Jon Stewart New Show GOT WOKE WENT BROKE, CNN+ Already Laying Off Major Staff As Collapse Got WORSE
Jon Stewart New Show GOT WOKE WENT BROKE, CNN+ Already Laying Off Major Staff As Collapse Got WORSE. Stewart's return saw an abysmal 40k viewers as he was panned for embracing woke left ideology.
The media is driving itself off a cliff chasing far left ideology. While jon Stewart's show flops CNN+ is struggling and is on the verge of total collapse. Democrats falling for the insane shift keep embracing woke leftists and it results in a major backlash and possible republican red wave in november
#GetWokeGoBroke
#Democrats
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is April 19th, 2022, and our first story, Jon Stewart's new show, Gets Woke Goes Broke, pulling in only 40,000 viewers, according to reports.
When these comedians embrace the far left, it doesn't work.
The media keeps chasing after a narrative that regular people do not like.
In the next story, Washington Post doxes the creator behind the popular Libs of TikTok account.
And in our last story, Jack Dorsey goes off saying that he witnessed CNN trying to fabricate the news.
Throughout all of these stories, we will talk a bit about the Washington Post's doxing of this creator on Twitter, because it turns out they actually published the private home address of this individual.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, but please share this show with your friends.
It's the most powerful way to help us grow and thrive.
Now, let's get into that first story.
[♪ Music ♪ Many of us looked up to John Stewart.
He was the guy who took the Daily Show from celebrity gossip into politics and encouraged many of us to be involved in news and politics.
I grew up watching Jon Stewart and then Stephen Colbert, and I very much liked those shows.
Jon Stewart is a guy who was liberal, but he had praised Project Veritas while mocking them playfully on more than one occasion.
He seemed to be fair.
When Jon Stewart retired, we were all a little bit sad.
An end of an era was before us.
But when Jon Stewart announced that he was coming back, many people were surprised.
Surely the new show from Jon Stewart would help save this country embroiled in a massive culture war.
I thought, this is what we need.
A sane liberal to come back and be like, guys, what are you doing?
They were a few fleeting moments.
Jon Stewart went on Colbert's show and talked about lab leak hypothesis and Colbert pushed back saying, well, I don't know about all that.
But Jon Stewart seemed to be talking sense, saying this story here about Wuhan and the lab leak is just logic.
Well, what did we get?
When Jon Stewart's new show launched, we discovered he went woke.
And he went painfully woke, that wasn't funny, didn't make sense, and now it shows.
Jon Stewart's super woke Apple TV Plus show a flop, according to a report.
That is to say, his ratings appear to be around 40,000.
40,000.
Now, Apple TV hasn't released the direct rating, so we don't know for sure.
Some are claiming it's the number one show, but what does that really mean if we don't have the ratings on what that is?
Maybe people just don't actually watch Apple TV.
Some are saying it's the number eight show.
I think what we're seeing here is that the people who used to watch Jon Stewart are people like us, and we're fed up with woke, psychotic, cult nonsense.
Jon Stewart was out of the game too long.
So when he comes back, he decides to make a choice.
I'm on the left, he says, so I'm gonna go with what they're saying.
The only problem?
He's an old white dude.
I mean, I know he's Jewish, but, like, they're gonna wanna listen to a guy who's late to the party in their woke cult.
And the people who do believe in honesty, fair reporting, and playful ribbing at people who are being inconsistent, they're not gonna wanna watch this.
The other night, we made fun of Tucker Carlson.
Because, well, aside from lamenting the lack of sexiness from Eminem's, he did a documentary apparently about tanning one's junk.
We like Tucker Carlson.
I don't think he's perfect, of course not everybody is perfect, but he gets it right more often than not, and I can respect his arguments, even if I disagree with them because he's being honest.
When he does weird things like M&Ms or, you know, the junk tanning stuff, we can mock him for it.
That's the way it used to be with Jon Stewart.
Sane reality was on the side of the liberals, at least that's how we viewed things, but something went awry.
People started to go nuts, and now Jon Stewart is back with a failing show.
Contrast this with Bill Maher.
Bill Maher is now admitting he plays to a right-wing audience.
Bill Maher is accused of being right-wing.
Bill Maher He's actually mocking the woke left.
He's far from perfect because he doesn't know what to do.
But here we can see what happens.
Bill Maher decides he's going to stick to a little bit of what his principles were, but not all of it.
Covington kids, he got wrong a week after the story was corrected because I think he's just kind of lazy.
Semi-retired, as I'd call it.
John Stewart comes back and just seems to be saying, just tell me what to do and I'll do it.
Now we can see legacy media is failing in the face of woke trash.
The Daily Wire is skyrocketing, one of the fastest growing media organizations, if not the fastest.
Why?
Because regular people have had enough.
I recently hung out with the Daily Wire and I told them, I said, guys, you've taken the hill.
Hollywood and these, you know, these production companies, they stood atop the cultural hill and they retreated for ideological reasons, leaving the field open for you to claim.
The Daily Wire doesn't need to put messaging in their content.
They just need good content and it's working because we're sick of it.
We're sick of the wokeness.
We just want honesty.
Liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Jon Stewart, he went the wrong direction and it's sad to see.
We're also seeing CNN fail.
CNN Plus has done so poorly, they just laid off their CFO.
They're canceling marketing, and it looks like CNN is about to crash.
So let's talk about this.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member if you would like to support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments on the TimCast.rel podcast.
But the most important thing, you're keeping our journalists employed.
Why?
It was just today that we dug into the story from Taylor Lorenz.
Where she doxed the private home address of the creator of Libs of TikTok.
We had to do some digging, it cost a little bit of money.
I'm surprised many other conservatives and other independent media organizations didn't do this.
Maybe they will and they'll verify it, but we found public records indicating she did dox the private home address.
If you think the reporting we are doing is good, and I think it is, then we need your support.
We don't charge for the news articles.
But when you become a member, you make sure those news articles keep happening.
Many of you may just want to watch TimCastIRL podcast episodes, by all means, that's fine.
But just keep in mind, this is what you're helping build.
Hopefully, as a member, or you realize that reading these articles, we rely on memberships to keep going.
And the good news is, we're bigger than CNN Plus!
So...
I always say smash that like button, subscribe to this channel and share the show with your friends, because if everybody who watched this video shared it somewhere, we would be bigger than CNN overnight.
And I can proudly say with your support, we are bigger than CNN plus.
That's kind of crazy, isn't it?
It's the end of an era.
Times are changing.
Jon Stewart could have brought back something powerful, something meaningful, but instead, get woke, go broke.
Fox News reports Jon Stewart's super woke Apple TV show a flop.
Stewart decried the American dream as a fallacy, wrong, for anyone who isn't white in a recent episode.
I find it just so pathetic.
Jon, I looked up to you, man.
I remember when I was at Occupy Wall Street, I was like, I would love to talk to Jon Stewart about everything I saw.
You know, Jon Stewart ended up...
Canceling.
Retiring, as it were.
Trevor Noah took over.
Trevor Noah decided to go woke.
And Trevor Noah captured that audience.
What's Jon Stewart have to offer?
This is not why people want to watch Jon Stewart.
Fox News says, Former Daily Show host Jon Stewart's woke new series, The Problem with Jon Stewart, has been dubbed a flop, according to new reports.
Stewart's Apple TV show, which debuted in September, averaged only about 180,000 U.S.
homes in its first week.
By the fifth episode in March, Viewership went down 78% to only 40,000 U.S.
I got two wild turkeys right there in my backyard.
I could go out with my phone right now.
In fact, I could do it right now.
Maybe I should.
No, maybe I shouldn't.
I could take a video of those turkeys and post it on Instagram and get more viewers than that.
Perhaps Jon Stewart is getting more views than just 40,000.
They say, by comparison, Samba TV reported 844,000 U.S.
homes tuned into a March episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, hosted by John Oliver.
Stewart's latest show was previously panned by many news outlets.
After its initial release, the series has also been blasted online by online viewers for offering super woke and anti-white takes.
In two episodes that aired in March, Stewart insinuated that British-American author Andrew Sullivan was racist by agreeing with a guest accusing Sullivan of perpetuating racist dog whistle tropes.
A separate episode featured Democratic Senator Cory Booker calling out Stewart for suggesting white resentment led to white people opposing financial aid to black farmers.
No, no, when you say white farmers, yeah, I don't care what Booker said.
Apple TV has declined to release its numbers, but reports from Parent Analytics have shown that Stewart's program is the eighth most in-demand talk show in the U.S.
What does that mean?
Ahead of programs hosted by Ellen DeGeneres and James Corden, and behind ones hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, and Trevor Noah.
That doesn't mean anything.
Most didn't demand?
What does that mean?
I don't know.
Seemingly meaningless.
I gotta be completely honest.
Demand?
So maybe they polled people and they said, what show would you wanna watch?
And they were like, I'd love to watch Jon Stewart.
And then Jon Stewart comes out and they're like, I don't wanna watch that!
That's bad.
I'll say it again.
I'm gonna, once I wrap this up, I'm gonna film the turkeys and post it to Instagram and I'm gonna get more than 40,000 views.
Isn't that crazy?
Jon Stewart couldn't even get that?
What?
It's really sad.
When he did that episode called The Problem with White People, I was just like, bro, no, this is not it.
Let's talk about that American Dream is a fallacy for anyone who isn't white.
Oh, it is so annoying.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
But for those that don't, when I went to occupy Wall Street, before I got any recognition, I was told that I was such a great example of what was wrong with this country, because I come from a mixed race background.
I'm a high school dropout, but I'm a smart guy.
I should be successful.
What's wrong with this system?
It's because you're not silver spoon, white privilege, Tim.
Then Time Magazine put me on Time's Person of the Year, featured as one of their, uh, one of their Time's Person of the Year features.
I wasn't THE person of the year, the protester was.
I was one of six video features.
They nominated me for the Time 100.
And then all of a sudden they were saying, Tim Pool is a white kid who grew up rich with a silver spoon in his mouth because the narrative they need to push must deny the existence of the American Dream.
That you can be from the South Side.
You can be from a lower income family.
You can have your family's home could be lost to bankruptcy.
You could grow up near gangs and have friends who died of heroin overdoses.
And you can find a way to succeed.
And I did.
Because I believe in the American Dream.
It does exist.
Not everybody can make it.
Some people can.
It's a real thing.
But since when was the American dream about being rich?
The American dream was that you could pull yourself out of the gutter.
That you, as someone from a terrible place, could work hard and get a nice house and have
a family.
That was the American dream.
Jon Stewart is playing the dirty game again.
Take a look at this.
A muted start.
Social media posts across the board for Stewart's show, smaller than its peers.
Colbert is doing way better.
Yeah, but Colbert's on network TV with a built-in audience.
Trevor Noah inherited the audience from Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart could not muster up even more than John Oliver.
Now, of course, in this article from Bloomberg, they do say that other metrics say he's the number one unscripted series on Apple TV, but what does that really mean?
We don't have those numbers.
It could be that he's doing well, but let me tell you.
When they come out and they say so-and-so is the biggest podcast in the world, let me give you some metrics.
There are some of the top podcasts in the world.
I'm not gonna name who.
Because this is their private information.
But some of the top podcasts only get 100,000 to 300,000 downloads, viewers, on their show.
And they're like the biggest in the world.
And when I learned that, I said, no, that can't be right.
I get more than that on YouTube!
We did a special episode with Ben Shapiro.
It's got like half a million views.
Got like half a million views in a day.
Put it up on Sunday.
We do our podcast on Spotify and iTunes, all of that.
We get around, you know, like 120 to 130,000 downloads.
And we are not often on the top charts because top charts are based on how many people subscribe to your show.
It's crazy, right?
You get new subscribers, they boost you in the ratings.
So appearing on other podcasts boosts you up.
They can come out and claim it's the most in-demand show, but nobody watches it.
Because they don't really release all of the legitimate metrics.
Let's take a look at where Bill Maher went.
Because Bill Maher still gets around 1 million people watching his show.
Bill Maher is trying to dance the line between still being a liberal, but calling out wokeness.
Good for him, it's far from perfect.
Look at this story from November 23rd.
Daily Beast says, Bill Maher is America's most important conservative voice.
Bill Maher is not a conservative.
He is a secular liberal.
But you see how they're calling him conservative?
You see how they call me conservative?
You know what?
I'm someone who grew up watching Jon Stewart.
I am a person whose worldview, opinions, very much came to fruition through people like Jon Stewart.
You know what I liked?
I liked that he complimented Project Veritas in his own way.
Mocked them for being silly and wearing weird clothes, but said they did good work.
Journalists, where are you?
How are these guys scooping you?
It's a compliment.
In its own way.
And he reported on what Project Veritas uncovered with Acorn.
Uncritically.
He said, look what they were able to do with this undercover reporting.
Today, they just make up lies about Project Veritas.
I respected that.
I don't have to, I don't view people like Bill Maher or Jon Stewart as enemies.
I'll tell you this, the woke cultists, I believe, are evil people for the most part.
They lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top.
No, I think for a while I believed that Jon Stewart was a good dude or that Bill Maher was, but I think they're pandering.
They're scared.
I have no fear in calling out the BS.
I don't care who wants to listen or who follows.
That is to say, I'm not crossing my fingers and hoping conservatives come to my show.
I'm not crossing my fingers and hoping liberals come to my show.
I'm telling you how I think and feel, and the people who will come and listen will come and listen.
There's nothing else I can do about it.
Good people.
It's the best I can do.
But it feels like Bill Maher, to a lesser degree than Jon Stewart, are desperately trying to hold on of some semblance of, I'm on the left!
I'm on the left!
Yeah, look, policy-wise, we're talking about the political compass.
Because I believe in social programs and some, some economic left-leaning policy, but I'm pretty centrist.
I'm also very libertarian.
Gun rights is not right-wing on the political compass.
Now when the left talks about left-right as tribes, oh sure, I'm certainly not on the left in terms of tribe.
Those people have lost their minds.
But on the political compass, when we're talking about economics and policy, I lean left.
I don't need anyone to, you can call me whatever you want, I literally don't care.
It's not going to change my opinion.
What'll change my opinion is sound arguments.
Bill Maher?
He knows he's wrong about a lot of this stuff.
But I think he's scared to lose audience.
I had no problem coming out and telling the Trump supporters they're wrong about the election fraud stuff, and they yell at me for it.
Fine, you're allowed to.
Whatever, we disagree.
Don't watch my show if you don't want to watch my show.
I don't think I can do about it.
I ain't changing my opinion to try and get more viewers.
Take a look at this from January 28th.
Bill Maher fires back at those who say his politics have changed, blames loony left politics.
Bravo, good sir.
You're right.
Maybe now, Bill, you'll read the news for once.
And you'll be like, wow, how wrong was I about all of that?
A new report, let me tell you guys, a new report shows that Hunter Biden was paying family expenses while working on the board of Burisma when his dad went and got a prosecutor fired.
The prosecutor was investigating the founder of that company.
It's all one big happy family tree, son.
That's not a left wing or right wing position to call out corruption.
Hey, you want to hear more?
Donald Trump's properties were being advertised on government websites in the UK.
That was also wrong.
I have no problem saying things that are true.
Criticize them.
I still think Donald Trump was way better than Joe Biden because I was willing to look at things objectively.
I don't care if these leftists or liberal tribalists are like, Chimpoo is right-wing, I refuse to listen to him.
Whatever happens, I'm gonna say what needs to be said.
And that is that Jon Stewart and Bill Maher deserve a reckoning.
And it appears it's happening.
Now, Bill Maher, he's clinged on for dear life.
Coming on his show and being like, maybe this woke stuff is bad, actually.
Yeah, because he realized, guess what?
People like me, I used to be his audience.
I don't watch him anymore.
A little bit here and there.
I used to watch his show every day.
Every day it was public.
It was like, you know, when was it?
Friday nights or something?
We'd be hanging out at my friend's house and we'd put it on and we liked the show.
It was reasonable.
What happened?
I guess media went nuts.
Take a look at this.
Scoop.
CNN Plus looks doomed.
Media went insane.
CNN executives think the launch has been successful.
Discovery executives disagree.
Alright, so here's good news.
CNN Plus has roughly 150,000 subscribers good far.
I said good news for CNN.
They have 10,000 daily active users, but hey, they got a lot of users.
They're bigger than us in that capacity.
The strange thing is, with all those users, we actually have more daily active users, I'm pretty sure.
150,000 subscribers.
That's a lot.
They're getting between three and five bucks per subscriber, so they're getting millions of dollars per month.
Okay.
Maybe I'll go back and say, in some ways, we're bigger than CNN, but we're not big enough, so, sharetimcast.com, sign up.
We should be.
Now, of course, they put, what, $300 million into this company?
Apparently, 150K subs wasn't enough, and they're not gonna be able to sustain it, so they're talking about shutting down marketing.
They've laid off their chief financial officer.
As it weighs what to do with their streaming service.
Yeah, because CNN is trash.
They've become trash.
They've become worse and worse.
They weren't always great.
They weren't always good.
But they were better than this.
They at least reported the news.
I want to show you some stories.
We have this one from CNN.
A public university in Ohio will pay a professor $400,000 after disciplining him for refusing to use a transgender student's pronouns.
On the left, in the mainstream media, they will tell you that this is shocking because you should use people's pronouns.
But in the real world, the courts are like, you don't have to.
In the real world, Professor Sue, as much as the media and woke Twitter tries to claim this is reality, it's not.
And that's why Jon Stewart fails.
I'm sure they're doing better than we realize, but they're doing substantially worse than they expected.
In this story from the Washington Post, Judge's decision to void mask mandate prompts mid-flight cheers among flyers.
Well, you mean to tell me that the mask mandate was unpopular?
But all of these woke people with blue check marks and tons of followers, here's one with 250,000 followers, are shocked and outraged.
One Twitter user said, Hey Delta, I hope all the passengers on your flights in the air, uh, in the air when they found out about the mask mandates being lifted, sue the ish out of you for a breach of contract for a masked flight, and your lack of fiduciary responsibility to provide a safe flight.
This verified Twitter user says this, with fingers pointing down.
People are cheering!
There was a video of a guy walking with a bag being like, throw in your masks, dancing and singing, because everyone's like, woo!
And they're throwing all their masks in the garbage!
And these people think they are in the majority.
This is why when you look at polling, you can see that independent voters, 2-1, typically, I say 2-1, lean towards Republicans.
Not always.
The Republican Party is trash.
But I'm talking about issues like, is the economy good or bad?
Independents 2-1 say it's bad.
Democrats say it's good 2-1.
What's up with that inversion?
Why are independent voters leaning towards the right?
Because the left has gone insane.
And Jon Stewart couldn't see that.
Or at the very least, he thought, I will capitalize on a saturated market of insanity.
Jon, your fans didn't go in that direction.
They went in this direction.
We are not conservatives.
We have not been traditionally conservative.
We were the people who were saying, hey, you know, gay people should be allowed to get married.
The conservatives were like, no, and the conservatives are still like, no, and guess what?
I sit down with them every day.
People like Seamus Coghlan of Freedom Tunes, and we disagree.
I sat down with, slip of the tongue, I sat down with Jason Whitlock in Nashville, and he said that he didn't agree with gay marriage, and I said, I do.
I think people need to have equal rights under the law in that capacity.
The same is true for trans people.
I just don't agree with going after kids.
I don't agree with the woke cult stuff.
I don't believe in digging up people's tweets.
I don't believe in publishing the private address of somebody because you don't like that they're aggregating videos and posting them to Twitter.
I think people have lost their minds and would much prefer if people just became a bit more civil.
But I want to tell you about radicalization of media and where it all goes wrong.
Malcolm Nance.
Oh, Malcolm.
He was on MSNBC, I'm pretty sure.
Here we go.
MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance leaves network to fight in Ukraine.
Are you nuts?
I'm sorry.
Malcolm Nance posted an image of him in tactical gear with a rifle and it says, I'm done talking.
Join the Legion.
Stop Russia.
Slava Ukrainia.
Really, dude?
Wow, he posted this last night.
From being a commentator on TV, to being a 60-year-old going and fighting, dude.
This reminds me a lot of, uh, you ever see the movie Edge of Tomorrow?
With Tom Cruise?
How he's like a marketing officer.
You know, he's got high rank, but he's not a fighter.
And then the joint command to fight the alien's like, you're gonna be on the front lines, the camera.
And he's like, what, me?
Are you crazy?
That's what it feels like.
Publicity stunt, PR, this dude, you're 60, bro.
You're 60.
I'm 36?
I could probably fight?
I ain't crazy enough to do that.
Now, Malcolm Nance has military experience.
He was a naval intelligence officer.
He served as an on-air analyst for the network since 2007.
You're gonna tell me it's been 15 years, and you're gonna go out there, yo, This is insanity.
This is radicalization.
This is absolutely insane.
And this is what the media has become.
What regular American person is going to look at this and be like, this makes tons of sense?
There are people who buy into it.
There are people who eat it up.
But I think this just shows you how insane the media has become.
A TV commentator has gone to fight in Ukraine.
Okay, y'all, we are desperate for ratings now, aren't we?
What happened to just... I don't know, man.
What happened to honest conversations?
What happened to skepticism?
What happened to independent thought?
John, why didn't you just come out and be like, nah, I ain't buying that.
Doesn't jive with my personal opinion.
No, because he was like, I want to make money.
That's the only way I can see it.
Bill Maher.
He's at least willing to push back a little bit, but I still think what Bill Maher is doing is a desperate attempt to keep his show going.
Bill Maher said, he's like, for the first time I'm playing to a right-wing audience.
I'm playing to both left and right.
Yeah.
Yeah, Jon Stewart knows what he's doing.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Bill Maher.
Bill Maher probably saw his ratings and was like, what's happening?
I gotta make sure I can maintain true liberal values.
And so he pushed back.
But he's not willing to give up on his bread and butter, the networks that run his show.
It really is sad.
This is where we've gone.
Yeah, it's just about career.
Amanda Milius says, I just heard re Malcolm Nance that during the Trump transition team,
he applied for a job in the administration, sent in his resume through folks who knew him from JSOC.
He did not go anti Trump till he got turned down for a job in many such cases. Yeah, it's just
about career. It's about career. Let me show you the state of media.
One thing that we've been talking about all day is the story about Taylor Lorenz.
Taylor Lorenz published a story revealing the name of the person who runs the popular Twitter account Libs of TikTok, but also linked to private details, including the private home address of this creator, as well as the address of their family members.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating Now, when I reached out to Lorenz, Lorenz said, I did not publish the home address of the individual, but according to public documents, that is not the case.
Now, it's possible the address is incorrect.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Now when I reached out to Lorenz, Lorenz said I did not publish the home address of the
individual, but according to public documents, that is not the case.
Now it's possible the address is incorrect.
I mentioned this in other segments, but it's irrelevant to where we're at.
For those who aren't familiar with the context, it may be that Libs of TikTok moved from this
address, but public records indicate the address Taylor Lorenz posted is the home address of
this individual.
Just saying, I didn't do it.
I'm like, but I have the archive showing you linked to it.
I have public documents showing that address is the home address.
Unless you can provide me with some real evidence, yo, we have confirmation.
Public documents show this is the address.
Now, why would Taylor Lorenz do that?
The argument now online is it's all about real reporting.
But you don't need to show someone's address, their employer, and their name to explain the motives behind it.
I bring you now to Matthew Iglesias, who addresses the issue.
And let me get into context as to why this is relevant.
This is about what the media has become, and why Jon Stewart is failing, and why the media is insane.
Matthew Iglesias co-founded Vox, the progressive website.
He said, Here is a take on the Taylor Lorenz libs of TikTok story that is really a defense of my chosen craft of take slinging.
The problem with the piece is that its point is clearly something like libs of TikTok is bad.
But because it's structured as a news story, it doesn't have a clear thesis statement or the attributes of a well-constructed bit of opinion journalism where you defend the thesis against counter-arguments.
I would actually much rather read a well-edited thesis-driven take from Lorenz about the libs of tic-tac-account and why some people think that it's good, but in fact it's bad.
After all, which things are good and which are bad is often of great interest.
There is also, I think, great value in straight news reporting.
This happened, this happened, that happened.
He said this, she said that.
But today, we have too much uncanny valley stuff.
Takes that are structured as news stories often through the alchemy of experts say.
In this case, the identity of the person behind the libs of TikTok account turns out to be totally uninteresting.
She's a random crank.
That's it.
But both the libs of TikTok account and the phenomenon of left-wing educators doing TikTok videos, why do they do this, is interesting.
That's right.
The story is just trying to smear someone.
I give you this tweet from Lorenz herself, saying, rather than debate doxing, I hope people can read the story and see the striking escalation of attacks against gay and trans people and the crucial role this account has played in the right-wing media ecosystem.
And there it is.
The purpose of the story from Lorenz is that it is bad and that the right is using it.
Well, that's fascinating.
Libs of TikTok takes publicly available videos, aggregates them.
That's about it.
Libs of TikTok has an opinion.
What does that have to do?
Where's the news?
Taylor Lorenz, in my opinion, did not do news.
Taylor Lorenz took a story, framed it as news, framed something that they didn't like as bad, doxed the private home address of the individual, claimed they didn't, when they did, and I have the archives and we have proof they did.
And tries to make it seem like I'm just doing standard reporting.
This is what media has become in the woke world.
But, to wrap it all up in a neat bow, Jon Stewart's show fails because he gets woke and goes broke.
Regular people don't agree with these things.
In fact, regular people agree with the sentiments published by Libs of TikTok.
When you look at the Parental Rights and Education Bill, the Wall Street Journal published this.
Where I believe it's 59% of Democrats agree with the bill.
But on Twitter, they call it Don't Say Gay.
The Democrats call it Don't Say Gay, even though it's not.
Now, if even Democrats agree with the bill, where is the opposition coming from?
It's coming from the likes of people like Taylor Lorenz, who masquerade as journalists, decry doxing, but then turn around only a few weeks later and publish the private home address of people they don't like.
I'll stress this point.
When I reached out to Taylor Lorenz, and I will give Taylor respect for this far, she did respond, and rather quickly, saying, I did not reveal the home address of this person.
Okay?
Denial is fine, but I have the archive, I have the story where you can click the link, and then it shows the private home address of this individual.
Simply denying it, I'm sorry, is just not correct.
She also linked to the private home address of family members of this person.
Why do that?
Now, Washington Post did remove those links after a backlash, because that is a serious story.
I mean, a journalist publishing the home address?
I'm seeing everybody on Twitter being like, it's just a name.
All they did was post the name, and I'm like, I even thought that was the case this morning.
Turns out, No, it's the private home address.
So, you know, I'll get into all of this for those listening on the podcast version of this in the next segment.
But this is the nature of media today.
Journalists are just activists.
They're targeting you for political reasons.
Jon Stewart decided he was going to join in that, and now he's failing because of it.
I'm sort of an activist.
I think that's fair to say.
But my activism is freedom.
I think you should have knowledge, and you should be free.
That means I will tell you to the best of my ability the nuance of a circumstance, the true details around something, and then you can decide for yourself.
That's all I really care about.
Everything is effectively political.
Everything is, in essence, political.
That's what the left says.
That's why they're justified in doing what they do.
What if you choose to cover this story or that story?
That's what you choose to cover.
People can find and follow whatever they want.
If people follow you, it's because they like and trust you and they like what you talk about.
Yeah, that's reality.
That's human nature.
But choosing to omit information, choosing to include information, that's where things get political.
Me?
We talked about whether or not we withhold this story because it could cause harm.
That's a true journalistic ethic, a part of journalistic ethics.
But I felt the importance of the story outweighed the risk factors, and the risk factors should be on Taylor Lorenz and the Washington Post.
Regular people throw their masks off and cheer when the mask mandates are lifted.
Twitter journalists tell you that masks are important and you should sue airlines.
Who's gonna sue them?
The people who are cheering?
This is my point.
Jon Stewart chased after a six-year-old psychotic binge.
Social media binge.
All of these people on social media who are chasing after the psychosis are starting to bail out.
Bill Maher bails out.
Matthew Iglesias was with Vox, and even he's coming out criticizing Taylor Lorenz.
People are waking up and like, yo, regular people, regular Americans, they don't like this stuff.
Jon Stewart's an idiot who came late to the party and said, I'll join in.
And it's like, Jon, like, we're done with all of that.
But you know what?
Maybe some people will never learn.
All in all, I think that we are seeing victory for those that believe in true liberalism, real freedom and liberty.
That includes conservatives, to a great degree, and post-liberals.
Post-liberal.
Post-liberal typically refers to those that are politically homeless.
We used to be on the left.
We used to be the followers of Jon Stewart, the viewers and audience of his shows.
And now we're looking at him confused, like, yo, what happened to you, dude?
We did not move.
Bill Maher says, I didn't move, they moved!
Now, Bill Maher, you moved a little bit because you're following broken, insane activist news.
But Jon Stewart decided to jump headfirst.
And that's just sad.
And that's just crazy.
And for this, his show is in the gutter.
I assume his show's not as bad as they're saying.
I mean, everybody was saying CNN only had 10,000 users when they have 150,000 users.
That makes sense to me.
But it's reported they only had 10,000 daily active users, which is like, ugh!
Yo, that's crazy.
And they're reportedly suspending marketing.
Good.
They're still making tons of money.
But, you know what I can say?
Probably by the time that, well, you know, I can actually say this right now.
I don't know what the ratings were of, uh, are of Jon Stewart when he was doing his show, but I can tell you that our ratings are higher than Bill Maher.
It's hard to quantify because we break the show up in various ways.
They would just go on TV and everybody would watch, but now it's VOD stuff.
I'll say this.
We get more views at Timcast than Bill Maher does on his show.
His YouTube clips may make up for it, but times are changing, and we need people to step up and say, hey, you know, it's time to back away.
But their ratings have been going down.
Jon Stewart was gone for too long.
If you really do like the work we do and you want to support this media, you need to become a member at TimCast.com, because we are going to keep pushing, keep expanding, and with your support, we will shatter through the lies and the manipulations.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all next time.
The internet is filled with rage this morning after Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post has doxed the person behind popular Twitter account Libs of TikTok.
I say popular on purpose because clearly it's popular among the right, but not among the left.
However, Taylor Lorenz herself says a popular Twitter account has morphed into a social media phenomenon.
Spreading anti-LGBTQ sentiment and shaping public discourse.
Ah, there is much to get into in this story.
For one, the story reveals the name of the person who is behind libs of TikTok.
A lot of people are, well, they're furious with Taylor Lorenz for a variety of reasons.
Notably, Taylor has said in the past that doxing is wrong and publishing private information is wrong, and has even gone on television saying that you are in fear that someone could take any piece of information and come after you, and she cries on TV.
Now, I've defended Taylor Lorenz in the past, and I will maintain my position, at least in this regard, that of all of the mainstream media journalists that I've encountered, corporate press, Taylor is one of the only, if only, where I've actually said, like, hey, this thing is not true, or this thing, you know, is actually like this, and she's been really great about it, like, oh, wow, I didn't see that, cool, thanks so much.
So, as far as I'm concerned, if you're willing to be polite, responsive, and actually address issues, then I'm gonna try and be nice in response.
To that end, I also think it's important to point out when I disagree with something someone does, Put it simply, I think Brian Stelter is a bad person.
But I do not appreciate people insulting him or calling him names.
But they're allowed to.
What are you going to do about it, right?
But I don't like that.
And I've criticized Tucker Carlson for referring to him negatively.
We'll put it that way because I don't want to repeat it.
No, I try to keep things on the level of ideas, actions.
In the instance of Taylor Lorenz, she is someone who says doxing is wrong, but is now doxing an individual.
The question here is, what is doxing?
Well, apparently, according to Taylor, she doesn't believe that it's doxing because the information was publicly available, or I should put it, she refers to it as standard journalistic practices.
But I'll break it down for you.
For those who aren't familiar, libs of TikTok It aggregates videos of libs on TikTok or other social media platforms, and it's critical.
It shows, recently, you have teachers talking about what they're teaching kids in schools.
Now, that in and of itself is not anything bad, according to the people who made those videos.
This is where things get interesting.
Somebody posts a video publicly of them on TikTok, and it's them teaching students about adult themes, you know, like sexual concepts.
And Libs of TikTok will post this.
Why is that a bad thing?
Why are you mad about that?
That someone chose to post.
I make these videos all the time and people take clips of it.
I don't freak out and be like, why are they posting clips of me?
It's like, well, you know, these things happen.
Often they are taken out of context when they're of me.
And I'm sure that in many instances, full context would be appreciated even libs of TikTok videos, but this is the internet, so I'm not going to cry about it.
That's not doxing.
That's just aggregating things, being like, ha, look at these people.
Taylor Lorenz has taken the name of the individual, published it, and some have argued it's acceptable that it's not doxing because the name was publicly available.
And therein lies the deep philosophical conundrum, the ethical question.
Taylor Lorenz's information herself is extremely publicly available and would take only a few seconds to publish.
That's still wrong.
You know, and Taylor tweeted, and I asked on Twitter, has your stance on doxing changed?
Well, based on Taylor Lorenz's tweets about this, she doesn't think what she did was doxing.
I don't exactly know why.
Let's talk about ethics behind journalism real quick, and then we'll read the story.
And we'll break down.
I'm not concerned about, you know, Taylor's article, Meet the Woman Behind Libs of TikTok.
I want to talk about Rolling Stones.
Taylor Lorenz wrote about Libs of TikTok and conservatives won't shut up about it.
That's the real story here.
The story is the culture war and the manipulation.
I believe Taylor is engaging in sophistry to argue that what she did is not doxxing.
And I will stress this.
We'll jump over to the SPJ Code of Ethics and let me just Let me just try and see if I... Here we go.
Minimize harm.
In fact, it is a massive, bold phrase on the SPJ Code of Ethics.
So, the SPJ, of course, is a society of professional journalists.
Their Code of Ethics is not law or anything like that, but, you know, typically we try to use these ethics.
Let me read this and explain... Actually, let me explain what Taylor did.
Posting the name of the person behind Libs of TikTok does not serve the story in any way.
If I'm trying to explain to you what Libs of TikTok is, I would say it's an account that aggregates videos of progressives and liberals from TikTok and other social media posts, often shining them in a negative light or a critical light is probably a better way to put it.
These videos go viral.
Joe Rogan has promoted this.
Tucker Carlson has talked about it.
That really explains to you what's going on behind this.
Now, Perhaps you're wondering, what is the motivation of this individual?
Why are they doing this?
Also important.
I completely agree with that, at least, when it comes to Taylor Lorenz's reporting.
Who is this person?
And I mean that in terms of their politics, why they do what they do, and what might motivate them.
Saying their name in no way explains this.
Their name could be mud, for all I know, and that doesn't change anything about the motivations behind the account.
Thus, It is maximizing harm when you know, when you have gone on TV yourself, Taylor, you've gone on TV and talked about how any little bit of information can cause you serious distress and pain.
Saying the name does not in any way explain the motivations.
It just opens the door and blasts out the person for pain.
You can tell the story and say, this individual did this thing, did that thing, believes this thing, has tweeted about this, that, or otherwise.
And you can say whatever you want to say about the person.
The person behind this account is an insurrectionist, far-right extremist, blah, blah, blah.
Fine.
That's all fine.
I mean, a lot of opinion.
But one of the things they're saying is that the person behind Libs of TikTok had, you know, participated in January 6th or whatever.
You want to say that they had been tweeting on the ground from January 6th?
Absolutely.
Do it.
Adding the name maximizes harm.
Why would you engage in that?
SPJ says, ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues, and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should balance the public's need for information against potential harm or discomfort.
Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
Showing compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.
Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles victim of assault.
Sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent consider cultural differences.
Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
Let me stress that point and send it over to Taylor's tweet herself.
Taylor tweeted, Libs of TikTok has become a powerful force online, shaping right-wing media, impacting anti-LGBTQ plus legislation and influencing millions by posting viral videos aimed at inciting outrage.
I wrote about the account, the woman behind it, and why it matters.
I said, has your position on doxing changed?
And then someone responded, scanning Twitter bios as doxing?
Tim Pool, famous dox supporter, LMAO, because I've had Jack Basobic on the show.
My response was, yes, you're allowed to engage with people who do things you think are wrong, and you don't have to condemn the entirety of a person's human being-ness, because they did one thing you didn't like.
Again, I will stand by.
When there have been stories that have been incorrect or falsely framed, Taylor's engaged on these things.
I've had fine conversations.
I respect that 100%.
So people like to come out and, you know, many times in the past, attack Taylor and I'm like, nah, I look, I disagree on some
of the things that she does, but disagreement is not grounds for me to just be outraged
or insulting or condescending.
I can just say I disagree with that, but I respect Taylor's willingness to engage on issues
and actually communicate on that tremendous respect for that.
In this instance, I can only just say I think this action was wrong.
My personal view on this is that it was an intent to maximize harm.
Because any journalist knows you don't need to do this.
I've worked in these newsrooms.
We talk about this stuff all the time.
We change names.
You go to many news outlets and they'll be like, a mother, you know, is in a court battle over her trans child, and we're gonna call her Dana, but Dana is not her real name.
Right, you changed the name because you don't need to say a four letter word to convey the context and the importance of the story.
In this instance, the story about Libs of TikTok does not require the name to be published.
Now, the response I got Robbie Suave said, I ask this in genuine good faith.
How do you square this sort of reporting with your stated position that doxing is never okay?
It seems you are likely to direct no small amount of harassment towards this woman as a result of exposing her.
One interview, now I want to stress, the people who follow this post, only people that Taylor Lorenz follows can reply.
One of her followers said, one of the people she follows, it's not doxing when it's public information.
I said, no, that can't be.
Taylor's info is publicly available and it's wrong to post it.
They said, if you consider name filed on trademark application doxxing, then the blame should be on the United States Patent and Trademark Office, not Taylor.
Wrong.
SPJ says, recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast it.
My opinion is Taylor Lorenz did this for political reasons.
The reason why I think that is that when you look at the responses and you look at the conversation on Twitter, These are people who genuinely hate libs of TikTok.
They're politically motivated individuals.
Of course, welcome to the culture war.
Ethics be damned at this point.
Some people have made the point that Taylor can come out and say doxing is wrong, and then someone responds, yes, except when it's against my enemies, then it's okay.
There was a tweet saying that Taylor actually, my understanding is Taylor responded saying, no, no, it's never okay.
But here we are.
Legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
Broadcast means, effectively, to amplify it out, even if it is publicly available.
I want to make one point.
Libs of TikTok was doxed in such a ridiculously easy manner that I kind of roll my eyes like it barely qualifies as doxing.
That being said, it still is doxing.
There's doxxing in the sense where I can dig up old records and I can track down an old building in an old abandoned town and then find a manila folder and I'm like, there's their name.
Or you can pay for a service to do a background search and try and connect dots and addresses.
There's some legitimate doxing.
Like, we got doxed here at our place of work, and it was because someone recognized an interior photo.
We were taken all seriously.
We're like, no photos, we're not gonna do any of that.
And then someone recognized the corner of a room.
I'm like, wow.
Okay, well they doxed us.
Now, as for Taylor, she did a public record search, and it was like everything was just lined up.
Address, name, and libs of TikTok all in one place, so I'm like...
Okay, it is doxing, but you kinda need to understand security.
That being said, Taylor had no reason to publish this name.
They say, realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures, and others who seek power, influence, or attention.
Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
Now, this is an interesting counterpoint.
Libs of TikTok is a powerful platform that has a serious impact, still.
There's no reason to increase the danger to an individual's life in order to explain who they are and what they do, even if you're being critical.
Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Balance a subject's right to a fair trial with the public's right to know.
Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.
I put it this way.
If you want to enter the public arena, recognize that you will be in the public arena.
Some people are saying that Libs of TikTok has a right to privacy.
I don't know if I agree with that.
If you want to have a tremendous and powerful impact, I think the people have a right to know who you are and what your motivations are.
That being said, I would not agree with putting out people's information like that in a news story.
The journalist should not be engaging with opinions on these matters.
Let me put it this way.
Journalists are supposed to be, to a degree, fair and allow public discourse to play out.
You don't need to publish someone's name.
I just say it again, you don't need to publish their name.
You can explain who they are, what they do, you can mention their name is readily available, all of that stuff.
Now where things get interesting is that apparently it's been reported that Taylor went to the home of one of the relatives of the person behind Libs of TikTok.
Now a lot of people on the right are angry about that.
I would disagree with that.
However, I would not disagree with going to someone's house.
James O'Keefe goes to people's houses to confront them.
He's done it in the past.
CNN has done it.
You want to complain about it?
Everybody does it.
Going to a relative's home?
Okay, well, that's where things get a little iffy.
These people are not involved in the story.
Why are you going to their house?
My understanding is, in this instance, it may have been because the address on file in one of these public disclosures about the person behind Lives of TikTok, that was the address Taylor went to.
It's a dirty world we live in.
There was an instance where CNN doxed a guy because he made a meme.
Absolutely wrong.
Or they threatened to.
But there was a guy, I think, who posted a Nancy Pelosi video that put his name and job out.
That's all wrong.
It is different when you're dealing with a public figure.
Libs of TikTok, in my opinion, can't expect to have nearly 700,000 followers and not have people be like, we know who is operating this massive account, which has more reach than CNN Plus.
I mean, CNN Plus only has 10,000 daily active users, but you get the point.
Like, okay, maybe that's not fair.
CNN Plus is gutter trash.
But I mean, 700,000 is prominent.
People are gonna know who you are.
If you want to be in the public arena, you can only wear a mask for so long.
Again, I think what Taylor Lorenz did was wrong.
I'm just saying it feels like an inevitability.
But that inevitability should be a matter of the public, not a journalist choosing to enter the fray and engage in the culture war in that manner.
But come on, we all get it.
All the journalists are involved.
Rolling Stone.
Taylor Lorenz wrote about libs of TikTok, and conservatives won't shut up about it.
Newsweek.
Here we go.
Newsweek says, why Taylor Lorenz libs of TikTok expose as outraged conservatives.
Let me show you this tweet from Taylor Lorenz.
It's the, is this, is this the meme?
And it shows the butterfly, the most basic reporting practices, right wing media, is this doxing?
There's no question about it.
It was.
Taylor.
Your information is publicly available.
Now, if I wanted to do a story explaining why people are upset with you and how you're a very prominent figure who reports on social media, if I included private details about you that are publicly available, would that be doxing?
Yes, it would, and I wouldn't do it because it's wrong.
And therein lies the big problem, I guess.
Perhaps if Taylor believes that revealing people's private information is not doxing, then it should be allowed to post.
Now of course, Taylor didn't publish this person's address.
That would be different.
But Taylor, I believe in the story, does explain how to get the address.
I could be wrong.
But at the very least, as a result of this reporting, the information... I believe it's... I'm pretty sure it's in the story.
I'm avoiding the Washington Post story because I'm not going to publish the name of an individual who wants to be private.
But I'm pretty sure Taylor explained how she got the name.
And in doing so, basically said like, hey, you want this person's address?
It's right there.
Let me, so I'll ask this.
Taylor, if I published an explanation of where your address could be located, but without saying your address, would that be doxxing or a step over the line?
Personally, I think it would be, and I think you did step over the line.
Because I don't want anybody getting hurt.
This is the nature of the culture war, though.
Principles be damned.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Taylor may think that publishing the name of an individual is not doxing, but it literally is.
A person who is anonymous having their name revealed is doxing.
And again, to be fair, it was extremely easy to do.
When people were like, look how Libs of TikTok got doxed, I was like, are you kidding?
You may as well just tweet your name out, come on.
That being said, nobody had actually taken up the effort until recently, and now here we are.
So they say, among the chaos following the case on social media, Lorenz was accused of showing up to the house of relatives of the Libs of TikTok account holder.
However, this information has not been confirmed by Lorenz or the Washington Post and has not been independently proven to be true.
My understanding is that it may have been The address on file.
That wasn't actually Libs of TikTok's address, but somewhere she may have used to live.
Libs of TikTok is considered one of the most influential accounts in the conservative landscape on social media, and its tweets received thousands of likes.
Its content regularly misgender non-binary and transgender people, and has called civil rights protesters criminals.
But this is all opinion stuff.
Who has a right to anonymity in the public space?
Therein lies the deep challenge.
At what point do you forfeit your right when you engage in the public arena?
Let me clarify my point from earlier.
I think people have a right to anonymity.
I think if you want to leave your house, you can put on a mask.
You can wear a mask and go to a protest.
At a protest, wearing a mask, you can scream whatever you want.
In fact, you can be an extremely influential protester wearing a mask.
You have a right to wear that mask because you don't want to face retaliation from political forces or government.
The same is true for libs of TikTok.
Why does libs of TikTok forfeit that right?
My point about being in the public eye is that eventually people will discover who you are, so you should accept that will be an inevitability.
But I do think people have a right to anonymity to a certain degree in that, you know, keep your name private to avoid retaliation, I can respect it.
It's a difficult position.
It's not absolute.
I think at a certain point, we deserve to know who people who are influential are.
And it's one thing to be a small activist challenging the machine.
It's another thing to have 700,000 followers.
Just, at a certain point, recognize your weight.
I don't like the idea of public policy being shaped by powerful individuals And we don't know who they are.
You know, imagine if Taylor Lorenz ran a secret account that was doxing people or was... Maybe that's unfair.
I'll try and keep it a bit more fair.
Ran a secret account that was, you know, posting videos.
It's like, okay, who is doing this?
What's their motivation?
Are they working for a corporation, organization?
Are they funded by a PAC?
And we find that some of these people actually are.
You know, I can only say these are deep, philosophical, moral questions.
I don't necessarily have all the answers to.
But nonetheless, when powerful entities go after individuals, I think it's, I think it's wrong.
Writing about them, their motivation's fine.
There are also questions about whether or not people have a right to privacy simply because people follow them.
If libs of TikTok simply wanted to post silly memes, why then should, why is it that because people follow you, you lose your rights?
These are tough questions.
I can only put it this simply.
Taylor should not have posted the name.
The name does not serve the story in any capacity.
And that's all that matters.
I can tell you about a, uh, a guy.
Who posts memes, and I can be like, we know who this guy is, we know where he lives, we know who he voted for, we know who he's worked for, he has been active at these protests, he believes that Donald Trump is the God Emperor, and he, you know, is a middle class working individual, their motivations seem to be based in populist politics and right-wing ideology and conservatism, and you're like, oh, that's why they're doing it.
If I say the name of the person, what changes?
You still know everything you already knew, but now you can easily find out where the person lives, who their family is.
The public arena is a dirty, dirty space, my friends.
Dirty space.
We got doxxed.
That was a more extreme instance than what Taylor Lorenz did.
And from this, we've now been threatened, swatted, the bomb squad's shown up, and it's caused, you know, it's called a minor inconvenience.
We got good security.
We ourselves are armed, and for the most part, the swattings are negligible.
The cops show up, do their sweeps.
It's pretty cool sometimes, actually, because we know them, they know us, and they do their job.
People seem to think when the swatting happens, the cops kick our door and they're screaming.
It's like, no, they show up, they do their job, but they're prepared.
I don't want to give away too much of our security, but It's cool.
It is particularly cool.
So anyway, the public arena is a dirty and dangerous place.
I don't know what I'll say on this matter.
It's a big story because Libs of TikTok actually is changing the shape of politics, exposing teachers who are indoctrinating kids, and the left doesn't like it.
This views to me like a political maneuver.
It seems like the only real reason to do this story is to cause damage and instill fear and harm on an individual who is Exposing you?
To what degree is doxing allowed?
To what degree is it doxing?
Let me ask you that question.
Taylor, we know your name.
But, I mean, maybe people want to understand more about you, and it's important to know, you know, the general area where you live, so people get an understanding for your politics.
Now, I think that's wrong, obviously.
But where is the line?
That's why I bring that up.
What's the line?
If someone doesn't reveal their name, is revealing their name okay?
Revealing their name will result in harassment, threats, violence, swatting, etc.
What if someone does reveal their name?
For what reason did you reveal their name?
The story didn't change based on me knowing the specific name of the individual.
The story wouldn't change.
Actually, I take that back.
I can actually make a better argument for why your address, or at least your neighborhood... You know, there are many neighborhoods in, say, Nashville, for instance, where we just were, that are progressive, and they're in a very conservative state.
Now, I think it's more newsworthy to say this person lives in East Nashville, which is a very leftist area, as opposed to saying your name, because knowing where you live can explain your motivations.
Right?
I still think it's wrong.
Because people might go there.
Well, they might not.
But publishing the name means people can easily find the address anyway.
They can find out where you went to school.
They can find out who your family is.
There's more danger in knowing the name than knowing where the person lives.
Finding out where someone lives is extremely easy once you have their name.
Finding out someone's name based on where they live is not so easy.
So I would argue, it would be based on the logic of, you know, Taylor Lorenz and the Washington Post and basic reporting practices.
The local area where Taylor lives is more newsworthy than the name of a person working a Twitter account.
I still think it's wrong to do.
Now you might argue, yeah, but if you have their address, I didn't say address.
I'm saying neighborhood, because I do think address is a step too far.
But I'm gonna, I'll push it a little bit.
Listen, addresses in New York have like 50 names associated with them.
And if I said someone, you know, a person, an anonymous account lives here, you're gonna have to dig through like 12 different names.
Granted, you can still go and cause problems at that house.
Publishing someone's name and, you know, information about them, I can easily figure out where they live.
More importantly, you can then target their family, their schools, much more easily than just an address.
Let me say it another way.
If you said someone lives at this address, and it's got 30 apartments in it, what are you going to do?
Throw something at the building?
Well, now you're terrorizing 30 people, and the individual who lives there may not be as concerned.
I give the name.
Now this person has to realize that beyond just where they live, their place of work, their favorite coffee houses, their P.O.
boxes, anything associated with their name is now at risk, and innocent people who share the same name could be at risk.
Suffice it to say, an address being published, an overt, outright address, numbers and everything, is less dangerous than the name.
The name gives you more information.
Would it be okay, then, to explain, I think we need to understand where Taylor Lorenz comes from, and who she's surrounded by, so we could publish her address?
No.
The arguments are stupid!
Anyway, you get the point.
I'm not gonna say the name of the person behind Libs of TikTok, but the name's out there.
Just because the name is out there doesn't mean people should be amplifying it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Former CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, says he witnessed an incident where CNN tried to falsify the news.
Dorsey was specifically referring to what happened in Ferguson.
And I believe Jack Dorsey is being 100% honest.
And yo, what happened to Jack Dorsey?
Redemption arc, everybody.
Some people don't trust him.
I didn't trust him.
I sat down with him on Joe Rogan.
We talked about a lot of things, said a lot of things.
A lot of things turned out not to be true.
It could just be that Jack was well-intentioned, but wrong.
It could be that he was lying to me.
After that interview, we talked about the ways he could improve Twitter to be fair and honest, and a path to redemption was one of those things.
Never happened.
I began to believe that Jack was just lying.
That he was blowing smoke, as it were.
Telling you all the sweet nothings whispered into your ear.
Whispering all the sweet nothings into your ear.
To make you believe that he was doing the right thing to fix the platform and try and help the country.
Such as decentralized social media and things like that.
Cryptocurrency.
I didn't believe him after a certain point.
I said, look, after two years, you can do something.
But he didn't.
Why?
I don't know.
Maybe now.
The real story is Jack was just constrained, that even having billions of dollars in net worth does not free you from the bonds of society.
And even now, with Jack Dorsey unleashed, tweeting up a storm and just coming after people, he still says, some things cannot be said.
Now that kind of worries me.
What do you mean some things can't be said?
Dude, you have beyond FU money.
Cash out some of that stock, put into Bitcoin, which you're so proud of, and tell people the truth!
Well, maybe not everything, but some things.
So maybe it wasn't that Jack was lying, it's just that he really tried and he couldn't do it.
I can respect that, and I feel bad a little bit.
You know, if I was chained down and unable to do the right thing, and I was trying as hard as I could, You know?
It would suck.
Everybody thinking you're doing the wrong thing.
But I also think that at a certain point, what's the real damage?
Maybe there's people he knows and cares about and doesn't want to hurt.
And by coming out and telling the truth, he could hurt them.
At which point, we enter the root of corruption.
Often the desire to help those around you, your friends and your family.
You don't want them to hurt.
Why do you need that extra little kickback in cash?
Because you want to get your kid in a good school.
Because you want to get your mom a house.
Therein lies the problem with corruption.
Sometimes it's about the individual, the person saying, I want nice things, but it's very often about protecting your family and your friends, or getting them advantages and benefits over the safety, security, and well-being of everyone else.
It's a challenge.
But Jack Dorsey says when he was in Ferguson, he actually saw CNN try to shake things up, potentially falsify the news.
I was in Ferguson as well.
I believe Jack is correct.
I can't say that I saw them falsify on purpose to make things worse.
I can say there was an incident where Don Lemon reported there was no tear gas while I was getting tear gassed.
So I'm standing on West Florissant.
The cops are firing CS smoke, colloquially known as tear gas.
Tear gas is a chemical irritant.
Some people call pepper spray tear gas.
I think that's a stretch, but it's really semantics.
Well, the police said to CNN, it's just smoke, there's no tear gas.
Meanwhile, our faces were on fire, and we were gassed more than one time.
The crowd was, we were collateral damage.
CNN, well, they were wrong.
At the very least, they were wrong.
Let's take a look at what's happening to Jack Dorsey.
And I want to call back this really amazing tweet.
This is from Mythicist Milwaukee back when, oh jeez look at me, I was a little heavier back when I was on Joe Rogan.
I actually have this thing where like I gain weight and then lose weight and then gain weight.
I think a lot of people are like that.
I used to be, when I was like a teenager, I was, you know, looked like that.
And then I started skating and lost weight and then I started working and gained weight.
Anyway, I digress.
MythInformedMilwaukee tweeted, in March of 2019 on Joe Rogan, TimCast asked Twitter if they would restrict a Twitter user for sharing information about vaccines.
They said no outright.
No outright.
And that's, that was wrong.
I suppose you can say that their policy changed.
That's fair.
But what is going on behind the scenes?
I want to talk about where things were I'm gonna talk about what Jack Dorsey is saying.
Daily Wire reports.
Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said on Monday evening that he knows that CNN promotes false news reporting because he witnessed the far-left network try to cause conflict during the Ferguson, Missouri riots in 2014.
Dorsey made the revelation in response to a tweet from Miss Universe Iraq 2017 Sara Abdali.
Idan, who said even CNN sometimes sells false news.
From TimCast, Jack Dorsey uses Twitter to go on the offense.
The former CEO has been calling out the corporate media and Twitter's board of directors in a recent flurry of tweets, but it was beyond just that.
I mean, the dude's basically just had it with everybody.
He's like, no, no, no.
Smackdown.
Tremendous respect.
Some people have said that he's just doing this to try and win back favor because of what is happening with Elon.
Jack Dorsey apparently voted for the poison pill.
A unanimous board vote to block Elon Musk from buying the company, and now Jack is coming out and, you know, smacking people down.
Some people think the goal here is to try and rally support among anti-establishment individuals so that people view Jack as some kind of Elon Musk-type figure.
I'm not buying it.
Yidan's tweet stemmed from an earlier remark that Dorsey made on the platform when he called out CNN's Brian Stelter and a columnist for the Washington Post on Monday over a tweet that took aim at Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Dorsey referenced a tweet from Stelter that stated, Tucker Carlson is always selling the same thing.
He's selling doubt.
Dorsey responded to the tweet by asking, in a tweet, and you are selling hope?
Woo, spicy.
Elizabeth Spires, a leftist that appears on MSNBC, responded to Dorsey writing, they're selling truth,
which is hope agnostic.
It's supposed to inform you, not make you feel some kind of way.
Edan's tweet was a response to Spires' tweet.
Dorsey made news over the weekend when he slammed the Twitters,
when he slammed Twitter's board of directors as entrepreneur Elon Musk tried to take over the company.
Dorsey was responding to the following tweet when he made his remark.
If look into the history of Twitter board, it's intriguing as I was a witness on its early beginnings
mired in plots and coups, and particularly amongst Twitter's founding members.
I wish if it could be made into a Hollywood thriller one day.
Was that Dorsey saying that?
Dorsey responded to that.
It's consistently been the dysfunction of the company.
Dorsey also said big facts in response to the following statements from venture capitalist Fred Destin.
What I do know for sure is that this old Silicon Valley proverb is grounded in age-old wisdom that still applies today.
Good boards don't create companies, but a bad board will kill a company every time.
When later asked if he was allowed to speak like this publicly, given the fact that he's still on the company's board, Dorsey responded, no.
We like Tucker Carlson, because he tends to get the facts right, albeit sometimes a bit hyperbolic or over the top, like when he criticized M&Ms for not being sexy enough.
Yeah, we're gonna make fun of you, Tucker, when you do that, because that's stupid.
Take a look at this.
These Twitter replies launched Dorsey into an online dialogue with dozens of others.
Here we have Jack Dorsey mentioning that CNN was trying to fabricate news.
I remember, I was at a protest in Anaheim, and there was a news network, I don't want to name who, but one of the big ones, and they asked people to pose with a flag.
People got angry, saying, you're directing protesters!
TimCast.com just broke a story, which is, it's derivative, but the Washington Post doxxed Libs of TikTok, a very prominent critic of the left.
In their story, they linked to two addresses.
We did some digging, which went beyond just a cursory public search, but it was public record, and can confirm public records list the address doxed by the Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz as the private home residence of Libs of TikTok.
There's a lot to consider here.
One, maybe Libs moved since then.
Maybe they're not there.
Sure, it's the last known private home address of the individual.
I don't know why the Washington Post linked to it, but the Washington Post took the link down after a backlash.
Perhaps it's because, well, as public record indicates, it's where lives of TikTok actually lives.
But we talked about this, and we have serious ethical conundrums about what you can and can't say.
We were conflicted.
If we confirm this is the private home address, according to public records, and what I mean by that is, it's the best we can do for now.
It's possible people, you know, actually live under a car in an alley.
I have no idea, but the publicly listed address, we did confirm that.
Well, that can put libs of TikTok in danger, and we don't want to do that.
But then you have the conundrum of, Washington Post did this.
It's on them.
They already posted it.
People may have already found this out.
People need to know what they're doing.
Man.
Now in that regard, we ultimately decided, people knowing that the story is not just the Washington Post saying someone's name, but listing their address, it's a wholly different story.
There were people tweeting like, it's not doxing, it's just a name, and then I'm like, here's the story, read it, and they're like, whoa, I didn't know that.
It's like, right, we need people to know what the Washington Post did.
Of course, the Washington Post denied it to us after the fact, but it's like, I have the archive, dude, the link is there, the address is there, and the public records confirm it, Perhaps their attitude is, but we know for a fact they're not really living there.
Regardless, someone is gonna get hurt now because that's what you did.
And the best we can indicate is, we can confirm as public records indicate this to be the truth.
I try to break it down that way to let you know it's not always perfect.
Now, as to what Jack can't say.
Perhaps that's the real conundrum.
Perhaps the conundrum is that Jack knows he can light things up, but people will get hurt.
And he's not willing to get people hurt to reveal what's really going on.
Do you trust him?
Do you trust Jack Dorsey?
I don't.
Why?
Jack, I don't trust you because you've said so many things that turned out to not be true.
If you want trust, you need to be honest.
Maybe you can't.
Okay then, well we can't trust you because you've not been honest with us ever!
On April 11th, he posted a reply on Twitter in relation to a recent release of inflationary stats.
He said, Every administration, Republican or Democrat, has an opportunity to build trust with the public.
Instead, every single time, they choose deception and zero accountability.
It's not the party, it's the system.
You're right about that, Jack.
I agree.
And you know what?
You are a major component of it.
To be fair, Jack has admitted he's a major component of the problem, and I can respect that.
Jack?
If the worst-case scenario is people will get hurt, I understand.
But I question whether or not the worst-case scenario of you telling the truth is you getting hurt.
If it were me, and the worst-case scenario in revealing information would be other people getting hurt, hmm.
We gotta, we, okay, well I'm, what do we do?
We were in Nashville, we got a death threat, I said, I don't care, I'll do it anyway!
I can take those risks for myself.
And then I was told, dude, other people, little kids are gonna be out there.
That was really it.
Little kids.
It's downtown Nashville.
We get a death threat, seems credible, there's little kids.
Alright, I will not be the person that brings the heat signature into the map that results in collateral damage, if I can avoid it.
Maybe that is why Jack is saying no.
But if it was just me, and maybe a big empty field, I'd be like, I'll go out there and I'll do my thing.
I will assume those risks and I understand what that means.
And if something bad happens, it's not me being dumb, it's me assuming the risks and taking the responsibility for them.
I think there's a strong possibility Jack just doesn't want to say anything because Jack's living a good life.
Oh, he's saying some stuff now because he's not CEO of Twitter anymore, he can speak up.
At a certain point, you know, if it were me, here's how I'd describe it.
I got a lot of employees.
They rely on this business to function.
They rely on my leadership.
I rely on their capabilities and their leadership sometimes, too.
I don't go to, you know, Carter's our music producer.
I'll go to him and give him my thoughts, but for the most part, I rely on him to do what I don't know how to do.
That's why we hire people.
So there is, you know, there's obviously mutual respect in knowing someone has the ability to get things done if I don't.
Even down to the person who gets the mail, I'm like, I can't do it, I need your help.
But of course, I run the company, and without me, the company starts to break down.
Even then, I have said it, if we get a threatening letter or some kind of gag order or whatever, I will put my feet up on the coffee table, grab a cigar, I don't really smoke cigars, but light it up anyway because it'll be funny, and I will read those documents and publish them and say, you will not break me.
I will break myself to stop you from trying.
So be it.
I'm somewhat, you know, kidding in that I don't really want to break myself or the company, but you will not be able to coerce me.
I will not accept it.
So with these death threats?
Nah, I'm gonna keep- I'll go to the event.
Other people that I understand.
So.
If that's the case, I get it.
I'd sure love to know what the secrets are.
I'd sure love to know what happened here.
Let me play this clip from Joe Rogan's show.
You know, we're coming towards a position where people think some ideas are better than others, therefore, as a company, we're going to restrict access to certain information.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, at what point would you guys restrict someone from sharing false information about vaccines that could get someone hurt?
That is not a violation of Twitter's rules, so no.
What happened?
I mean, honestly, what happened?
Why did that change in March of 2019?
I thought it was 2018, but I guess it was 2019.
Wow, it wasn't that long ago.
Three years ago!
Wow.
Why did that change?
I'd love it if Jack could tell us.
I don't know why he won't.
I don't know why he won't.
I want to show you this story and follow up a little bit, because this is important, and it does have to do with Twitter.
Washington Post journalist publishes home address of popular critic of left libs of TikTok.
Reporter Taylor Lorenz has previously claimed she's up to suffer from PTSD from being doxxed in a similar way.
In an article meant to expose the person behind the popular account, Taylor Lorenz linked to a critical piece of information that exposed the private home address of the person running libs of TikTok.
After the ensuing backlash, the post removed the link.
Timcast confirmed the address published is documented as the creator's private home address.
As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot to break down here to understand.
There's nuance.
I always try to make sure you are getting as much nuance and understanding as possible, so you can understand the probabilities that lie behind what it means to confirm something.
Now, hard confirmation that the address is the private home address would require us getting not just a statement from Libs of TikTok, but proof, like a photo of an ID, a piece of mail, or an image of them at the address.
That's when you're like, okay, but even then, those things can be faked.
When you get to that point, you're like, beyond a reasonable doubt.
What we have here is, the Washington Post published a story linking to private information of the individual, which included an address.
That address, apparently, they didn't check, and it's listed as the private home address.
This could mean that Libs of TikTok no longer lives there.
It could mean that they still do.
We don't know beyond that, other than it's publicly listed.
What it does mean is that, and I will also add, another address was listed, what appears to be the family address.
They did this.
Now, they told us, Taylor Lauren said, I did not publish the home address, which she did.
You know, under what circumstances, like what argument is that being made?
It seems semantic.
And this is the big point.
Going into what Twitter does.
Twitter bans doxing.
Twitter allowed them to publish the story, which linked to the address.
Okay, Twitter.
This is where I want to get Jack's thoughts on these issues, and kind of give you an update on this one.
Uh, Jack, if I link to a story that links to someone's private home address, is that doxing and would you delete the link?
Would you delete the tweet?
Would I get suspended?
The Washington Post didn't.
Now, the Washington Post did remove the links after the backlash.
Maybe because they were scared of a suspension.
No, I don't think so.
I think they would be protected.
I think they're consistently protected.
And now you can see all of the blue checks on Twitter cheering for this.
It's time for transparency.
I'm tired of the lies.
When I break down this story, I try to give you as much information as possible to understand what's actually happening.
I could have just come out and said, we've confirmed she published the address, end of story.
What I want to make sure you really understand, because maybe there's a possibility we got something wrong.
That is to say, when we report it, we say, it is documented as the creator's private home address.
They deny it.
We're still trying to get harder confirmation, but publicly listed.
This could mean a few things.
By publishing this, someone could harm anyone who lives there.
It could be a new tenant.
It could be an old family member.
Or it could be the creator of Libs of TikTok.
Twitter's not taking the tweet down?
Let's ask another question.
Can you dox someone With an article.
Let's say I put Taylor Lorenz's private address in this and then tweeted it out.
Oh, they'd suspend me in a heartbeat, right?
Probably.
What if CNN published my address?
You know what?
I'll just tell you.
On Twitter, someone published my address and Twitter wouldn't take it down.
What am I supposed to do?
They wouldn't take it down.
And therein lies the double standard, the manipulation, and why transparency is so important.
Jack, what can't be said and why can't it be said?
The system is crumbling around us and on the verge of imploding with stories like this.
And you can't just be like, guys, here's what's happening.
Now, look, perhaps Jack really is saying a lot.
So, Jack, I encourage you to just say as much as you can and do your best.
Because it's a net positive, you coming out and talking about CNN this way and exposing them.
But we gotta know.
We need to know.
The people need to know.
Unless...
Jack genuinely believes it's better off that people don't know.
I'd say he's wrong.
I'd say it's time to stop condescending.
It's time to start believing in the resilience of the human mind.
For too long.
People at Twitter think they must control the conversation, but it's failed every step of the way.
It's not gotten better, it's only gotten worse.
Maybe it's like a Chinese finger trap.
Stop pulling.
Give in.
Let it go.
Let people find their own way.
In the meantime, this is what you get.
Taylor Lorenz doxing someone.
Well, you know what?
If Elon Musk has his way and opens up Twitter to the public, doxing is freedom of speech.
It really is.
You are allowed to post someone's private information.
I get that, and so be it.
I think it's wrong, but so be it.
Free speech.
Let society decide.
If Taylor Lorenz wants to do this, she can, and she will face the backlash for that.
People on the left will still defend her, but what Twitter has done has clearly not helped.
