on Fox.
I believe it was Fox Business.
I could be wrong.
We'll get into it.
The story about Google bias has been out for a couple days.
It's been picked up by mostly just right-wing outlets.
The left has mostly ignored it.
That's according to allsides.com.
But now Trump has directly addressed the bias and says that Google and Facebook should be sued over bias allegations.
This is the story being picked up by all these different outlets.
And they only somewhat passively mention what Veritas uncovered.
An email directly referring to Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and PragerU as a certain WWII faction, if you know what I'm trying to say, and that their suggestions should be removed.
So this is corroborating a lot of the details we've seen from Veritas, but once again, the media isn't really picking this up.
There have been some outlets, but they're typically, you know, called tabloids or conservative, like The Sun and The Daily Mail.
But at least now we're getting some coverage, but it is kind of scary.
The only reason this news will break is because the president is talking about it.
Think about it.
One of the most powerful companies in the world, with employees that are overtly biased, talking about censorship, and talking about manipulating algorithms, To prevent Trump from winning.
I'm not gonna act like this is necessarily a top-down censorship issue.
These were, you know, key employees of Google.
But I'm gonna rehash some old stories to show you that, yeah, it probably is systemic within Google, and there is a bias problem.
While there are many employees at Google I know who aren't overtly biased, we got serious problems.
Before we read into the story and look at what Trump had to say, we gotta do this.
Go to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, the most important thing you can do.
Because we are seeing now, according to the whistleblower and yes, internal metrics, video suggestions for my channel are way down, as for many others.
Now, my channel still gets recommended through other ways, but if YouTube is not going to promote my content or recommend it the same way they used to because of political bias or because of changes, then I rely on you guys.
If you think this content is worth sharing, share it.
Also, make sure to go to iTunes and Google because this is available as a podcast every day around 6.30 or so PM.
There's about an hour and a half.
All of my videos combined into one podcast.
It is available, so go check it out.
Leave an awesome review if you want to support my work.
I know this is kind of a longer plug than usual, but it ties into the story.
I was directly named in the whistleblower statement about censorship and some of the details have been corroborated.
So I really do rely on you guys to share the content if you think it's worthy of being heard by other people.
from the Hill. President Trump on Wednesday said tech giants, Google and Facebook should be sued
over alleged bias towards conservatives. We should be suing Google and Facebook and all that,
which perhaps we will, Trump said during a phone interview with Fox Business Network.
Trump also attacked Twitter, claiming without evidence that the company is making it very hard
to get out my message by making it more difficult for people to follow him. And see, this is the
thing. Even though we have more over evidence of employees directly making statements,
The story was broken, I believe, by Gizmodo.
They're still saying, without evidence.
What are you talking about?
There's tons of evidence of a bias on these platforms.
Now sure, fine, we can get technical and say against Trump.
Specifically, probably not.
I think Twitter loves Trump.
He really invigorated their platform.
Let's read on.
Twitter is just terrible what they do, he said.
The president reportedly complained about his follower count during an April meeting
with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who explained his lost followers were largely bots.
Republicans have long accused Google and Facebook of suppressing conservative content and ads,
something they say violates free speech protections.
Others say the sites are private companies that are not bound by the First Amendment
and have the ability to regulate the content that appears on their platforms.
False stop.
They just conflated two issues and have completely confused what's actually going on.
Those who advocate for free speech are referring to it as a principle.
A principle that is unrelated to, but protected by, the First Amendment.
The First Amendment does not grant free speech.
It stops the government from violating free speech.
Free speech is a concept that exists.
Those of us that defend it are saying, YouTube, Twitter, whatever.
When they remove hate speech, they are violating the principles of free speech.
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
And any argument about the First Amendment means you have no idea what you're talking about, and this is the main problem with the debate.
Someone will say, we need free speech, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to private businesses.
They actually do have First Amendment protections.
So, Twitter has a First Amendment argument to banning people.
They do not.
So, it is complicated.
We'll get to this.
Trust me, there's a lot of information.
It's going to be really interesting.
There may be a break in Section 230 protections for third parties, and this is going to be huge news.
Moving on, some GOP lawmakers have suggested that Congress should remove protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to hold web platforms legally liable for content posted by users.
These people are all Democrats.
It's totally biased towards Democrats, Trump said, citing anti-Trump comments made by one Google employee published by a website run by conservative activist James O'Keefe.
So what is this?
Made by one, published by a website run, they could just call it by, you know, Project Veritas.
The employee, Jen Janai, said the video was recorded by people who lied about their identities, filmed her without her consent, and selectively edited the footage.
I believe that's irrelevant.
Executives from the tech companies have long denied institutional bias of their companies, and Democrats have repeatedly said there is no evidence to back up conservatives' claims there is widespread bias at companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
Wrong.
Please, please come.
Journalists, do your jobs!
What is going on?
You have Google.
We're talking about Google.
You can type into Google.
It's all there.
It is not a conspiracy.
My stars and garters.
We build our products with extraordinary care and safeguards to be a trustworthy source of information for everyone without any regard for political viewpoint.
Our rating guidelines are publicly visible for all to see, a Google spokesperson wrote in an email responding to Trump's comments.
Man, sorry, I got allergies.
Here's what we're gonna do.
We're gonna go back in time to September 12, 2018.
And you know, you know, there's so many people say, Tim, wow, you're such a great researcher.
Yeah, it's called Google Search.
I'm not a great researcher.
Well, okay, maybe better than most people who do not use Google.
But I typed in.
Google Bias Meeting.
And guess what popped up?
The Verge.
Okay.
A left-wing Vox property saying, Breitbart posted a leaked video of Google's first all-hands meeting at the 2016 election.
Conservatives rally around claims of bias at Alphabet.
The Verge published this quote from Google.
Most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad.
From Sergey Brin.
I find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too.
It's a stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values.
I think it's a good time to reflect on that.
So many people apparently don't share the values that we share.
The sentiment repeated nearly verbatim by Jen Janai to Project Veritas, that people who supported Trump don't agree with what we view as fairness.
Sergey Brin, Google co-founder, sang at a meeting that was leaked by Breitbart, published by The Verge.
A quote.
Straight up.
These people don't share our values.
I am offended by the election.
What more do you think?
Google CEO Sunder Pichai told the audience that many employees had emailed him saying they were afraid of the consequences of a Trump administration.
He encouraged them to speak up, reach out to political opponents, and embrace the democratic process.
It was a fair and democratic process, and we honor that, said Kent Walker, who leads Google's legal policy team.
Breitbart's publication of the video comes at a time when conservatives are rallying around claims of bias at the search giant.
So, listen.
This is actually a good article, I believe, from The Verge.
I'm not a fan of Vox properties, but I'll say this.
It is never black and white, okay?
Sundar Pichai said, embrace the democratic process.
And I believe that's according to the video, I believe.
He told the audience, right, so it's from the video.
Listen.
The bias at Google is not I do not believe it's overt.
I do not.
I believe it's subversive.
Think about the conversation I had with Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast.
I said to Jack, your rules are biased against conservatives, and he was shocked.
He didn't believe it.
He said, what rule?
What rule is biased?
And I said, straight up, you're misgendering policy.
I get it.
I understand the policy.
I understand your rationale.
But that is an ideological position.
For those that aren't familiar, Jack Dorsey said, It's the Twitter rules.
If you misgender someone, you will be suspended.
It's a violation of the rules.
Conservatives disagree on what misgendering really is.
They don't use the word misgendering.
But conservatives believe biological males are he, him, always.
And biological females are she, her, always.
And there's nothing else to it.
If you enact a rule that contradicts the ideology of conservatives in this country, your rules are biased against conservatives.
Period.
It's a fact.
What we see here is They speak like they're trying to be fair.
Let me tell you this.
I know a ridiculously far-left activist, like as far left as you can go, full-on communist, who told me, I'm a centrist.
And I said, are you nuts?
You can't be further left.
Communism on the political compass is as far left as it goes.
Command economy and far-right is competitive economy.
In the middle is where we are with a mixed economy.
You are not a centrist.
They think they are.
These people are offended by Trump.
They think he's far-right and they think they're not biased.
They think they're being fair because they view you, as a conservative, as the extremists that no one cares about.
They think you are the fringe nobodies.
They think I'm a conservative.
I'm not.
I'm not.
They like to call me... They like to pretend that I'm a conservative simply because I call them out for their blindness and for their bias.
Well, look.
I'm a moderate.
I've never denied being moderate.
I have never denied sharing opinions with conservatives or liberals.
But my policies do tend to lean towards the left.
Plain and simple.
I'm not a far leftist.
Okay?
My opinions are where they are.
I am in the center.
And I can see them, and they're confused.
They don't understand what's actually happening.
So there's a lot going on here.
Project Veritas had their video taken down.
Okay?
YouTube deleted it.
Project Veritas published this update.
Veritas fights back.
Attorneys send letter to YouTube.
They say, we're fighting back.
YouTube, owned by Google, has removed our video news report of insider information that is critical of Google.
Below is a letter we sent to YouTube demanding they restore our video.
Social media sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Pinterest enjoy a protection from lawsuits regarding the content posted on their platform, providing they do not censor the posts.
YouTube is obviously censoring our news report under the guise of some unidentified privacy complaint.
In other words, they used one unidentified complaint to prevent the public from learning the information the Google Insider courageously provided.
And let me stress, The statement from this woman, though she's saying it was in precise language, is reflected by Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder, that he was offended by the election and the people who voted for Trump don't share their values.
What do you think's going to happen with their product?
The values they believe in will be front and center, and they think they're being fair when they're not.
In the legal letter, they demand either the video be reinstated within 24 hours or they provide a detailed reason how the video in question violated any privacy policies and what must be done to cure that.
We'll see what happens.
But boy, do I have a big update for you.
An interesting, interesting question arises.
From Australia.
Former?
This is from, I believe, Monday.
Former detainee Dylan Voller gets court win against media giants over Facebook comments.
It's a different country.
But it brings us to a very interesting question.
We know the bias exists, but under Section 230, Facebook, Google, you know, whatever, they have immunity.
You can't sue them for what other people post.
But I have a question.
This man was able to sue, he brought a civil case against Fairfax Media, Nationwide News, and Sky News over comments posted in replies to articles placed on the platform between July of 2016 and June of 2017.
So here's what happens.
News media made a post.
People commented.
The people made defamatory statements.
He sued the media.
I believe he won.
He won in court against them.
I started thinking about what does this mean?
What does this mean for the U.S.? ?
There was a lawsuit against Donald Trump because Donald Trump was blocking people.
A court ruled that when Trump tweets, he creates a public forum.
Thus, he cannot block people because he is restricting access to a public forum.
If the court views replies to a post on social media as a public forum created by the poster, wouldn't that poster be responsible for the speech on their public forum?
In this case, it seems the court believes so.
Here's the point I'm trying to make.
Let's say you get smeared.
Someone smears Jordan Peterson.
Let's say Jezebel, just using a feminist outlet, writes a piece saying Jordan Peterson X, Y, and Z, and posts it to Facebook.
Well, then people start commenting, lying.
That is a public forum hosted by Jezebel on their page.
You can say it's by Facebook, but Facebook is protected.
But a publisher isn't protected when they create that public forum.
I believe there is a decent legal argument, and I'm not a lawyer, that someone like Jordan Peterson could sue for every comment made on a reply on Facebook, or whatever social platform, or potentially YouTube.
This is where things get really dangerous.
If I make a YouTube video, and someone comments with defamatory information, can I be sued for that?
I think there's actually an argument if the Supreme Court, I don't believe the Supreme Court, but a U.S.
District Court believes that we are creating public forums when we post a content.
But Trump has forced the media to address the Veritas coverage.
Perhaps this will trickle into more people seeing what's going on.
Maybe not.
Maybe it'll get people rolling their eyes at Trump.
I don't know.
But I'm going to end with one more story to prove a point.
From Bloomberg, Republican Senator wants Google and Facebook to have algorithm-free options.
This is a huge story as well.
Regulation is coming.
The Republicans have seen it.
Something is going to happen.
In this story, we have Senator John Thune preparing legislation to give users the option to view content without an algorithmic feed.
This is actually one of the smartest things I've heard in a long time that I didn't consider.
Twitter has an option for algorithm or no algorithm.
That's pretty good.
But I believe this doesn't go far enough.
I believe the legislation should have curated and not curated, which means free speech and moderated content.
On Mines, for instance, there is a not safe for work tag that will allow you to see all not safe for work content, or you can turn it off and not see it.
That's a normal filter that a lot of sites have employed for a long time.
How is that not the solution for Twitter?
I think it's because there's political bias.
As I mentioned, You have these companies that don't believe they're biased when they are.
So instead of saying, how about you can mute or block someone, we'll ban them from the site.
That doesn't make sense.
Just put them in not safe for work mode.
It seems like Twitter may be doing that.
But the reason I highlight this story is for one, it's an interesting option.
But Something said in the bottom corroborates what James O'Keefe reported.
YouTube recently made changes to its algorithms that recommend content that decreased views of problematic material, resulting from suggestions by more than half.
The videos that weren't recommended came close to violating our policies or spread harmful misinformation.
That's what, uh, this is recent.
This story's from today.
And that's what the whistleblower said.
That certain people were no longer going to get suggested following videos.
That's true for my account.
That's true for Dave Rubin.
That's true for many creators.
We're still being recommended on the homepage.
We're just not being recommended following different videos.
And this corroborates that.
Recent changes made.
Google announced it.
It's a fact.
We know it's happening.
We know it's true.
They deny the bias, but please.
It's happening.
And Senator John Thune is a... He's a Republican, I believe.
Just want to make sure that's clear.
Yes, okay.
Senate's number two Republican proposing a bill.
Regulation is coming.
I think Google's going into panic mode.
Dave Rubin tweeted that Susan Wojcicki of YouTube has contacted him.
So we're gonna see some developments.
We'll see what happens.
But I'm gonna end... I keep saying I'm gonna end, but I will end with one last thing.
Go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
But if you think my content is good, do one of two things.
Share the video on whatever social media you have.
YouTube doesn't want to recommend my content.
Fine.
I don't think they have to.
I'll ask you guys to do it.
If you don't think my content is worth being shared, don't share it.
I don't deserve it.
But also, don't forget, all of this is available as a podcast on all podcasting platforms.
Well, obviously not all, but like six major ones, like Spotify, Google Play, and iTunes.
You can listen every day at 6.30 p.m.
to all of my content, an hour and a half every day.
So check out the podcast.
Recently I found out some huge news, so I'm really happy to hear this.
My podcast is number 26 for iTunes in the category of news, and number 164 for all podcasts.
Seriously, wow, thank you guys so much.
That means a lot to me.
Look, I know I'm not number one, But being out of all of the podcasts in the world ranked 164?
Wow, that's crazy.
I really appreciate it.
So check it out, and leave a positive review if you like the content, because that, I guess, boosts it too.
So, it's been a wild ride.
I hope to stick around for a long time, but the censorship does get scary.
Comment below if you're on YouTube, let me know what you think.
Leave a review on the podcast, let me know what you think.
I'll have more videos coming up on youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6pm.
For those on the podcast, the order will be different, but I will see you in the next segment again.
Thank you all very much.
I want to give an update on what's going on with YouTube censorship, where we're currently at, and kind of be a little even-handed in explaining what's going on.
Look, there's been a lot of updates.
I've done more research, looked at some more numbers.
I think I know what's happening.
I may have explained some of this before, but I want to point out a few things.
This is AllSides.com.
I believe they do a pretty good job of giving you a balanced view of news.
Not perfect, but for the Project Veritas story, they're showing us center, from the right, and from the left.
The important point I want you to take away from here, according to an AllSides.com perspective, as of Tuesday evening, the story is largely being ignored by media outlets on the left.
That's true, but I think I know what's happening.
So in the Project Veritas whistleblower's interview, he said that my content wasn't being recommended anymore.
This is absolutely false.
Recommended is kind of slang.
I believe he was referring to suggested after videos.
That's true.
So let's break down exactly what's going on.
Behold, the front page for Tim Kool.
From my subscriptions, Fleckas, Thinkery, Reactor, Jimmy Dore, and Sargon of Akkad.
I think these channels are all fairly good.
Special shout-out to Jimmy Dore for being a principled individual on the left who defends free speech and liberty.
It's great to see people on the left who are still, you know, standing up in a similar way to, you know, how I'll defend free speech.
But, you know, Jimmy's a progressive guy.
He was with the Young Turks for a while.
So here's the thing.
Recommended?
These are recommended videos on the homepage.
My homepage recommendations are way up.
However, my suggested videos are way, way down.
Overall, all recommendations for me have gone up a lot.
And this is the important thing.
The guy said in the Veritas video, Tim Poole's recommendations are down, therefore his views plummeted.
No, they didn't.
On the homepage, my views have skyrocketed.
I believe I know why, but I'm going to stop and say something right now.
What YouTube has done is made it so that after you watch a video, you are less likely to be recommended one of my videos in the autoplay and on the sidebar.
That means my exposure to new subscribers following other people's videos has been dramatically slashed.
This is, in itself, a net negative for everybody.
But my views have increased on the homepage, meaning if people see the thumbnail and choose to click it, I will still get those views and it appears I still am.
More importantly, if I'm not being suggested following videos, it means one thing.
I rely on you guys.
So this is what I've been saying.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but here's the thing.
If you can't support me in any of these ways, don't fret.
The best thing you can do right now, if you believe I deserve it, is to share this video.
Share my videos.
YouTube has made it clear that they're going to, you know, get rid of suggestions following other videos, which means the likelihood that my content is suggested to new people is cut in half-ish.
There's still, again, I want to clarify, on the homepage I am getting recommended to new people, but people who are not subscribed to my content are getting recommended my content less, which means If you guys think I deserve it, and you share the video, that's replacing the recommendation system on YouTube.
So, the way I'll put it is, you know what?
I don't believe I have a right to have YouTube recommend my content to anybody.
I've said this.
I do believe that if YouTube wants to be the biggest game in town and dominate the public discourse in videos, then they should have to host people unrestrained.
But recommendations are different, right?
From your subscriptions.
Okay, this I can understand.
I subscribe to these people.
These are videos I've chosen I want to see.
Now they can't show videos from every single channel I've subscribed to, although actually they could if they increased this, but sure, whatever.
You can see there's a show more for recommended, but not for subscriptions.
If I subscribe to somebody, you should show the video, period.
You shouldn't throttle, you shouldn't restrict, and you shouldn't put in restricted mode, the limited state where you can't comment anymore.
This right here for recommended, I believe is problematic in the sense that what about from your subscriptions?
Shouldn't subscriptions be a bigger portion of your homepage?
Fine, whatever.
But at least they're still recommending me and others.
But in the end, if YouTube says, we'll host your content, people can subscribe to it, they'll see the content they subscribed to, but we won't promote it for you, what can I really say?
I think that's a fair and principled approach.
Fine.
Host my content, let me deal with it.
And then I throw it back to you guys.
You know what?
From this point on, if you guys think I should be recommended, Then you guys recommend me.
Plain and simple.
If you guys watching do not want to share my content on Twitter and Facebook or anywhere else, I don't deserve the views in the first place.
Plain and simple.
I should make a product and run a business and present ideas and do work that is deemed worthy of the people who watch it.
So I'll put it this way.
Imagine if you opened an ice cream shop.
And you were selling spinach ice cream.
I love the ice cream analogy, by the way.
And nobody was telling anybody your ice cream was good.
Well, that's because your ice cream is not good.
But let's say you get the best ice cream in town.
People will go around saying, this is the best ice cream in town.
I don't need Google to automatically pump out ads to convince people to come to my ice cream shop.
I don't need them to ferry people to the front door.
It's a net benefit.
And as I explained yesterday, if they do this for political reasons, which I don't think is the case, and we'll get to this, Then it's a serious challenge because the left will have a massive advantage.
But I want to get into the email and some of what's happening with, you know, following the censorship stuff.
I do not believe the policy-wide actions of YouTube in this capacity to throttle suggested videos for me and for many others was due to political bias necessary or was to impact politics.
Here's the thing.
I've reached out to some progressives who apparently see the same data I do.
Suggested videos are down.
This makes sense to me.
YouTube Insider tweeted the other day saying that they're not taking action based on political bias.
They got ratioed like crazy, but I think they're being honest.
Sort of.
Hear me out.
I believe they did take action for political reasons.
We saw a leaked email where they accused Jordan Peterson, PragerU, and Ben Shapiro of being a certain World War II faction from Germany, if you know what I mean, and then said, let's take away the suggested feature.
So we can see their political bias, but when it came to policy, it appears that YouTube just did a carpet bomb on everybody.
I can't confirm this necessarily, but I have reached out to commentators on the left, and it appears that they were hit as well.
Makes sense.
YouTube doesn't care in the end.
They just say, we don't want to look bad.
The other day I did a story about how YouTube, or I'm sorry, Google, told their employees you can't protest us at Pride, at the Pride parade.
Yeah, they're going to restrict their own employees even if they hold these views because looking good to the public is more important to them.
So what I think is happening is that in response to the bias internal at Google, which I believe exists in a certain capacity.
I don't believe it's the entirety of Google.
You know, I don't believe it's even a majority.
I do believe it's massively disproportionate to nationwide averages.
However, I'll explain this in a second.
I think they said, hey, let's do this, and then someone said, well, we can't do it just on, you know, conservative channels, or moderate channels, or, you know, let's just do everybody.
So congratulations to those on the left.
This constant complaining about the right on YouTube has resulted in you getting deranked as well, as far as I can tell.
I'm going to be reaching out to More Progressive to see if they took a hit too, but so far, a couple have told me yes, they have seen this as well.
So it makes sense, right?
How many videos have I made talking about how censorship backfires on the left?
So here's what I think YouTube wants.
YouTube wants to recommend you on the homepage because YouTube wants those views.
YouTube makes money off your views.
They don't want to lose that.
But they also don't like the bad press.
It appears they've come up with a solution.
Recommend you more on the homepage so you have to click what you want to watch and recommend you less in autoplay so you're not force-fed videos as the New York Times would smear them for.
In the end, it looks like my content is still doing well, but not being suggested to people following videos.
So that was the point I was trying to make.
I don't think I'm being massively negatively impacted.
I will say this though, homepage recommendations means you are competing with everyone else.
That means When these 10 videos pop up, if you see Shu on head, if you see my video, I'm now competing head-to-head with Shu.
Plain and simple.
So someone might do better or worse.
Take a look at the recommended right here, right?
I am not subscribed to Tenacious D and they're Recommending two Tenacious D videos.
You know what?
I love Tenacious D anyway.
Good job.
We've got a Spider-Man trailer.
We've got some Avengers content.
There's Tucker Carlson, which I think is funny because I don't watch them either.
But I think based on, you know, like Sargon and stuff, it's going to recommend that.
But even Rango, like why is that video?
These are literal recommendations.
So it's not, it's not all bad.
And it may actually be impacting other channels that are not news related.
I don't know.
I really don't.
I just, this is where I'm at so far.
So here's what I want to do from now.
There's my explanation.
I want to give a shout out, especially to AllSides.com, and I really recommend you go to AllSides.
Check them out.
This is really one of the best ways to get a balanced view of what's happening in the news.
So, the story from AllSides gives you a centrist view, a right-wing view, and a left-wing view.
The right, pretty hardcore, saying the Google fascists.
The left, defending the woman caught on hidden camera.
Surprise, surprise.
But check this out.
They actually have a system where they show you how they've rated people.
We can see that they separate Wall Street Journal's opinion from the news, and their opinion is slightly to the right.
Their news is center.
Then they say that the New York Times online news leans left.
They're straight up saying the New York Times is a biased left-wing outlet.
I agree, and I respect that.
NPR News is centrist, but NPR Opinion is left-wing, so I think they do a pretty good job of breaking down, you know, left, center, right bias.
And when you look at their news stories, you can actually see this.
House Democrats rewrite border bill to win over progressives, and you have the Hill in the center, The New York Times in the left and the Washington Times in the right.
So when you read the story, you're seeing three different perspectives to give you a better balanced view.
That's a fantastic way to do it.
News is being split.
All sides is a decent bridge so you can see what other people are thinking.
Don't get me wrong.
I disagree with some of their ratings and I also disagree with like, you know, many of the progressive outlets versus the conservative outlets.
But I can appreciate being shown the perspective of people who disagree with me.
And I get frustrated reading these left-wing outlets sometimes, I'll be honest.
Here's the best part.
When you go to AllSides, you can scroll down and actually choose to agree or disagree with their ratings.
Check this out.
Al Jazeera is listed as center.
Most people disagree.
There you go.
So when you see that, you can check and be like, wow, most people don't agree with their assessment.
AllSides is essentially allowing the community to fact check them On their own bias.
Absolutely respectable.
We can see the American spectator hard right.
Most people strongly agree.
Associated Press is centrist.
People somewhat agree.
Axios is centrist.
Somewhat disagree.
This is pretty badass.
But not only that, there's even an author feature.
You can actually rate the political leanings of the author of articles.
Assuming it loads.
So I'll take off news and check this out.
Andrew Napolitano, hard right.
Andrew Sullivan, moderate right.
Ann Coulter, hard right.
Ben Shapiro, hard right.
And I say hard right because this doesn't mean far right.
It means, like, staunch conservative, staunch liberal.
And you'll see that some people associated with the far right can go pretty far and far left can go pretty far.
But you have, like, Christiane Amanpour leans left.
You have Ezra Klein, far left.
I agree.
Jesse Jackson far left.
Joe Scarborough kind of centered to the right.
I don't know if I... Look at this.
Scarborough is right.
Absolutely disagree.
Yeah, I would too.
How did that happen?
How did he get ranked right?
That's not true at all.
But you can see it's not just about how they rate them.
It's how the community responds and you can use the community to assess the bias of the platform.
Really, really good job.
So props and much respect to all sides.
This is a really great source.
I've been tracking them for a while.
I'm going to make sure I use them a lot more.
Not because I think Politico is better, or Fox News is better, but because they're just showing three different biases towards a single story, and that's really, really helpful.
So let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Check out the podcast.
All of my videos appear as a podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and elsewhere every day around 630.
Um, this, it's important that I hedge my bets on YouTube, but I do think things are going to be okay on YouTube, I really do.
I believe that what we saw with this woman, Jen Janai, is an individual which shows, here's what I think, I think Google has a problem with a disproportionate amount of political bias.
My understanding is that the national average of progressive activists is around 8%, and I believe Google has four times that or more, based on some internal data.
I was talking to some sources.
I'll leave it there.
I can't get into too much detail.
Because of this, you see actions based on bias, but when it reaches the policy level, it blankets everybody.
So I do believe they have a bias problem, which is causing them to fire randomly and cause damage, and I do believe it will disrupt politics, and it needs to be investigated, plain and simple.
I believe Google as a whole does a better job of allowing free speech than all these other platforms, especially Patreon and Twitter and Facebook.
Think about it, Paul Joseph Watson banned from Facebook, not banned from YouTube, right?
So YouTube does a better job, but YouTube better get on it to weed out these biased individuals because they are having a serious impact, plain and simple.
Let me know what you think.
If you disagree, comment below.
If you're on the podcast, leave a review.
It's really appreciated.
And I will see you all at 1 p.m.
in the next segment.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'm going to say it anyway.
We have a migration crisis.
We have a humanitarian crisis.
More than 144,000 migrants coming across the border in the past month alone.
We need to figure out how to secure the borders to disincentivize people taking this dangerous journey and dying.
Well, Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro decided to go the complete other direction and completely decriminalize the behavior, thus creating incentives for people to actually go on the dangerous journey.
Can we just please stop?
Can we think about a practical solution?
This is pandering to her base, plain and simple.
Not even to her base.
These are people who are pandering to woke Twitter.
No, regular Americans are not going to be happy that you're doing this.
Like, look.
Nobody likes harsh conditions at the border.
Nobody likes harsh conditions in these detention centers.
But this is going to make the problem worse.
To me, this says that Castro and Warren are more interested in winning elections than actually being honest and solving problems.
And if she really believes this is a good idea, well, then she's nuts.
Completely nuts.
Let's read from the Hill.
They say Julian Castro today praised Elizabeth Warren, a top-tier candidate, for joining him in his call to decriminalize illegal border crossings.
Thank you, Warren, for joining me on this issue.
We shouldn't criminalize desperation.
It's time to repeal this terrible law.
Once again, we can see the dishonesty, the deceit, and my God, I just can't stand politicians.
Vox.com.
The far left.
V-O-X.com.
Published some statements from migrants, and I'm always going to reference this because it's important.
Now, these are some specific examples.
It's anecdotal, but it's important to understand this.
In a statement asking why they were coming to the U.S.
from Guatemala and Honduras through Mexico, one person said, I miss buffalo wild wings.
Okay.
I appreciate that.
I, too, love B-dubs.
They have excellent garlic parmesan sauce, and with the boneless wings, mmm.
You know what?
I think I'm gonna go to B-dubs tonight.
Not a commercial for B-dubs.
I can respect that you want to go there, but that is not desperation, and that is not a reason to go on this massive, dangerous journey and break the US law to come to this country.
We're trying to protect refugees.
We're trying to protect life, not make sure you can have chicken wings with tasty sauce.
More importantly, there are buffalo wildlings all over Mexico.
Now again, I'm citing a very particular example.
Another example is an individual saying, I miss PlayStation.
Listen.
If I were to claim that all migrants are coming here because they want Buffalo Wild Wings or PlayStation, that would be dishonest.
And that's the point I'm making.
When they say we can't criminalize desperation, you are being dishonest.
Most of these people are not desperate.
They are just looking for opportunity.
There is a big difference between people who are scared and in harm's way and the average person who is coming for a better life.
That's why they're called economic migrants versus refugees.
But this is the game they play to try and pander to a base.
Trump says we got to deal with illegal immigration, so they make it seem like every single migrant is in trouble, is desperate, is seeking refugee status.
Ocasio-Cortez calls them refugee children.
Oh my god, dude, please.
The reality is they are people.
They want to come to America.
They're looking for a better life.
Plain and simple.
A portion of them, I believe it's around less than 10%, really do need asylum.
I want to protect them.
I think we should.
Another percentage, probably larger, just want Buffalo Wild Wings.
But those are more of the extreme ends.
You'll probably find people who say, look, I can't find work in my country and survival is difficult.
I'm going to come to America to try something else.
That's probably the more typical response.
It is close to desperation.
There's a big difference between you figuring out how to survive in your country and coming to the US, skipping through Mexico.
Mexico is a beautiful country.
These, look, I kid you not.
Talk to one of these, like, progressive types, and they're gonna explain to you how Mexico is a hot, sweaty desert.
There was a really funny post on Reddit where they said, Mexico City, in real life, and it's a picture of this big, busy street in Mexico City, it's very beautiful with palm trees and modern buildings, looks like any other major city, and they put Mexico City in the movies, and they put a sepia tone over it.
That's what they do in movies.
It's really funny because when you watch a movie about Canada, it's blue.
When you watch a movie about Mexico, it's orange.
People, like, these people don't know anything about Mexico, and they assume it's all this, like, desert wasteland.
Man, Mexico City is a massive developed place with taco shops and fast food restaurants and Buffalo Wild Wings, and it's actually kind of cold sometimes because it's elevated.
Mexico City is actually really awesome.
I recommend going there if you haven't.
People have this misconception about what Mexico is really like.
The point I'm making is that if you were going to skip through Mexico, you're not desperate.
Desperation would be going into Mexico and accepting their asylum offer.
It would be going to Mexico City and being like, we made it.
We're in a big city with modern technology and buses and restaurants and it's safe and, you know.
But that's not desperation.
That's what they're trying to do.
They're trying to make it seem like, you know, all these people who are coming from Africa, right?
We have a record number of African migrants flying to Brazil, coming up... Look, that is not desperation, dude.
I'm sorry.
If you're in Brazil, you are no longer in fear for your life.
Now, so what happens, right?
So let's put it this way.
You're specifically being targeted in Angola or the Congo.
So they fly to Brazil.
Now they're being targeted in Brazil.
What happens when they come to the U.S.
and then they get targeted by the alt-right, as the media would like to have us believe?
Where do they go next?
Canada?
Okay.
Well, the U.S.
is bringing a lot of people to Portland, Portland, Maine.
Maybe that's their plan.
They say Warren has yet to release a comprehensive immigration reform plan, but expressed her support for Castro's plan in a statement to HuffPost.
We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future.
You're right.
Stop lying.
I can't stand the lies.
It's all PR nonsense.
I just hate this kind of PR.
You know what, man?
If there's one thing that will get me angry, it's overt lies.
Overt lies.
You can be wrong.
I think Trump lies a lot, but I think he's wrong a lot.
And they call him a liar.
They say, everything's a lie.
It's like, well, hold on.
That implies we know what his intention is.
Okay, so let me walk that statement back on Elizabeth Warren.
She's either really, really dumb and has no idea what she's talking about, or she's lying to you to pander to a base.
It does not make sense to decriminalize illegal border crossings.
It literally does not make sense.
You will increase the problems, and it will result in more loss of life.
These people don't care.
I don't believe Elizabeth Warren cares at all.
Look, I'll give her credit for calling out big tech and calling for them to be broken up, but absolutely not.
Elizabeth Warren is once again playing this ridiculous game of trying to pander to a base by saying mamas and babies trying to flee violence.
Okay, so let's decriminalize asylum seekers when they are confirmed to be seeking asylum.
When it is confirmed, then we can say there's no criminal charge.
How about that?
Right?
Mamas and babies, right?
But I'll tell you what.
That will increase the likelihood you will see mamas and babies fleeing to the border, crossing through Mexico, and coming to the U.S.
I'll say it a million times, man.
Mexico's an awesome place.
I have friends who prefer to be in Mexico City.
I have friends who left the U.S.
to go hang out in Mexico City because they like it better.
The weather's actually amazing.
I really did think it was gonna be hot when I went there.
I went there, it was awesome.
So these people who are skipping through there, that's not desperation.
That is not desperation.
Mamas and babies.
An emotional attack on an individual.
If you're not thinking rationally and you hear that, that is an emotional assault and is a manipulation tactic.
And, you know, I'll tell you this.
You want to make me angry really, really fast?
Try and manipulate me.
I'm not saying I'm invincible.
I grew up with a bunch of hacker buddies.
I'm very well-versed in social engineering.
I know what manipulation looks like, and it sets me off real quick.
Don't try it.
You are very unlikely to succeed.
It's possible.
Nobody's invincible.
I always tell people this.
You can be manipulated.
People are manipulated all the time.
But when you play these games, mamas and babies, I know what you're doing and you're disgusting.
You're completely disgusting.
A man and his daughter just died crossing the border.
A woman and three children, two babies, found dead from heat stroke or exhaustion.
And now you're trying to say, don't worry, you can come.
We won't criminalize it.
So these people are coming thousands of miles, risking their lives for your false promises.
I'm just so disgusted by this behavior.
Look, I want to protect people.
Some people are willing to take the risk.
They shouldn't.
Their kids are going to get hurt.
And it's happened.
And now you've got these statements.
Warren told the Washington Post earlier this month that she would seek to repeal criminal penalties for people apprehended while crossing the border.
Great.
Expect to see the numbers skyrocket now because of rhetoric like this.
There are people hearing this saying, hey, now's our chance.
We can come to America.
They're not desperate.
They're just like, hey, you know, it's like if somebody said, here's a million dollars and a briefcase, but you got to cross a pit of lava, people are going to go for it and they're going to die doing it, okay?
But you're safe where you are.
A lot of these people are safe where they are.
They just want that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow because the grass is always greener.
You know, I interviewed some migrants, refugees in Athens.
And they told me, some migrants in Athens, told me it was a mistake.
They thought it was going to be so much better, the grass was greener.
It wasn't.
It was worse, and now they're truly desperate.
I talked to some migrants in France.
They said the same thing.
It was a mistake to come here.
I was better off at home.
They thought it would be better.
When you have someone like Warren say this, they think they're going to welcome us with open arms.
And then you get here and, no, that's not what's going to happen.
You're going to be put in a detention center.
You're going to be charged for criminally entering the country.
You're going to be deported.
You're going to be separated from all these really bad things, things that I don't like, but I'll tell you what, we don't have a solution.
Let you wander through the desert.
Great.
Then we find bodies.
I'm not okay with that either.
So I don't know what we can do.
I don't, I know that she's making it worse.
They say Warren's reported support for decriminalizing undocumented border crossings follows reports of alleged unsanitary and unsafe conditions at migrant detention centers.
On Tuesday, it was announced acting customers, customers, See, I just read it, right?
They spelled customers, they said.
Okay.
Well, I've got more stories, more updates, so stick around.
The next segment will be at 4pm, an update on what's going on with Veritas and censorship.
If you like my content, you've made it this far, Donate to TimCast.com slash donate, but share the video.
If you don't think the video should be shared, then I don't deserve the views in the first place, so I appreciate anybody who's willing to make that, you know, just to do that.
It's not complicated, but you don't have to.
And I will have more content for you coming up 4 p.m.
And also, this will be available as a podcast on iTunes and Google and Spotify every day around 630.
A new episode will go up.
Check out the podcast.
I will see you all the next segment.
Major breaking news.
The Donald subreddit has officially been quarantined on Reddit.
For those that aren't familiar with what this means, first, the Donald is possibly the biggest hub for Donald Trump supporters online.
And according to one study, the source of most of the memes on the internet, I could be phrasing that wrong, but my understanding is they tracked memes back to their source and found the Donald subreddit was one of the most prolific sources of memes.
I have the Donald pulled up, and this is what you see.
It says, are you sure you want to view this community?
This community is quarantined.
Quarantined, my understanding is it won't appear in search on Reddit.
Their posts no longer appear on all or on algorithmic, you know, it's like when you go to Reddit, it shows you the most upvoted content.
Not anymore.
Not Trump.
They say it is restricted due to significant issues with reporting and addressing violations of the Reddit content policy.
Most recently, the violations have included threats of violence against police and public officials.
As a visitor or member, you can help moderators maintain the community by reporting and downvoting rule-breaking content.
Are you certain you want to continue?
No thank you or continue?
Now, I don't know what'll happen if I go from Google in here.
It may show me the same thing.
Okay, so when you click it from Google, you are presented with this message.
So here's what we're gonna do.
We will click continue.
Yes, I'd like to see the Donald.
Now we have the top post.
31 minutes before filming this video.
So I'm filming this around 1.30.
I'm gonna put this up for the 6 p.m.
video.
It's gonna screw up the order of all the other videos.
This is a huge major update.
Let's see what they're saying here in this major update.
So, it reads, quarantine.
Dear mods, we want to let you know that your community has been quarantined as outlined in Reddit's content policy.
The reason for the quarantine is that over the last few months we have observed repeated rule-breaking behavior in your community and an over-reliance on Reddit admins to manage users and remove posts that violate our content policy, including content that encourages or incites violence.
Most recently, we have observed this behavior in the form of encouragement of violence towards police officers and public officials in Oregon.
This is not only in violation of our sitewide policies, but also your own community rules.
You can find violating content that we removed in your mod logs.
Well, if it's against the rules and they're moderating it, then why are they quarantining the whole community?
Ban these people who are doing this.
Think about the problem here.
Anyone can go into any subreddit and start posting, like, seriously, you could have a brigading issue where people just make fake accounts, go to a Bernie Sanders subreddit, and then say whatever they want, and then what?
Reddit's gonna quarantine them too?
You have a community that specifically said it's against the rules, how can you hold them responsible if they absolutely are moderating it?
What do you do to stop the brigading?
They say, As we have discussed in the past, and as detailed in our content policy and moderator guidelines, we expect you to enforce against rule-breaking content.
You've made progress over the last year, but we continue to observe and take action on a disproportionate amount of rule-breaking behavior in this community.
We recognize that you do remove posts that are reported, but we are troubled that violent content more often goes unreported and worse is upvoted.
Did you know that there are a bunch of other subreddits that disable downvotes?
that Reddit functions to moderate content.
Limiting or prohibiting them prevents you from moderating your community effectively.
Because of this, we're disabling your custom styling in order to restore these essential
functions.
Did you know that there are a bunch of other posts that, a bunch of other subreddits that
disable downvotes?
I'm not exaggerating, and they're not quarantined.
They say, as stated in our moderator guidelines, our goal is to keep the platform alive and
vibrant as well as to ensure your community can reach people interested in it.
Accordingly, here are the specific terms of the quarantine and the next steps we are asking from you as a mod team to resolve the situation.
Quarantine terms, they say.
Visitors to this community will see a warning that requires users to explicitly opt-in to viewing.
This message reminds users of the importance of reporting rule-breaking content.
Custom styling has been disabled to restore the report and downvote buttons.
We hope both these changes will help improve the signal around rule-breaking content and improve your ability to effectively address it.
Next steps.
You unambiguously communicate to your subscribers that violent content is unacceptable.
You communicate to your users that reporting is a core function of Reddit and is essential to maintaining the health and viability of this community.
Following that, we will continue to monitor your community, specifically looking at report rate and for patterns of rule-violating content.
Undertake any other actions you determine to reduce the amount of rule-violating content.
Following these changes, we will consider an appeal to lift the quarantine, in line with the process outlined here.
We hope that this process provides a viable way forward to restore the health of the community.
However, if this situation continues to escalate, we'll explore further actions, including the possible banning of your community.
Please confirm that you have received and understand this message.
This is the message sent to us, so per their request, I'm sharing it with you.
Interesting.
Let's open this up.
This is a list of what Reddit has removed in the last 30 days.
If you count, not including the admin stripping me of most of my permissions, it amounts to fewer than one per day.
It would seem they've set up an impossible standard as a reason to kill us before the 2020 election more soon.
And they have posts on Twitter, but here's the image.
Apparently, these are the posts that they want to be removed, I guess?
I guess?
Banned videos, Project Veritas.
Wait, what is this?
What is this?
He said, this is the message they sent to us.
So what I just read was the message from them.
I'm sharing it with you.
And here is a list of what Reddit has removed in the last 30 days.
Check it out.
Reddit has removed breaking.
Uh, banned video.
Police escort Muslim mob.
You have, um, removed a link to new Project Veritas.
Tech Insider blows the whistles by PV Media.
Why was that removed?
Why was Veritas being removed?
I don't know.
I don't know what these are.
Anti-evil operations.
These are from, um, admins, I guess?
A link to a clown world?
I don't know what these are.
But I can say this.
The Donald feels that it is an impossible task.
Here we have, um, their statements from Twitter.
Here's one tweet.
Reddit claims that Donald was quarantined because they have to spend too much time removing content on the subreddit.
This is a report of everything they've had to do in the last month, including stripping me of my ability to do the job they're complaining about.
One per day, they said.
So this is—it looks like, on average, yeah, about one per day.
There was two today.
Then there was one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine yesterday.
There was two a week ago.
Then there was about six eleven days ago.
It's what?
It's a handful of posts?
This is crazy.
The Donald is literally one of the biggest... Look at the rules over on the right.
It says rules.
They say racism or antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Personal information is doxing.
It's not to be tolerated.
No type of trolling.
Trump supporters only.
No mentions about being banned from other subreddits.
No threats towards... It's all against the rules.
So look.
This is going to be paraded around this post where they claim, ah, but the Trump supporters were breaking the rules and being violent.
Reddit said so.
Prove it!
That's defamation.
Reddit said there were threats against police.
I kind of find that hard to believe that the Donald, the Blue Lives Matter people would make threats against police.
Maybe it was aggressive statements that were like, you know, boastful, but I'm going to have to be, I'm sorry.
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people believe that's true, but I'll tell you what.
The left is going to parade it around as fact.
They're going to say, see?
That Donald was violent.
They were being violent, therefore they had to be banned.
They should have been banned a long time ago.
These companies can lie.
Twitter can say, oh, like, I'll tell you one example.
Why was Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter?
Here's what we hear.
I don't want to be specific and say, because it's been a while since the podcast.
But when, like, someone asks someone like Jack Dorsey, why was Milo banned?
They'll say, it'll play out like this.
So, why did you ban Milo?
And they go, well, listen, you know, when people operate multiple accounts behind the scenes, that's against the rules, we'll ban them.
Ah, the average audience member says, Milo was breaking the rules by running multiple accounts.
Hold on.
I never said that.
In fact, in that situation, they never actually answered the question, and that's what we hear.
Look at Count Dankula's ban from Discord.
They say, due to, you know, violent posts.
From who?
When?
Why?
Who made the posts?
They don't say.
They can get away with insinuating you are breaking the rules and you are violent when you are not.
Even though it's amount to about one per day that Donald has been quarantined.
Censorship is here, people.
They will stop at nothing to prevent Trump from winning.
I don't care if Trump wins or loses.
I am not a Trump derangement syndrome person.
I think the people who have the right ideas who can speak to the American public deserve to win.
Trump played the game, the same game as Hillary.
He won.
The people on the internet spoke.
They played the game.
They knew what they were doing.
But now we are seeing the most prominent Trump community censored.
This is censorship.
It's not the most egregious.
They've got to be careful.
They've got to do it slow.
If they do it too fast, it would be insane.
There's another tweet that just popped up as I was filming from the Donald.
Let's see what they said.
This is what happens when you try and access Reddit's The Donald page.
Quarantined.
And you get the message.
So, apparently, this means they won't pop up on the front page anymore, and for a long time, the Donald dominated r slash all.
Once Wayfair fires them for leaving the job, some of those illegals can apply for a job and work visa win-win.
A little too offensive for my taste.
I don't like saying illegal as a definition of a person.
I would call them an illegal immigrant, fine, but I know I'm pulling hairs.
But let's look at the actual story here.
What do we have?
A story about people who make beds for kids who think the kids shouldn't have beds.
Okay, I don't know what you think should happen.
Like, should we just open the door and say, go on, kiddies, out into the desert with all of ya.
Nobody wants to provide for you, so you're free to go.
And then they just start aimlessly wandering the desert?
What do you think's gonna happen?
It's insane.
Do you think that by depriving the children of resources, the government will say, okay, we're not gonna detain them anymore?
No, the kid's gotta be put somewhere.
So give them beds.
This is such an insane story, my god.
Oh, jeez.
I apologize.
I have gotten emails from people saying, don't use the Lord's name in vain.
And I'll respect that, so I apologize.
And I'll do better.
I'll do better for everybody.
I try to be not offensive.
Wayfair workers to walk off job over partnership with detention centers.
Hundreds of employees of online home goods company call on it to stop furnishing border camps.
Yes, because the kids should be sleeping on the floor.
From The Guardian, hundreds of employees of the online home goods company Wayfair will stage a walkout on Wednesday in protest against its involvement in furnishing border camps.
Employees organizing the walkout at the firm's Boston headquarters say they demanded the company stop its partnership with a government contractor to provide beds with detained immigrants.
We believe the current actions of the United States and their contractors at the southern border do not represent an ethical business partnership Wayfair should choose to be a part of, the letter signed by 547 employees said.
We have a tweet from Wayfair, but I'm going to do a pause real quick.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you haven't already.
I apologize.
I can't keep track of how many times I mention this, but there's multiple ways to donate there.
I won't keep it too long because I know I say it a lot, but I really do require support, especially as Google has given the banhammer to a lot of channels, and now I'm learning that suggestions are down.
Share the video if you like it and think people should hear it.
I appreciate it.
Wayfair Walkout tweeted, Wayfair is confirmed to be selling beds to the border camps.
Employees asked for the order to be cancelled and management said no.
Everyone deserves a home they can feel safe and loved in, especially children, no matter where they're from.
But you're not offering them that!
The kids have nowhere to go!
Many of these kids don't- came here by themselves, unaccompanied.
What do we- what do we do with them?
Okay?
We put them in a detention center.
At that capacity, my understanding is that for the kids, they're... I don't know what you want to call them, man.
It's a semantic debate.
We can call them whatever they want.
They're kids being held in holding facilities, detention centers, whatever.
They're not concentration camps.
But they do need accommodations.
If you don't want to provide them, well then don't be surprised when you see photos of kids sleeping on floors.
Plain and simple.
Through a contract with BCFS Health and Human Services, a Texas not-for-profit organization, Wayfair, uh... Oh, okay.
Wayfair sold $200,000 worth of bedroom furniture to furnish a camp in Carrizo Springs, Texas, where up to 3,000 migrant children will be detained, employees said.
Through a contract with BCFS Health and Human Services, a non-profit, they sold beds?
So you mean to tell me a non-profit raised money for beds so these kids can sleep on a bed and the employees are refusing to do it?
I'm sorry.
I think we're confused here.
This isn't a story about left-wing activists trying to reject detention centers.
This sounds like a story about a bunch of far-right extremists who are angry that their beds would cater, would accommodate children, migrant children.
A non-profit sold Bought the beds.
Like a non-profit raised... A non-profit had a contract to buy beds.
That sounds like activists helping the children.
And you're... What is going on?
This is a Chinese finger trap, right?
These people think they're helping, you're making it worse.
And Ocasio-Cortez is so insanely irresponsible, she infuriates me.
47,000 retweets.
Congratulations.
A non-profit raised money for beds, and you're cheering on the children, not getting them.
What is happening?
Oh, jeez.
The protest comes as the US government and Trump administration has come under fire for poor conditions at border facilities and the deaths of at least six children.
How about the seven people found dead crossing the border?
credit facility after attorneys who visited said detainees were left with
inadequate food, water, and sanitation. An official from the Trump administration
said on Tuesday that children detained in facilities did not need basic products
like soap, toothbrushes, and blankets. I condemn that wholeheartedly.
I reject that and I condemn it in no uncertain terms. That statement
is insane. 100% I have no problem calling the regressive left insane and calling these people insane if they think they can help hold kids without soap, toothbrushes, or blankets, or beds.
And I'm gonna call Ocasio-Cortez insane for cheering on the kids not getting their beds!
You know, I feel like there are adults, and there are children.
And Ocasio-Cortez and her fans are children.
They don't think about what comes next.
They say, haha, we're protesting your facility by taking the beds away from the kids.
Okay, whatever you say, but guess what?
They're then going to complain that there's no beds.
Well, it's your fault, dude!
Man, they even obstructed the humanitarian aid package.
In the letter to Wayfair, protesters asked the company to cease the contract and donate $86,000, the profits it has made thus far from these sales, to RACES, a not-for-profit immigration legal service focusing on reuniting families and children separated at the border.
RACES said it would welcome such a donation.
I'm all for RACES reuniting families.
I don't like the idea of families being separated.
It's not a simple cut-and-dry solution, but you're talking about taking money from a non-profit and donating it to a different non-profit.
Read, read, read, plan.
It's called shooting from the knee.
They're not paying attention.
They're just saying, hey, let's do it, and then they make everything worse.
We applaud Wayfair workers who are walking out to protest Wayfair profiting from detention centers.
Reises wrote on its official Twitter account, no one who works for a company profiting from these camps should be standing idly by as children are dying.
This takes a village.
They're dying outside, man.
In a response to the letter, the leadership team at Wayfair said it would continue to fulfill orders for all customers acting within the laws of the countries in which it operates.
This does not indicate support for the opinions or actions of the groups or individuals who purchase from us.
They made the right choice.
Companies should not be making political decisions.
Period.
Well, no, I did that back.
To a certain degree, I accept this, but listen.
We're talking about kids who need beds and what to do with these kids.
How do we help them?
How can we accommodate them?
We're not talking about, like, the Klan trying to have a rally where they lay in beds.
We're talking about facilities where children are staying that have bad conditions and they have an opportunity to fix that.
Ocasio-Cortez wiggles her arms in the air screaming about how happy she is to hurt these kids.
I'll leave it there, man.
I don't want to prattle on this subject forever.
You get the point.
Ocasio-Cortez is happy kids don't have beds.
Headline.
I'll read one more paragraph because they mention other people.
The action received support on Tuesday from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
As well as prominent progressive lawmakers, including AOC and Ayanna Pressley.
Bravo, Democrats!
Thank you for ensuring children have no beds.
Stick around.
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
We got a few different stories for this segment, but the most important breaking news The White House is calling a social media summit.
Move comes as Facebook and Google are under attack in Washington.
Trump claims sites are biased against him.
He would be correct, for the most part.
And I want to stress, for those that didn't see my earlier video, the point I want to make sure is very clear.
There are employees at many of these companies that lean left, for the most part, right?
There's obviously conservatives who are for these companies.
There's lawsuits about this.
They don't realize they're biased for the most part.
Some of them do.
Some of them are overt.
But some people think they're being moderate by banning conservatives because they think the far left is the center.
So let's not take them at their word.
Actions speak louder than words, and let's look at the evidence.
An email leaked from Veritas.
Statements from employees and a whistleblower from in the company make it clear as day.
Certain functions, mechanics within the company, Google, Facebook, or otherwise, are biased against conservatives, period.
Well, following this, there will be a White House social media summit on July 11th, aiming to have a robust conversation about online platforms at a time when they are under increasing attack.
Now here's what we're going to do.
For those that haven't been following, It was recently made clear that my videos no longer get the same kind of recommendations they used to.
It's a complicated problem, but suffice it to say, new subscribers are going to see my videos less when watching content on YouTube.
You know what?
Fine.
YouTube doesn't have to recommend my videos this way.
They still do recommend my content, but in other ways, so you know what?
Go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
Monthly donation option, crypto, physical address, many, many options.
Most importantly, if you like this video and feel like I do a good job, please consider sharing it because I'm now going to rely on you and not YouTube to do the promotion.
If that works for you, if not, then so be it.
I don't deserve the views anyway.
I'm gonna keep doing my thing and let's start by reading the story and a couple other funny political stories and some other big news too.
I'll just give you a heads up.
Trump bought the YouTube masthead for tonight's debate.
This is huge.
We'll get to that in a second though.
White House confirmation of the summit came after President Trump dialed up his criticism of tech companies on Wednesday morning.
He said in an interview on Fox Business Network that online giants such as Google and Facebook are trying to rig the election, while Twitter, Inc.
is making it harder for users to follow him.
The administration move appears to suggest the White House and its Republican allies will make alleged anti-conservative bias a major issue heading into the 2020 election, as they did in 2018.
Please.
Please.
I appreciate it, Wall Street Journal.
I think you do a good job.
But alleged bias?
You've got employees saying this.
There is a video from last September of Google co-founder saying, I am offended by this election.
That's not alleged anti-conservative bias.
That's literal video evidence of them being biased against conservatives.
If you want to talk specifically about alleged policy bias and argue that their actions, their personal feelings don't impact their policy, Okay, you can make the argument, I still don't believe it, but we're not talking about an alleged anti-conservative bias, we're talking about employees straight up, over and over and over again, saying this, it is not alleged anymore, it is a fact.
Period.
Say, there's a bias issue in 2020, right?
The online companies have denied accusations that they try to suppress conservative speech, but conservatives continue to raise concerns about the big platform's ability to influence how content is consumed on the internet.
They make it much harder for me to get up the message, Trump told Fox Business.
These people are all Democrats.
It's totally biased towards Democrats.
Big tech companies are also under growing pressure in Washington over concerns about their size and reach.
The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission recently took steps that set the stage for possible antitrust investigations of some major tech businesses, including Alphabet Inc.
unit, Google, and Facebook.
A White House spokesman said Wednesday that the July 11th event will bring together digital leaders for a robust conversation on the opportunities and challenges of today's online environment.
Good first step.
Glad to see something is happening.
Will it solve any problems?
I really don't know.
Obviously, Trump is aware of this.
He's mentioned it.
Trump Jr.
has tweeted about it.
The story is huge.
And it's being still, even though it's getting mentions now because of Trump, it's still being very, like, fairly, it's being omitted, right?
The media is not getting into the nitty gritty on what's happening here with this bias.
Left-wing outlets have confirmed this, yet I guess they're mad the cat's out of the bag.
Gizmodo, it's my understanding, broke the story about Facebook getting rid of conservative news.
And The Verge covered Sergey Brin saying the election offended him and that Trump voters don't hold his values.
That's bias, period.
Okay, can we move on from here?
I've got two funny social media stories.
This one is huge.
We're doing a social media segment here.
Acronym tweeted, huge.
Ahead of the Democratic debate tonight, real Donald Trump purchased the YouTube masthead,
one of the most expensive digital ad buys on the market.
More people will see this ad placement than will catch tonight's debate.
Trump is a madman.
Maybe not him, but his people know the game.
So I'm surprised they haven't taken action on social media censorship earlier.
His team knows full well.
YouTube.com masthead.
This is ridiculous.
Listen.
Google is one thing.
You go to Google, there's no ads.
You type in a search, you get ads related to that search.
You go to YouTube.com, and the first two videos you see are Donald Trump's re-election campaign.
So they're not ignorant to how social media is used to effectively prop up their campaign.
This is an amazing example, in my opinion, of Trump and his campaign having real internet savvy.
Here's the thing.
Conservatives understand memes.
Period.
Some of the best memes have been generated by the Donald subreddit.
That's a fact.
The most prolific memes were being generated by 4chan and the Donald.
That's how it's always been.
These are memesmiths.
In fact, one of the greatest memesmiths today is Carpe Donctum.
I'm not saying you have to like his memes.
I'm saying they are far and wide shared by the president, some of the most popular memes ever made.
They're funny little snippet videos that convey ideas, and conservatives get this, the left can't meme.
They really can't.
And this presents a huge disadvantage for Democrats going into 2020, and for 2016 as well.
So long as you have the fun, counterculture, comedy, humor, etc.
on the right, the left won't hack it.
There are some personalities on the left that I think do a great job.
I think Hbomberguy is pretty funny, and I think ContraPoints is pretty funny.
They're not meant to be funny, they have funny moments, and I like their content, so I can respect that too.
And that is a powerful tool for spreading their message.
Fun.
Seriously.
If you're not having fun, nobody wants to hang out with you.
So this is a good example, the mass has a really great example of just, once again, conservatives understanding the savvy of the internet.
They need to get on top of the bias, otherwise they're doomed.
But now for the inverse.
Quite possibly.
The most insane thing I've ever seen attempted.
And this shows the left can't meme.
Kind of.
Bill de Blasio tweeted, Lucky to have the talented debater Dante de Blasio helping me to get ready for Wednesday.
And what do we have here?
Why, it's a series of messages shared between Bill de Blasio and his son Dante, and I swear to God it was written by one person, a 22 year old intern, who doesn't know how humans interact with each other.
This is the problem the left has.
With winning elections right now.
So let's read a little bit of this.
I don't want to read this.
The whole thing's nonsense.
Dante, this is from Bill.
Dante, the debate's coming up.
I'm preparing intensely, but I must admit I'm a little nervous.
What advice would you have for me?
Thanks.
Love you, Dad.
Hey Dad, I'm glad you asked.
I've got a few ideas.
First of all, you're going to want to establish credibility, especially among skeptical young voters.
Tell them the story of how you met Mom while working as a young staffer at City Hall, and weave it into a reflection about how hard it is to find, like, the one on Tinder.
Find, like, the one.
Okay, Ocasio-Cortez?
Okay, but I'm looking for maybe a little more universal message.
Ah, okay.
Well, in a time of unprecedented national division, one thing we can all agree on are dogs.
You're going to want to build your platform and debate performance around them.
Bring photos.
Better yet, bring a litter of puppies to the debate stage.
Have them smother your foes.
It'll be adorbs.
Adorbs!
I always text my dad, that's totes adorbs.
Like, you know what I mean?
I would be willing to bet a substantial amount of money this script was written by a woman.
And I'm not saying that to be a dick or disparage women.
I'm saying that I really don't see a dude saying adorbs.
Maybe I'm wrong.
It's gonna be really funny when it turns out it's true.
They really did write this and they're just weirdos.
That is definitely a creative approach.
But how about something that allows me to stand out by talking about my accomplishments?
I need to impress the American people by showing them I'm a can-do guy.
Oh, okay.
In that case, tell people that NYC was just Staten Island when you started your first term.
