Democrats & Leftists Begin REVENGE On Elon Musk For Buying Twitter, Call For Social Media Regulation
Democrats & Leftists Begin REVENGE On Elon Musk For Buying Twitter, Call For Social Media Regulation. The Biden administration and Democrats are calling for reforms to section 230 to control 'disinformation.'
Smear pieces, exposes and laws are all being thrown at Elon Musk following his purchase of Twitter. But Twitter hasn't even officially changed hands yet and Elon hasn't done anything.
Already left and Democrats are planning how to prevent republicans from using Twitter the way they did.
#ElonMusk
#Democrats
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Democrats and the left have begun their revenge on Elon Musk, calling for greater regulation, writing smear pieces, and they're about to release an expose on Elon.
Democrats are saying we need to reform Section 230 and restrict disinformation.
You didn't think it would be too easy, did you?
They're going to try and control speech, even if Elon Musk gets in.
In our next story, the left is imploding over what's happening with Elon Musk.
Sean King deleted his account.
An update to the story is that he brought it back.
We're seeing many in media outraged.
What's the strangest thing?
In our last segment, ladies and gentlemen, I have acquired a billboard in Times Square calling out the Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz for doxing libs of TikTok and lying about it.
So I go into why I did that and it's fun.
If you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Did you really think it would be so easy?
That the world's richest man can swoop in like Gandalf at the Battle of Helm's Deep
and save you from your fate?
Surely the war is not over.
A battle won, perhaps, but the war is not over.
Already, Democrats, powerful big tech personalities, and many on the left are calling for regulation of social media in the wake of Elon Musk buying out Twitter.
Elon Musk wants free speech, so he says.
We've yet to see exactly what he will do, but of course, now Jen Psaki says the Biden administration would support reforming Section 230, enacting antitrust reforms, and requiring more transparency on social media in order to combat COVID-19 misinformation.
Section 230 is a provision in law that grants broad immunity to internet service platforms, be it a website or a social media company.
Now, I've long called for Section 230 reform, and I retain that position.
I do believe there should be reforms, but rest assured what they're calling for now is not reforming Section 230 in the right way.
What they're calling for now is regulation to control speech because they know they are losing.
They've tried to maintain control of the narrative in the public, in the private space with big tech platforms.
Now that Elon Musk is intervening, they're retreating to public spaces, which is they will try to pass laws and regulate big tech platforms.
But I don't think that will work either.
But again, we may be winning on many fronts, but the war is far from over.
We also have Ed Markey, a senator from Massachusetts, saying it's time for algorithmic justice.
Yeah.
A potential Supreme Court case is upcoming, which may result in serious changes to Section 230.
Now, perhaps we have celebrated too soon.
Many of us wanted Section 230 reform because it provides immunity to these big tech platforms where they can basically say, we are allowed to remove anyone we want because we deem it objectionable.
And we also can't be held responsible for what other people say.
I say they shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
If you are going to allow people to speak, you shouldn't be able to just outright ban them, but they created a special section, uh, provision in Section 230 that both gives these platforms immunity and the ability to remove content.
Look at it this way.
If we're going to say that a website should not be responsible for the speech of people who post in the comments, same as it goes for Twitter.
Twitter should not be responsible for tweets made by private individuals.
Then the same should be said that the platforms don't have a right to editorially choose what content gets published.
Many people incorrectly said this was the difference between a publisher and a platform.
That's not material to the argument, but I believe It's kind of addressing the issue.
The issue is, platforms should be immune only if they do not intervene in the content.
If they start to decide what content is editorially allowed, like Twitter does, perhaps there should be some restrictions then, or they should be held responsible.
Jen Psaki says it, Ed Markey says it, and now we're learning from Axios that states have begun the quest to regulate online speech.
Barack Obama himself!
And let us not forget that it goes beyond just regulation.
People on the left are already, there's already a documentary expose on Elon Musk set to come out.
News stories smearing the man.
They will not go quietly into that good night.
Same as you wouldn't.
They're not going to back down.
This is a culture war.
It is a fifth generational war.
It is a battle for influence to decide the fate of this country.
Will the United States remain a constitutional republic?
Or will it be taken over by a multicultural democracy?
For a long time, they've tried to convince us that the word democracy is the right word.
When in reality, we are a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials.
Personally, I believe the constitutional republic is the right way for things to be.
Because we have protections for the minority, we make sure that powerful interests can't go and strip the rights of small counties and small populations.
Under a democracy, you'll have majority rule.
I don't agree with it.
And the multicultural thing, I think, is an argument in semantics.
If you're talking about a bunch of different people of different backgrounds living together holding hands and singing songs, I'm all for it.
If you're talking about people who don't believe in free speech living next to people who do, you're not going to have a good time.
I'll put it that way.
Let's get started and take a look at the revenge that has begun to emerge against Those of us who believe in free speech, but more importantly, Elon Musk.
Of course, we're seeing all of this regulation, but the big story is here.
Twitter fears sabotage by left-wing staff.
That's right.
So let's talk about the fears of direct action against Elon.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and help support the work we do.
And let me tell you about that work.
Many journalists.
We just hired another journalist.
We're going to be hiring a couple more columnists.
Thanks to you as members, we are able to do this.
The more members we have, the bigger our newsroom gets, the more crazy stuff we're going to do.
Not only will you get access to special episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday to Thursday at 11pm, the uncensored, not-so-family-friendly version of the show, We recently got a billboard in Times Square calling out The Washington Post and reporter Taylor Lorenz for doxing left wing leftist critic Libs of TikTok.
I got no issue with Taylor Lorenz's reporting.
I criticized the releasing of the name.
The reporting, I think, is important, but publishing the address and the name, I believe, were wrong, and the address, highly condemnable.
Now, what'd we do?
They lied about it, so we got a billboard in Times Square calling them out.
With your support, we will continue that good fight, challenging the machine, as we move forward.
It's not just going to be Elon Musk in this fight.
We all must do what we can to challenge the machine, to speak up and call out the liars.
Lawmakers are calling for greater oversight of social media.
Rest assured, they will not back down from this fight.
Elon Musk buying Twitter will not be the end.
But before we even get to that point, here's where we are now.
Well, earlier this morning, I reported that Sean King had left the platform.
He came back, and he said he didn't really quit.
He was just trying to get away from the threats or whatever.
after rebellious employees called the deal dangerous for democracy,
and hysterical liberal social media personalities threatened to quit social media giant.
Well, earlier this morning, I reported that Sean King had left the platform.
He came back, and he said he didn't really quit.
He was just trying to get away from the threats or whatever.
No.
I'll tell you what this is.
All these people, just like when, you know, they said, well, I'm going to move to Canada if Trump gets elected.
And then they didn't.
It's a lot easier to deactivate your Twitter account.
So when Elon Musk wins in this battle, they say, well, I'm out.
And then a day later, they're like, I wonder what's going on on Twitter.
So they come right back.
But you see this?
Dangerous for our democracy.
Elizabeth Warren said something like that.
Our democracy?
A point was made to me on Timcast IRL by Stephen Marsh.
He wrote a book about the next civil war, the current civil war we're in.
Now, he says he's more neutral, but I think his perspective relies on mainstream news reporting, so he does lean in the left sphere of influence a little bit.
But he made an excellent point.
He said that right now, within the United States, there is a constitutional republic and a multicultural democracy, and they cannot coexist.
Rest assured, when people like Elizabeth Warren say, dangerous for our democracy, they're not talking about your country.
If you're someone who believes in a constitutional republic, which the United States is and always has been, they're not referring to that.
They're talking about their new budding democracy.
Democracy, of course, is majority rules.
Stephen Marsh pointed out that in Canada, he's Canadian.
They have democracy, with minority protections.
I don't like that idea.
I don't like the idea that the majority dictates, because 51% shutting out 49 is dangerous and I think would destabilize a nation.
What we have here is a constitutional republic, meaning smaller jurisdictions have equal rights to larger jurisdictions, but there is a system with which we weight this.
Notably, there's Congress and there's the Senate.
There's the Electoral College.
Within states, you have less of these protections, and you can see how it manifests rather dangerously.
Like in California, where they strip the water rights from small communities.
At the national level, we are a republic.
They are concerned about the budding democracy they are seeking to create.
I want is for the United States to survive, to be strong and for the working people of this country
to see success for people's lives to get better. I want to see the environment be improved. I want
to see us live more responsibly. I want to see us live more environmentally responsibly.
However, I think people have to make these choices for themselves,
and we need a healthy culture in order to get there.
Unfortunately for us, many on the left believe in a more authoritarian approach.
That is, you do as they say.
But what happens when they're wrong?
We've seen it with communist countries and socialist countries.
When the party gets in power and they think they're right, they lead the country to ruin, like Venezuela has.
And in response, instead of just saying, we made a mistake, they just blame other people.
Right now, Twitter is concerned, and they've locked down their code because they fear left-wing employees may sabotage the platform.
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.
If they sabotage the platform, they can prevent Musk from taking it over.
Elon Musk hasn't completed his buyout yet.
If they destroy this platform or damage the code or do something like that, then it may make it so that Elon Musk can't actually buy it.
Take a look at this tweet from Disclose.TV.
They say just in.
Twitter employees apparently added a public repository called The Algorithm on the platform's GitHub account shortly before the source code was locked.
Musk said he wanted to make the Twitter algorithm open source.
This appeared to be some kind of attempt at damaging the company in some way.
We don't know for sure.
We're not entirely sure.
But it certainly seems like there are people who are unwilling to let this go.
Which brings me to the press briefing from Jen Psaki.
And where we are at with the retaliation over Elon Musk's victory.
A question asked of Jen Psaki.
So this is, let me make sure I can get to who the question, who's asking of this question.
So I don't think, this may be Zeke, I'm not entirely sure.
But let me read this question before we get to the reform portion.
Actually, let me see if I just don't want to make sure I didn't miss it.
Here we go.
Oh, there's a different section here.
Let's do section 230.
Real time, real time.
A question.
I'm wondering, regardless of ownership, would the White House be interested in working with Twitter like it has in the past to continue to combat this kind of misinformation?
Or are we in a different part of the pandemic where that kind of partisanship is no longer necessary?
Well, I think we engage regularly with all social media platforms about steps that can be taken that has continued, and I'm sure it will continue.
But there are also reforms that we think Congress could take, and we would support taking, including reforming Section 230, enacting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency, and the President is encouraged by the bipartisan support for or engagement in those efforts.
I believe there may be a another section here on Section 230, which directly
relates to Elon Musk in this question.
Just a quick one on the breaking news. Twitter agreeing to let Elon Musk purchase make his
go through with this purchase. Do you have response to that?
And does the White House have any concern this new agreement might have President
Trump back on the platform?
Saki said, Well, I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. What I can tell you is a
general matter. No matter who owns or runs Twitter, the president has long been concerned about the
power of large social media platforms. What they have the power they have over our everyday lives,
has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause.
He has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to Section 230, enacting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency and more, and is encouraged that there is bipartisan interest in Congress.
In terms of what hypothetical policies might happen, I'm just not going to speak to that at this point in time.
So here's the story from Timcast.com.
Lawmakers are calling for greater oversight of social media.
According to the White House, Biden has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable.
Sure, many have.
Many on the left and many Democrats have made that argument, but now it's particularly more interesting.
Ed Markey.
Here's how he frames it.
Ed Markey, of course, is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
Elon Musk and a handful of billionaires now have dangerous influence over the most powerful online platforms.
They can't be trusted.
And self-regulation has failed.
We must pass laws to protect privacy and promote algorithmic justice.
For internet users.
Especially for kids.
You know?
I don't know what power they would actually have to restrict speech.
In fact, I don't think they would.
In which case, I don't see anything really bad coming from this.
I think what their fear is now is that Elon Musk or Republicans would weaponize Twitter the way Democrats weaponized it against Republicans.
There was a tweet, I believe it was from Benny Johnson, and he said something like, wouldn't you love to see it?
And it was a mock-up of Bill Gates being suspended.
My response was, I don't want to see accounts suspended.
I want to see accounts that were suspended reinstated.
And he deleted the tweet.
The point is, there is a concern that people on the right, many who don't care much for principle, just want to win, would absolutely just say, it's time for revenge.
I'm not interested in revenge.
And maybe that's a problem.
You see, there is a culture war being waged.
And now that there is fear among democratic politicians that the weapons of social media could be wielded against them, these are figurative, these are fifth-generational weapons, I would call it.
Speech.
Now, all of a sudden, they want to restrict everything.
But I'm happy with the left having their speech.
I'm happy with Democrats having their speech, so long as the right has their speech as well.
And Republicans, conservatives, or otherwise.
The issue, I suppose, is they've wielded this weapon against the right, and now the right has it, the right probably will do nothing with it.
And what'll happen if that's the case?
Over a long enough period of time, the left will just win.
It's not just happening at the federal level.
Axios reports states next target regulating online speech.
Now, there's been attempts at regulating online speech already in Florida.
And let me clarify what that means.
It doesn't mean restricting it.
It means regulating the system.
Florida already tried.
Texas tried.
They tried to make it so that you couldn't censor people.
That is regulating speech.
Twitter as a company has a right to their speech.
Section 230 protects their First Amendment rights as well.
I just think if there's platform monopolies, as we've long called it, now Robert Reich is bringing it up, we need to make sure that they can't shut down the speech of people they don't like.
They're worried their speech will be shut down.
I don't think it will.
Actually, maybe it will.
Axios reports the states, not Washington, are where tech regulation happens now thanks to a deadlocked Congress.
State houses are drawing money and attention from tech firms and advocates hoping to influence laws on everything from privacy to digital taxes to driverless cars and now online speech.
A former Facebook policy executive offers state lawmakers detailed guidance for crafting tech regulations that could effectively reduce harms and withstand legal challenge in a new report shared first with Axios.
Matt Perrault, former head of global policy development at Facebook's parent Metta, now director of the University of North Carolina Center on Technology Policy, launched the new guide Thursday.
Co-authored by J. Scott Babua Brennan, head of online expression at the Center, the guide aims to provide state lawmakers with workable ways to regulate online content.
The author said they were inspired to write it after talking to Democratic Virginia State Delegate Wendy Gouditis.
Let me stop you right there, buddies.
back on crafting better social media and content moderation bills.
The federal government talks a lot about reform, but states are actually doing it, Peralt told
Axio.
States have been successful in areas of tech reform like privacy.
They have been significantly less successful in content regulation.
He added that the report tries to take both Republican and Democrat concerns about online
content into consideration.
Seriously, both sides of the aisle have concerns that are worth trying to deliver to some extent.
Let me stop you right there, buddies.
We got a First Amendment.
And what does this mean?
Bye.
Well, there's long been debates about it, but for the most part, it means you're allowed to express yourself.
Elon Musk, I think, is going to be in for a world of headaches.
I like what Elon did.
I think Elon's fantastic.
I don't think he's going to be able to save us from everything.
You see, there's a reality to free speech.
That means that you are allowed to express yourself by holding up images.
It means those images can be graphic and disgusting.
You can walk into the town square, in public, holding up disgusting images.
The real question is cultural enforcement.
Do you live in an area where there's obscenity laws?
I believe those would lose on First Amendment grounds.
Many have.
What if you're in a blue area and you're a pro-life activist holding up disturbing images?
Police may actually come and shut you down.
Typically they don't.
What if you're in a red area and you're showing up LGBTQ graphic images?
They'll probably shut you down.
There are still indecent exposure laws and decency laws and obscenity laws.
Again, I think many of those may actually be challenged.
But the issue at hand really is cultural enforcement.
What do we as a culture deem to be actual expression?
Well, There was someone who burned a pride flag and threw it in front of a bar, and that was considered a hate crime.
Because they said throwing it in front of the bar was a threat.
Well, that's a serious challenge.
I mean, putting a flag somewhere doesn't harm anybody.
It may insult, offend, or scare somebody, but are you not allowed to be scary?
And who decides when something is scary or isn't?
The person didn't express a desire to cause any physical harm.
And therein lies the big challenge.
It's all about cultural enforcement.
There's going to be a lot of really shocking content on Twitter, as there already is.
They've tried to get rid of it.
The problem is the people who ran Twitter were left biased.
And so when someone misgendered someone else, they said, that is objectionable.
Why would you do that?
Take that down.
And then they piss off most of the country.
I think it's fair to say that if you look at Tucker Carlson, if you went on his show and used racial slurs, he'd kick you off and say, we don't do that here.
Because culturally, you're allowed free speech, but we don't want all of it.
And therein lies the challenge.
On Twitter there will be racial slurs, because racial slurs are free speech.
Hate speech is free speech.
Will Elon Musk want to tolerate that?
It seems as though Elon Musk does.
But I believe there will be a line even for Elon, and he will say, I can't tolerate all free speech.
He's a free speech absolutist.
Elon, are you going to allow doxxing?
Because that's free speech.
It's legal.
We all basically think it's wrong, I guess, except the Washington Post.
They just deny they did it.
Or maybe they deny they did it because even they accept that it's wrong.
There will be limits.
I don't know where they will be.
Don't expect Elon Musk to come save you.
The laws won't be able to save you either.
Now, of course, outside of everything that's happening with the current government, you do have Obama, who came out just a few days ago, calling for tech regulation to combat disinformation.
You can't do it!
You cannot regulate what you think is disinformation!
Maybe fraud.
Maybe, maybe fraud, but even then you get into dangerous territory.
If someone tweets something, and they say, I believe X is true, How would you even determine whether or not they knew or didn't know whether X was true?
It's a civil tort.
There's not going to be federal action.
There can't be legal action on that.
You can't, as the government, violate someone's right to speech and tell them something they said is not true.
Although Obama has come out saying reforms to Section 230.
This is where we go.
Reason.com reports, YouTube ISIS videos mean the Supreme Court could reconsider Section 230.
A court rejects a discriminatory harassment ban at Florida University.
A private space mission heads back to Earth and more.
They say, the father of a woman killed by ISIS asks the U.S.
Supreme Court to consider a case involving algorithms, terror, and free speech.
They say as YouTube celebrates its birthday, the game-changing, user-generated video platform once known for funny pet videos, blah blah blah, begins to attract criticism.
Ample evidence casts doubt on the idea that the social media platforms are radicalizing American youth, but high-profile anecdotes about bad turns allegedly inspired by YouTube, Facebook, and other sites make it hard to combat such claims.
No, it doesn't reason.
Please, spare me.
It's just not a reality.
Now, one such story may come before the Supreme Court and threaten a foundational internet speech law.
The case.
Gonzalez v. Google involves a man whose daughter was killed in an attack in Paris.
The grieving father, Reinaldo Gonzalez, sued YouTube's parent company, Google, under the Anti-Terror Act, the U.S.
Anti-Terror Act.
Gonzalez claims they posted recruitment videos on YouTube, that YouTube recommended these videos to users, and this led to his daughter's death.
Gonzalez's circumstances are tragic, but his claim is convoluted and patently illogical.
To buy it, you'd have to buy the idea that without YouTube, these groups not only would be unable to recruit, but would cease to use existing networks to carry out the attacks.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case, but if it does, it could give the court a chance to reconsider the parameters of Section 230, the federal law preventing internet companies and users from being liable for all third-party speech.
SCOTUS blog notes, in 2020, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested, in an appropriate case,
we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with
the current state of immunity enjoyed by the internet platforms.
The petition in Gonzales v. Google tries to present itself as the case Thomas has been
looking for.
The district court dismissed Gonzales' claims on the ground that Section 230 nonetheless
protected Google for its recommendations because ISIS produced the videos, not Google.
I don't agree with that.
I believe you have a right to post content to monopolistic platforms.
So perhaps the law would say, once a platform reaches 50 million or more, they become a privately owned public space.
Meaning, sure they can change the rules, sure they can handle algorithmic things like that, but the algorithm, what is promoted or recommended, that's on Google.
Here's my view.
YouTube should not ban people for what they say.
If people say things YouTube doesn't like, they should just stop sharing it.
YouTube's under no obligation to promote my work to anyone.
Also, that means YouTube should also not interfere with the emergence of my content.
The front page of YouTube should have an option for chronological feed based on your subscriptions or algorithm.
But for the past several years, I think almost a decade, YouTube's been algorithmic.
That means even if you subscribe to a channel, YouTube might show you something you didn't subscribe to.
If YouTube wants to decide what should be shown, then they are responsible when they show it, because that means they have editorial guidelines.
It's just, the whole thing is ridiculous.
If you post a comment to TimCast.com, and it says a whole bunch of libelous things in it, and then I just put it on the front page, you mean I'm immune?
That's absurd.
I chose to put it on the front page for everybody, but that's basically what they're saying.
No.
If I recommend a comment from a user, that is me deciding what people should see.
If I say, whatever you post just appears in reverse chronological order, then I think they should be immune.
I would welcome some reforms to Section 230, and this means I could get hurt.
YouTube might say, we don't want to be responsible for political content, Tim, so we're not going to recommend you anymore.
Fine, but that also means you should show my videos to the people who subscribe to my channel, which is 1.3 million people on this channel alone.
Not to mention the subscribers on all the other channels totaling around, I mean, what are we at?
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 and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The problem I have is YouTube chooses winners and losers.
And even if people say I will subscribe, YouTube still says we've decided you lose.
No, you can't have it both ways.
So I would welcome some reforms.
But I warn to all the conservatives saying repeal Section 230.
That would be the end.
It'd be the end of independent speech.
It'd be the end of Twitter.
No, you don't want to repeal Section 230.
We want reforms or actual enforcement.
Meaning, as I stated, YouTube, you're not responsible for what Tim Poole here says unless you make an editorial decision to promote the content.
Now you're playing different games.
What might happen in that case is that YouTube would require a certification before they would allow you to appear on the front page.
They might say, no, you know what?
We're not gonna show anybody.
The front page will always be algorithmic.
Alright, well, that's the way it basically already is now.
YouTube just kicks people off and puts people on, so what's the worst that can happen?
YouTube should restore non-algorithmic subscription feeds.
Let people choose.
Twitter does it.
Twitter has the reverse chronological follower count plus the algorithmic feed.
I don't like the algorithmic feed.
It's stupid.
I want breaking news.
I don't want stupid opinions from four hours ago.
So I always go on Twitter and say, only show me what's happening in reverse chronological order.
If it's new, it appears, everything moves down.
Otherwise, I think you're playing with fire.
I think these companies are manipulating everything, and it shouldn't be allowed.
What we also have going on is not just about regulation, it's also about the media coming after Elon Musk.
Elon Musk expose documentary from the New York Times has been announced!
Perfect timing!
Perfect timing, huh?
We also have a few other stories here.
This one is Elon Musk calls the SEC shameless puppets.
Okay, we have this from The Verge.
Elon Musk privately raged at Saudi officials.
I'm not surprised that negative stories are coming out about Elon Musk for two reasons.
One, he's the wealthiest man in the world.
There's constantly stories about Elon Musk.
But also, This is a left-leaning outlet, The Verge.
Are we likely to see left-leaning outlets take all the negative news on Elon they can?
Yeah!
Elon Musk is trending.
You're gonna get clicks.
People on the left don't like him.
They will play that game absolutely.
But now we have this, I love this story.
From the post-millennial.
The European Union issues a warning to Elon Musk.
You are welcome, but these are our rules.
Elon, there are rules, you are welcome, but these are our rules.
It's not your rules, rules which will apply here.
So what?
Europe gonna ban Twitter?
I say bring it on.
The European Union has issued a warning to new Twitter owner Elon Musk, telling the billionaire that he has to comply with their digital rules, or face the risk of a hefty fine or ban of the social media platform in European Union member nations.
That would be really interesting.
Would the people of Europe just accept that?
Or would they say, nah, we're gonna use the platform?
Would Elon Musk capitulate to the EU?
I think he might.
I respect a nation's laws.
If the European Union wants rules and wants laws, they can have them.
If you want to operate within their borders, then you should.
But what if Elon says, we do not intend to operate in Europe?
If people in Europe want to access our website, that's on them.
How would that work?
If somebody who lives in France says, I want to use this platform, would they not be allowed to?
Elon Musk might be like, we don't operate in France.
If someone in France accesses twitter.com, that's on them.
What would France do?
Find the person?
Issue an IP ban on Twitter so that no one in the country can access Twitter?
That's very strange.
It would be like... It's not completely out of the question.
I mean, look, if I make and sell birdhouses, but the kind of birdhouse I make is illegal in Europe, they won't allow you to import.
They'll say it's illegal.
You can't do that.
But I wonder if they would actually be able to stop Elon Musk.
Now, I think the reality is, Twitter, look, as I said, I respect other countries having their own rules.
The United States should have its own rules.
Other countries can have their own rules.
If the EU says we want rules, I think Elon Musk likely will abide by them.
He'll say, yeah, sure, I don't care.
Whatever your rules are, fine.
In the United States, we're going to have free speech.
And in Europe, we're going to abide by how your system works.
So be it.
I think people need to understand this.
When you get a notification, and I've got these before, saying you violated Pakistani law...
That's a good thing!
People are like, why is Twitter telling me this?
I shouldn't be- No, no, no, no, no, no.
I got an email once, and people were like, it's so stupid that you would be told this.
I think it's a good thing.
I was told that I, like, blasphemed in Pakistan or something.
And I'm like, good!
Now I won't go there, because I'm a criminal, I guess?
Because I have free speech in the U.S.?
Yep, they said, you said something that violates our law.
You also get these notices where it's like, we reviewed your tweet and it did not violate German laws.
I think they're funny.
I'm glad they're being sent.
I'd like to know if something I did violates another country's laws because I might want to go to some of these countries.
The last thing I'd want is to get off the plane and then be arrested for something I tweeted.
That's the reality of being on Twitter, of putting out things in the public.
If you do not want to be in the public space, recognize that when you tweet, you are now a public figure to varying degrees.
Obviously, I don't think every person who's ever tweeted one time is a public figure.
I just mean you are now in the public fray.
And they will look for you, they will come after you, they will try to ban you.
Elon Musk, I think, is going to have a rude awakening, as it were.
I'm sure it's possible Elon is well aware of what it means to have free speech.
I think he's a smart guy.
He's much smarter than me.
But there's also a difference between intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, experience.
I think that when it comes to the issues of social media, I have substantially more experience with the inner workings.
I do think that's fair.
Elon's a smart guy.
But I've actually consulted some of the biggest tech companies on live streaming tech, including social media.
Friends of the CEO of Minds.com, and we've had extensive discussions about social media.
I don't think Elon Musk has had many of these questions.
In fact, we have Ian Crossland on Timcast IRL, who used to be a moderator, co-founder of Minds and worked as a moderator, and he can tell you all about the terrifying reality of Free speech.
Because you've got pictures of gore.
It's free speech.
Will that be allowed?
I think it already is allowed to a certain degree.
So the question is, where would Elon Musk's line be?
What if people start quitting the platform?
Does Elon just say, I don't care, then leave.
It's a free speech platform.
I hope so.
People don't want to be there, you're free to go.
But I do think Elon will solve this.
I think he'll figure out a way to make the system work.
I think the rules will become more transparent.
I sincerely hope so.
It's entirely possible he doesn't.
It's entirely possible he can't.
It's entirely possible does he let, boy would he let us down.
Now I think whatever Elon Musk tends, whatever he gets involved in tends to work.
SpaceX is doing wonderfully.
Tesla is through the roof.
The Boring Company apparently doing really, really well.
Elon Musk started PayPal.
Not a big fan, but he made it work.
A lot of problems there in my opinion.
I think he's going to fix Twitter.
I don't think you're going to get the Twitter utopia you hoped for.
I don't think you're going to get this Wild West Web 1.0 free speech platform you're hoping for.
I think he's going to create accountability.
I think he's going to start dealing with bots and spam, which is fantastic.
I think he's going to deal with the political bias, and there will still be rules.
But we'll know what those rules are, and I hope that he brings back those that have been suspended.
There's a challenge.
Many people who have been suspended actually broke the rules in fairly egregious ways.
You'll have to review all of those accounts.
Many of them didn't.
And where's the line?
What if someone posted an extremely offensive or racist meme?
Should they be allowed back on?
If Elon Musk believes in free speech, the answer is yes.
What about Alex Jones?
Absolutely.
Donald Trump?
Has to.
Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Carl Benjamin?
They all need to be brought back.
Just because they're offensive or provocative doesn't mean they don't have a right to free speech.
So Elon Musk will need to reinstate them immediately.
How will he do it?
This should be fairly interesting, my friends.
But I certainly hope the first thing he does is unban the overwhelming majority of people who were banned.
He's gonna have to go through and figure out why people are banned.
And maybe he'll just say, no, unban everybody.
Unban them all.
Here's an issue.
What if someone's running an anonymous account, and they were banned for posting violent or offensive imagery?
That's still free speech.
Elon Musk having, there's probably millions of people who have been banned from this platform, and how would you go through all of them?
I suppose Elon can go through the accounts that had the highest followers, the highest amount of followers, and work his way down.
It won't be an easy task.
I'm not even convinced he'll actually do it, but I certainly hope he does.
They're not done.
The left won't just take this lying down.
So we'll see how things play out.
But revenge seems to be, it seems to be on its way.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Literally nothing has happened except for, I suppose, a moral victory.
If you believe in free speech and you trust Elon Musk, you've won.
And this proves that the reaction we're seeing from these prominent leftist personalities, people like Sean King, it proves it's a temper tantrum.
Because Elon Musk has not done anything.
He doesn't own the platform.
And they're saying it may take six months to complete the transaction.
For all we know, the shareholders revolt, reject the board's deal with Elon Musk, and say, we'll risk it.
Seems extremely unlikely.
For all we know, some regulators come in and something happens and obstructs the sale.
We don't know.
It seems extremely likely, 99.9% likely, that Elon Musk has Twitter.
But even if Elon Musk takes over and changes the rules, we have no idea how the rules will change!
For all we know, Elon says, let's just bring back the people who are banned and give them another chance.
That's it.
Okay, well, the left is freaking out about that, saying, you know, Sean King called it white power.
Sure.
But they're acting like the apocalypse just happened, and Elon hasn't even touched anything having to do with Twitter other than shaking the hands of the board.
It's a temper tantrum, and it's exactly why Elon Musk needed to buy this platform, and it's exactly why we need to purge the leadership at all of these other platforms.
I remember that leaked video.
I think it was Breitbart that published it.
And The Verge also.
They may have republished it, I'm not sure.
Maybe The Verge actually broke the story.
Where Donald Trump wins, and then Google employees are crying.
And the CEO and leadership, whatever, Sergey Brin or something, they're talking to the employees and like, we're gonna get through this and we're so sorry and...
You want to know what I would say to all of my employees?
So, we have employees here.
I think the kind of people that Tim Kast hires are, the kind of people that we hire are smart, rational, emotionally stable.
If, let's say in the midterms, the Democrats sweep, and some of our staff has a mental breakdown, screaming and crying, I'd be like, chill out, shut up, what you're doing is inappropriate.
That's it.
I wouldn't be like, I'm so sorry.
I can't believe this is happening to you.
I think the reality is we're fairly middle of the road here.
So we're more like you're like most people here are fairly moderate.
We'd probably just be like, that's dumb.
If if the Democrats ended up winning, we wouldn't freak out about it.
But I'm not gonna I'm not gonna poo poo or pat anybody in the back and woo woo or any of that.
Dude, you're at a job.
Stop crying.
But this is what Google does.
This is what Twitter does.
I don't know what really went on behind the scenes.
Jack Dorsey is coming out now saying, you know, Elon has his vision and he likes it.
Not sure I entirely believe it, but considering the sale went through, maybe Jack had something to do with it.
I'm not entirely convinced.
Some people are saying that Jack Dorsey's on the board, he's on his way out, and he said, guys, we need to do this sale.
Maybe.
I also think it's possible, as I've stated in all the past videos, the reason the sale went through is because Elon knows on Thursday the earnings report is coming up.
The board will likely have to announce that their earnings were bad and they missed projections.
That's going to lower their stock value, and that would put them, it would make them liable for the lost value if they don't sell to Elon just before the earnings report.
But I don't know.
Far be it from me to act like I know how these things work or what Elon's real strategy is here.
What I'm trying to get at right now is that Elon Musk stepping in is dad.
It is no longer the weak parent.
Okay, forgive me.
Sometimes the moms are the strong parents.
Not always.
But you got one parent who's like, if you stop crying, I'll give you the ice cream, please.
Just why won't you stop crying?
Elon Musk is coming in like an angry dad, and he says, sit down and shut up, you're not getting ice cream.
And all the whiny kids are like, well then I'm gonna leave!
And he's like, fine.
There's the door.
And they're leaving.
He didn't even do anything yet.
In fact, Elon didn't even say anything to these people, and they're already like, white supremacy is winning.
All right, here's the story from The Independent.
And then we'll go through the response from many people.
Here's my favorite, all right?
LA Times says, with Elon Musk in charge, it's the beginning of the end for black Twitter.
Well, LA Times, they didn't realize how right they were because Sean King has left the platform.
That's right.
Sean King is gone.
Hashtag Black Twitter may be over.
These are both ridiculously stupid articles, to be completely honest.
The fascinating thing to me is that Elon Musk isn't even threatening to do anything to anybody.
He just said we should have free speech.
That's it.
He didn't say he'd bring Trump back.
I'm seeing all these right-wing individuals being like, yeah, we're gonna tweet about Ivermectin!
And it's like, you don't know if he's gonna allow that.
I think he probably will, but we'll see.
I mean, what do I really need to read about Sean King?
Civil rights activist Sean King appears to have deleted his Twitter account after he said the billionaire Elon Musk takeover was about white power.
Yo, I just want to point something out.
Elon Musk has more of a claim to being African American than Sean King does, in my personal opinion.
But that's just me.
It's a joke, by the way.
Elon Musk is from Africa.
Take a look at this from the LA Times.
It's all rather disturbing and yet somehow fitting in these double-speak-steeped times.
Elon Musk, the founder of a company that California is suing for allegedly silencing thousands of black employees who complain about racism, is buying a company that has given millions of black people a megaphone-like voice to complain about racism.
And the California-hating billionaire insists he's doing it all to protect free speech.
Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated, Musk said Sunday, announcing he had succeeded in taking over the company.
Consider this the beginning of the end of Black Twitter.
Not of Black people on Twitter, but of hashtag Black Twitter, the community of millions that figured out how to turn a nascent social media platform into an indispensable tool for real-world activism, political power, and change.
Yeah, but if you go on Reddit, The posts from Black Twitter that are highlighted are typically just jokes.
Good ones, admittedly.
I mean, outright good.
I don't know why, maybe it's activism, sure, but I just typically see jokes that are funny.
And to Entertainment 2, where do you think the best memes and gifs come from?
Okay, so they do point that out.
So, why will people stop tweeting this?
What's gonna happen?
Is Elon Musk gonna come in and be like, okay guys, you can't tweet the hashtag Black Twitter anymore, guys.
I can't allow that.
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
You see, what's really happening is there's a cult that makes things up, and then there's everybody else.
And this is where we're at so far with the everybody making things up and reacting like lunatics.
So ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring you now to a series of tweets and posts of people losing their minds.
This one's actually just too good to pass up.
We gotta start with this.
Considering CNN plus just imploded in one of the most spectacular fashions ever witnessed,
one of the worst media failures in media history, Brian Stelter on Elon Musk buying Twitter, quote,
if you get invited to something where there are no rules, where there is total freedom for
everybody, do you actually want to go to that party? Or are you going to decide to stay home?
Brian, this is this is your worldview and opinion.
Do you really believe that people won't want to go to a party that has no rules?
People love going to parties that have no rules.
This is why rich people have boats out in the middle of nowhere, so they can go into international waters and then do a bunch of crazy things that would be illegal otherwise.
Now, of course, there's always some kind of rule, so let's strip out the straw man for a moment.
Even under Elon Musk's guidance, There will be rules.
It's not like Elon Musk is going to be like, OK, anything that was illegal and you couldn't post, you can now post, guys.
That's not going to happen.
You can't do that.
OK, so threats of violence and force, you're still going to get banned for that.
Elon Musk says he wants free speech, which means you're going to see people like Alex Jones complain.
You're going to see people like Donald Trump make absurd claims.
You're going to see people on the left and the right both make absurd claims, not to single out Donald Trump.
You're gonna see, hopefully, transparency.
So there will be rules, just, you know, less of them.
So, uh, I'll put it this way.
If I get invited to a party, and they're like, uh, you have to wear a suit, and you- you can't wear your beanie, Tim, and you- you can only eat vegan food, I'd be like, yeah, dude.
I'm cool, I'm gonna go hang out somewhere else.
Shoutout to Greg Gutfeld, who made the joke.
He said, this Switch would be like your favorite vegan place, all of a sudden switching out the menu and serving barbecue.
And I thought that was actually really funny.
See, let's use that analogy.
Greg, good analogy.
But let's amplify this, and enlighten our good friend Brian Stelter.
So, there's a vegan restaurant.
You walk in and they say, no outside food or drinks, we only serve vegan food, no alternatives, nothing.
You say, okay, well look, me personally, I actually like vegan food.
You know, we get chow cheese sometimes.
It's actually really good.
Now, the funny thing is, chow cheese is vegan cheese.
I actually like to mix it with regular cheese.
It's just a good cheese.
And it's made from, what is it made of?
I can't remember what it's made of.
So I don't mind vegan food.
In fact, there was a vegan restaurant we used to eat at all the time, because we have friends who are vegan, and I thought it was actually really delicious.
I'm the kind of person where it's like, you want to get barbecue?
We'll get barbecue.
You want to get vegan food?
I can hang with vegan food.
So I'll come to a restaurant that's got no barbecue, and we'll hang out.
The issue is, we're in a shopping center, and there's a kiosk with vegan food, and there's a kiosk with barbecue.
The vegans all started screaming and complaining and got the barbecue banned.
Now they only have tofurkakew or something.
And it's like, it's kind of barbecue, but it's Basically just like this cheap knockoff of not barbecue, and I guess it's good.
I'll take it.
So once that happened, I stopped taking the food court seriously.
Brian Souther says, what if there are no rules?
You mean they bring the barbecue back?
Sometimes I wanna get barbecue.
And I'll put it this way, sometimes they make really strange dishes with weird cilantro mixes and I hate it, but you know, if people want it, I'll just avoid it.
And if the people from that restaurant keep coming up to me and screaming, waving cilantro in my face, I'm gonna click the block button and be like, dude, I like a little bit of vegan food, a little bit of the barbecue, can I have a little bit of both?
Brian Souther doesn't seem to get it.
He wants to live in a world where you walk in the door and they're like, barbecue's not allowed, you can't have it, and you can't have a cheeseburger, you gotta eat the tofu.
It's like, that's the party I wouldn't want to go to, right?
The party where you're not allowed to party.
What a ridiculous argument from a strange authoritarian.
Here we are from TimCast.com.
Influencers, employees, and celebrities react to Musk buying Twitter.
You know?
It's all really, really funny.
Let me show you some of the meltdown.
Elizabeth Warren says this deal is dangerous for our democracy.
Everything is dangerous for our democracy, isn't it?
You're going to tax me because I have guitar picks that someone claimed is worth money?
It makes no sense.
Not a solution.
We do need to hold Big Tech accountable.
But Elizabeth Warren is a hypocrite.
Here we go.
Dean Obadala says, wonder if Elon Musk will copy the apartheid rules of his home country, South Africa, and give us checkmarks based on our skin color.
The whiter the checkmark, the more rights you have on Twitter.
I would like this to be my what lies here as my last tweet.
Just really any excuse to show pics of Beryl.
I fear this free speech bid is going to help this hell platform reach its final form of totally lawless hate, bigotry, and misogyny.
Best of luck.
As if those things didn't already exist.
As if they weren't getting worse from the left.
I think it's funny, there was this guy, and he was like, I'm not gonna say his name, but he's like a tech bro, and he was like, the right thinks the left gets away with it, the left thinks the right gets away with it, and everybody has examples.
Talk about being vapid, ignorant, and my favorite word, duplicitous.
There is a rule on Twitter that you can't misgender people.
If Ben Shapiro refers to someone with the wrong pronoun, he will get banned.
Zuby said, OK, dude, in response to someone and got suspended for it.
Yeah, that is a rule in Twitter's terms that is outright pro-left.
There's nothing in the rules that is outright pro-right wing.
So the left is holding temper tantrums like whiny babies, and then people come out and say, well, both sides are bad.
Sorry, no thank you.
Now here's the best part about Jameela Jamil's tweet.
Do you recall, pre-2016, when Twitter had more free speech, and the left still used it?
And they whined and complained all day, and Wil Wheaton said, if you don't ban Alex Jones, I'll leave the platform.
And then Alex Jones got banned, and Wil Wheaton left the platform anyway.
I don't know exactly what order, Wil Wheaton may have left first, but he didn't come back.
If baby wants his bottle, you say, okay baby, buh-bye.
You say buh-bye.
These people on the left keep stomping their feet and screaming.
If they're gonna leave, let them leave!
Let them go have their activist mastodon blog.
The truth is, these people won't be leaving.
They will stay the same as many people on the right stayed.
I'll tell you the formula that Twitter came up with.
Here's how it works.
The left is intolerant of right-wing ideas.
Well, of anything that's not far left, for the most part.
I mean, even Ethan Klein is getting cancelled for saying things he didn't realize were offensive.
He was talking about, you know, certain aspects of the LGBTQ community that he thought was actually normal, and they said it wasn't, so they cancelled him and he lost his sponsors.
Twitter looked at this and said, if we ban someone on the left, the left will revolt and leave.
If we ban someone on the right, the right will revolt and stay.
Simple solution.
If the left and the right are fighting, ban the person on the right, you'll maintain more users.
If you ban the person on the left, the left has temper tantrums, won't shut up about it, the media erupts, we lose advertisers, so ban the right because, not necessarily politics, but because they have no institutional power.
If a person on the right gets banned for saying naughty words, Twitter's not gonna lose sponsors.
If someone on the left gets banned because they were saying naughty things, they may actually lose sponsors.
That's the formula Twitter and all these other companies are abiding by, and it's because the left has gained control of the institutions.
Here's a really, really fantastic Twitter exchange.
It is so psychotic, I assumed Richard Hanania was a parody account.
Richard said, Elon Musk takes over Twitter.
He's a billionaire who doesn't even have a master's degree.
Is that who we are going to trust with the future of our democracy?
Okay, right away I'm like, this is a parody account, right?
Zuby responds with yes.
Richard responds with, How does that make you feel as a black man?
There are young black men with degrees living in poverty as we speak.
And Zuby says, I am actually a black woman.
Please don't assume my gender.
To which Richard Hanania responds, I am sorry.
Even with a PhD and JD, I still don't always get it right.
I appreciate you correcting me and your words will guide me forward.
I assumed it was a parody account.
My friends, I still can't tell.
In Richard Hanania's profile, he says that he's a fellow at UT Austin or something.
release states that the company will authenticate all humans.
I'm not sure what this means, but there is at least a chance that it could compromise
users ability to be anonymous.
In this thread, explain some concerns with this possibility.
And it says Taylor Lorenz liked this.
Okay.
Taylor Lorenz, who took away the anonymity of a Twitter account, who is criticizing teachers.
Sure.
What a wonderful and wacky, stupid world we live in.
Nothing's even happened yet.
You know, so to point out, even Michael Knoll's tweeting these things.
You can still get banned for them.
My account was locked earlier this morning because someone filed a DMCA takedown against a photo I posted.
How deliciously stupid.
I don't care.
It was a photo, and I believe I was in the right to post it because I was making a political point, commenting.
on the photo itself, but sure, whatever, I don't care. It was the trans flag with a gun on it,
and I said, trans gun rights are human rights, trans day of visibility, and somebody, the guy,
person who owned it, I suppose a trans person, got mad that I posted it and filed a DMCA takedown.
Keep crying, here's what I'll do. I'll take your image, I will transform it, comment on it,
and put it back up. No, I actually don't care all that much.
This is the nature of our reality, It's where we're at for now.
Deliciously stupid, but welcome to, uh, to, uh, the culture war.
Now, I am recording this, uh, just around, you know, just past nine, and I'm awaiting confirmation on whether my billboard is up in Times Square.
Hopefully I will get some pictures or video of it.
And it's a billboard in Times Square saying Taylor Lorenz doxed libs of TikTok.
Because, um, she did!
So, uh, maybe we'll have something on that around 1pm.
That'll be the next segment coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, everybody, and I will see you all then.
How many of you didn't believe me?
How many?
I know you're out there.
I tweeted!
Libs of TikTok was doxxed by Taylor Lorenz in the Washington Post.
What do I gotta do?
Do I gotta buy a billboard in Times Square?
Well, I got one.
With the help of Jeremy Boring over at The Daily Wire, we were able to put this together very, very quickly.
I gotta say, shoutout to The Daily Wire crew for helping make this possible as quickly as we did.
Cause this is, it's truly magical.
I tweeted The Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz doxed at Libs of Tick Tock. They included a link
to private work details and an address listed as Libs private home. They lied about it. So I got an
ad in Times Square calling them out. Thanks to Jeremy Boring for the assist. For those that
aren't familiar with the story, let me give you the breakdown.
But first, well, I'll give you the quick gist.
Libs of TikTok, you can see here on the right, criticizes the left, mostly aggregates videos of left-wing individuals saying things that are shocking, abhorrent, or otherwise embarrassing.
Taylor Lorenz, a journalist for The Washington Post, revealed the identity, but also in the article, linked to private work details.
Now, I have the archive here to prove it!
I can't show what happens when I click that link because it would reveal private details which would get this video taken down.
Taylor Lorenz says it is patently false that her libs of TikTok story linked to personal info.
Lorenz suggests conservatives reject her story because they don't want scrutiny.
It's just an outright lie.
So here we go.
I got a billboard in Times Square, and this is what it looks like.
So it says, hey, WAPO, democracy dies in darkness.
That's why we're shining a light on you.
Oh, so there's a jump cut.
But it says, that's why we're shining a light on you.
And it says, Taylor Lorenz doxed at Libs of TikTok, at Timcast.
That's how you know it was from me!
Thanks very much, guys.
I said I was going to do it.
I did it.
Again, shout out to the Daily Wire crew.
Look, I don't know if getting a billboard, pushing back on the lies is the most effective way to get things done, but it felt like something should be done to get some attention because I am just sick of the lies.
I am sick of the lies.
Here's the story from Fox News.
On April 22nd, Washington Post's internet culture columnist Taylor Lorenz deflected any criticism she received for her report doxing the identity of the popular Twitter personality Libs of TikTok.
Lorenz sat down for an interview with CNN's Brian Stelter on his Reliable Sources podcast, where he confronted her on the various complaints conservatives had in response to her story, but barely pressed her with any follow-up questions, dismissing her critics as being nitpicky.
The journalist began by justifying the newsworthiness of revealing the person behind the Twitter account that yields such power, saying, for all we knew, this could have been a foreign actor.
Full stop.
You're correct, Taylor.
I agree.
For all we know, it could have been a foreign actor.
And, um, absolutely.
I think you should do some investigative reporting to figure out who's behind these influential accounts.
I will also note that a Saudi prince has tremendous influence in Twitter, or did at least until Elon Musk purchased it, and that also is of deep concern to me.
Now, Once you discovered it wasn't a foreign actor, what was the purpose of publishing the name of Libs of TikTok?
You said, well, people should know.
Okay, fine, I guess.
Taking away the anonymity of a political actor because they're influential, perhaps.
But even Matthew Iglesias, a liberal formerly of Vox.com, one of the co-founders, said the name was immaterial to the story.
Oh, it turns out to be some random crank.
Right.
Journalists seek to minimize harm.
They're supposed to.
Publishing the name only maximized harm and did not in any way change the story.
But that in and of itself is an argument.
You want to say the name should be released because prominent people should be known about their influential?
Okay, I gotcha.
However...
When she goes on to say that she did not dox, here we have an archive.
I'm gonna read the URL for you.
It's archive.ph slash capital B lowercase e capital V lowercase l and o.
That lowercase L may be an I. But you can search for the article in the archives and see that they use her name, Chaya Rychik, has been working as a real estate salesperson.
When you click real estate salesperson, it will show you her address, her private home address according to public listings, as well as where she works, And it is presumed her home address and her work address are listed as the same.
Make up any reason for you want why that's the case.
All I'm going to say, because I've talked about it quite a bit, is if public housing records say that's a home address, Then what, she works from home?
But other people work for that company too!
Yes, some people use their home address for their LLCs.
It's a real estate company.
Do they need a really big office?
More importantly, it's a commercial residential mix, meaning the first floor's a business, second floor's a residential.
So anyway, Taylor Lorenz is lying about this.
Quote, I am no, you know, newbie to internet drama, so I understand if you publish anything that kind of pokes the bear this way, they're going to come full force.
I think that's the best case scenario, and in a lot of ways, in the terms of people take your story seriously, right?
If everyone just ignores it and it's a nothing burger, that's usually a sign that you didn't do an interesting story or one that really resonated.
The whole goal with the right-wing media is to obscure this stuff and attack journalism, and to try and discredit any kind of journalist that attempts to hold these powers to account.
I assumed they would have drama, sort of, like they always do, Lorenz chuckled.
Alright!
I agree completely, Taylor.
I really, really do.
People of influence should be held to account.
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, a billionaire.
I think this, what is he, the second richest guy on the planet?
And you're a prominent journalist with hundreds of thousands of followers.
I actually respect the initial premise behind the story.
Who is Libs of TikTok?
Not the name.
If you want to post the name, we can have an argument about posting someone's name.
That I understand.
That's a journalistic standards thing.
You may disagree with me.
However, if your goal is to understand who is running the account, why they are doing it, I think that is absolutely, it's fantastic journalism.
And I would say, in any other circumstance, excellent work finding out who is behind this.
Even though other people did the research, but learning about their motivations and then sharing those motivations.
But you crossed a line.
You crossed a line by posting private home details.
Now, I reached out to Taylor Lorenz who said, I did not do it.
I'm not here to play games.
Is she saying I didn't do it because the Washington Post did it?
Is she saying she didn't do it because it was the editor that had included the link?
Is she outright denying the address is the home?
Don't know, don't care.
All that matters is Taylor Lorenz is on the byline that links to the private home address according to public records.
Now it's possible that Chaya Rychik moved from that address and Taylor is simply saying, It's okay to publish that address because she doesn't live there now.
That's on her to come out and rebut.
Tim Kast's newsroom did the search, pulled up public records on housing, not business, and found it listed as Chayaraychik's private residence.
I reached out to another source who said to me that that was the private address, but the reason I don't include that, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
It's- I'm- I am open to the idea that Chaya moved from this address.
That's fine.
It is still linked to private details where she worked, her real estate license.
If you want to argue this information is out of date, do it!
That's not what she's doing.
She's just outright saying, I deny!
Okay, well, you did dox the person.
At the very least, doxing includes putting the name out there.
Yes, that's true.
They also, in this article, explain basically how to get the phone number of this person.
All right, so they go on to say, let me see if I can pull this up just to show you, if you do, Libs of TikTok, here we go, it says, when a reporter called the phone number registered to Rychik's real estate profile and Libs of TikTok, Lib of TikTok.us, the woman who answered hung up.
When I saw this story, it took me literally three seconds to get the phone number.
This, okay, maybe not an outright doxing, but you did link to private details and then explained where to find private details.
The left has tried to rebut this in many ways, saying that, well, it's all publicly available information.
That doesn't change whether or not it is a dox.
If we don't know the name of Chaya Rychik, we don't know for sure that Chaya is behind libs of TikTok, and then you say she is, And then you include private details.
It doesn't matter if it's public.
You connected the account to the address.
You did it.
So ladies and gentlemen, I got a Times Square billboard ad.
Again, special thanks to Daily Wire, I'll say it a million times.
So I tweeted, after Taylor Lorenz came out and said that she didn't do it, that, you know, it may have been a foreign agent, I was just like, do I have to buy a Times Square billboard ad?
Jeremy Boring tweeted out, I got half!
And I said, let's make it happen!
And I can't believe it, in a couple days, we made it happen!
Again, I don't know if this is the most effective way to deal with the issue, but at the very least, we're doing something to generate attention, to push back on the lies and the manipulation.
Everything I said in that, it's true.
Washington Post, democracy dies in darkness, so we're going to shine a light on you.
Taylor Lorenz doxed libs of TikTok.
Deny it all you want.
You want to deny it?
Fine, we'll push back.
You want to make a false statement?
Well, I suppose it'll be on libs of TikTok as to whether or not there's some kind of legal action or otherwise.
But it's all there, plain to see.
And it's one of the most insane lies I have ever seen in media.
Chaya Rajchik has been working as a real estate salesperson, and when you click it, it brings you to a private address that, in it, it literally just has contact address.
It doesn't say work office.
The left is trying to protect Taylor Lorenz from doxing this person by saying, well, it's just a work address.
Yo, posting someone's work address is still doxing them.
If your argument is, well, it's not her home, it's just her work, Fine.
That's not true, but that's still doxing someone.
The Washington Post came out and said they didn't link to any private details.
Who are you kidding?
It's right here!
How do you think I found the address?
I did not do a deep dive into Chayaraychik.
I clicked the link, got the address, and then we dug into what the address was.
We then also cross-referenced it with Chayaraychik, and what did we find?
Personal address.
Now again, it's possible Chaya has moved from here and that's their defense.
Fine.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me just say hashtag winning.
With Elon Musk moving in on Twitter, I think there is beautiful shores ahead.
Land ho, as it were.
Let me show you some other really great things.
I got the news about the billboard being up.
They sent me the video, like, we got it, we got it, we're in New York, there it is.
And it was like 10 minutes before call time for recording this segment.
And so I said, well, I was gonna talk about Elon Musk, maybe I'll talk about that next.
But I also have some other really funny news I tweeted about.
So aside from just making, oh, let me pause for a minute.
There's good news as it pertains to calling out fake news, but let me just say, if you like the work we do, head over to TimCast.com and become a member, and I'll tell you what we're gonna do.
With your money as members, we hire journalists, we've got opinion writers, we're hiring a few more columnists to do analysis and commentary, we've got a handful of journalists.
Brett McDonald recently joined the team, very excited for Brett, he does a fantastic job.
We're hiring more journalists.
Now that's easy, right?
Of course, you hire some good journalists, people you know and trust.
We make sure we have strong standards.
But I'll tell you what else we're going to do.
For one, you'll get access to members-only segments of the Tim Cast IRL podcast.
We're also going to buy billboards in Times Square, calling out the establishment.
We are going to get commercials on TV.
I'm not going to go crazy because it is really expensive, but this is what we're going to be doing.
We are pushing back.
Now, some people have said Taylor Lorenz's real age is this, that, or otherwise.
And the other night on Tim Castellaw, I got mad.
They're like, she's 49 years old.
Is she lying about her age?
I don't care about her age.
Ian said, well, if she's actually 43, but lying, saying she's younger, that's important too.
And I'm like, look, People want to make fun of her for being ugly.
They want to make fun of her clothes.
That is immaterial.
I don't care about that.
Taylor could be a supermodel or be fugly.
None of that matters.
What matters is Taylor is a journalist, if you want to call her that because of this story.
But she is.
She works for the Washington Post.
Her personal life is immaterial.
What matters is, as a professional working for one of the largest newspapers in the world, she published private information in this story directly linking to it, and then lied about it.
I don't care if she wants to do the doxing.
What I mean is, I think it's bad, and I'll criticize it, but that's about all I'd do.
I'd say, wow, that was wrong, they shouldn't do that.
But Taylor Lorenz is trying to gaslight us, and the Washington Post is trying to gaslight us, and for this, we must have a proper rebuttal.
Times Square billboard ad will be up.
There you go.
Ruffle up some feathers.
We will do more things like this.
I will not sit back as people spit in our faces with lies.
You wanna wear certain clothes, I don't care.
You wanna be around whoever you love, I don't care.
Civil rights, all of that stuff, fantastic, I love it.
Let people love who they love, don't be mean to people, don't insult people.
I am not here to play games where people want to just insult someone's appearance or call them dumb.
That's stupid.
No, but I will call Taylor Lorenz a liar.
And I will call her out.
Now let me show you some other good news in the realm of fake news.
This, my friends, is the Daily Beast.
Why this Hawaii senator lost his ish on Josh Hawley.
I don't care for this story.
What I care is the NewsGuard rating.
Up in the top right, you will see NewsGuard has put a red exclamation point on the Daily Beast.
This is fantastic news.
The tides are turning, my friends.
Truth is beginning to claw its way out of this pile of refuse.
And I'm glad to see it.
The Daily Beast won a prestigious paper I believe it was attached to Newsweek, it was like the digital arm of Newsweek.
They won awards and things like that.
Now, NewsGuard says, proceed with caution, this website fails to adhere to several basic journalistic standards.
That's right.
The Daily Beast, a prominent New York digital leftist publication, is now deemed to be fake news!
The NewsGuard nutrition label says, It does not gather information responsibly, it does not correct or clarify errors, and it does not handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
For that, they have a 57 out of 100, which is a red exclamation point.
Now, to be fair, it does say it does not repeatedly publish false content.
I think that's funny, considering when you go into NewsGuard's review, it literally talks about all of the fake news they posted about Kyle Rittenhouse.
It really is a sight to behold.
I would also like to point out that Daily Beast Wrote several fake things about me, too!
Well, the Daily Beast is now fake news.
And my friends, I'd like to show you this.
The Post-Millennial!
Ah, yes, Libby Emmons, a good friend of TimCast IRL, frequent guest and the editor-in-chief of the Post-Millennial.
I'm sure she is happy to see this.
Now, we have Libby on the show because Libby is opinionated, which is excellent, but she also cares about facts and details.
And for this, you end up with the Post-Millennial, which has a point of view, which highlights certain kinds of content, but does its best to make sure the facts are true and correct.
And, when you look at the nutrition label from NewsGuard, why, the Postmillennial has an 82 out of 100.
Amazing.
They say that they don't... NewsGuard says the Postmillennial doesn't gather and present information responsibly.
Okay, well, you can argue.
But everything else across the board regularly corrects and clarifies errors, handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly, does not repeatedly publish false content.
It only has one strike, giving it a score of 82 out of 100.
The Daily Beast doesn't have that.
In fact, it's really amazing when you look.
They talk about how The Daily Beast repeatedly said Cal right now has crossed state lines with a weapon.
They talk about how, let me see if I can find this one.
The Daily Beast had not updated or corrected its Hunter Biden story as of mid-April 2022.
Aside from the fact that NewsGuard is calling The Daily Beast fake news!
Saying that Post Malina does a good job.
NewsGuard is how you get advertisers.
And I've had people on the right say, I don't care about NewsGuard.
Okay, well look.
NewsGuard is far from perfect.
I think they're actually fairly biased.
But I think they do well enough.
If you want your news outlet to be certified, Provide names of the creators along with contact or biographical information.
A small portion.
I agree with that.
I want to know who's writing these stories.
I don't want blank bylines like The Economist does.
Who's in charge, including any possible conflicts of interest.
Also, a good thing to do.
We do that at TimCast.
We do both of these things.
Clearly label advertising.
Yes.
I hate advertorials.
When a company buys an article and makes it seem like it's an article?
Avoid deceptive headlines.
I completely agree with this.
Now there are some challenges there, I will admit.
Because you'll often see things where it's like, you know, there was one that said Florida passes, you know, Florida revokes Disney's land permit as protests rage.
That's a true and correct headline, but I felt like it was misleading.
Headlines Some people don't like the way they're structured.
I will say for opinion pieces, I give way more leeway on this, and you can see that reflected in my content.
The way I title things, some people don't like them, but these are opinion columns.
This is opinion commentary.
The underlying facts, I always want to make sure are true and correct, but it's my opinion and analysis on these issues.
Handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly, 100%.
Don't put opinion in your articles.
I have gone to the TimCast newsroom several times and said, guys, this one's too close to opinion, slap the opinion label on it.
We don't gotta change it, we don't gotta take it down, but just put the opinion label on it.
Because people should know.
Clarify errors always, always clarify errors.
Why wouldn't you?
What's the point of doing news if you won't?
Present news and information responsibly.
Well, that's kind of nebulous.
I don't really know what they mean by that, but I think it means your headlines should be true and fair, and the context of them should be true and fair.
Don't publish false content is the big one.
Of course you shouldn't.
You should not do that.
I agree with the NewsGuard stuff.
When you adhere to these standards, you can then go to advertisers and say, we got third-party certification, same as New York Times, same as CNN.
The Daily Beast?
Fake news!
It's about time as well.
I think NewsGuard needs to go after way more outlets.
Let me throw this in for good measure.
The numbers behind CNN.
They were looking to invest $1,000,000,000, $100,000,000 in 2021, $400,000,000 in 2022, $300,000,000 in 2023, $200,000,000 in 2024, hoping that by 2025, they would generate $900,000,000.
And by 2026, they would generate $1,000,000,000 and reduce their costs for a net gain of $200,000,000.
300 million in 23, 224, hoping that by 2025 they would generate 900 million dollars.
And by 2026 they would generate 1 billion dollars and reduce their costs for a net gain of 200.
They were hoping to generate 2 billion dollars by 2030 with a net of 800 million profit.
Instead, they crashed and burned.
So let me tell you, my friends.
While Taylor Lorenz goes on TV and her and The Washington Post lie about doxing libs of TikTok, they did.
And we call them out with a billboard in Times Square.
Maybe just an emotional victory.
Because regular people might see that and be like, I don't know what that is.
But I'm hoping that it just generates buzz, that people are going to see it and be like, I wonder what that's about.
And there you go.
We asserted ourselves and made our statement.
Now you can see that even NewsGuard is challenging these fake news outlets.
The Post Millennial, who does a good job.
Real News.
The Daily Beast.
Fake News.
Now, NewsGuard also gives Breitbart and Project Veritas a bad rating.
I get it, I get it.
But it's good to see them going after big institutional establishment news outlets like the Daily Beast, because the Daily Beast, in my opinion, is fake news.
