Biden Ministry Of Truth Director HAS RESIGNED, DHS Board SUSPENDED In Shame, Democrat Media OUTRAGED
Biden Ministry Of Truth Director HAS RESIGNED, DHS Board SUSPENDED In Shame, Democrat Media OUTRAGED. Democrats are in panic over the midterms and even Bill Maher insulted them over this.
Nina Jankowicz is out following a disgraceful resignation after it emerged she had spread untold amounts of disinformation herself. The paradoxical appointment was met with harsh criticism and some argue the Democrats and Biden feared a constitutional backlash over policing information.
With the 2022 midterms only 6 months out Democrats are struggling to find their identity and are just flopping around confused.
#MinistryOfTruth
#Censorship
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Biden DHS Disinformation Board, aka Ministry of Truth, is suspended, and the director has resigned in disgrace.
The corporate press is blaming right-wing disinformation.
But that's not true.
Let's get to the truth.
In our next story, a new expose from Project Veritas gets a response from Elon Musk himself again, for like the third time.
Veritas' expose could actually help Elon Musk win a lower price or even break the Twitter deal.
In our last story, Netflix gets woke and goes broke and is bleeding subscribers in huge numbers and has begun layoffs.
If you like the show, leave us a good review, give us 5 stars, and share the show with your friends.
And now let's get into that first story.
There was a real constitutional liability here.
And the big story is that the disinformation czar had resigned, which says likely The DHS disinformation board, probably gone.
Now, a lot of people were calling out Nina Jenkiewicz, the director, for spreading disinformation herself, which she did on more than one occasion.
But of course, as the corporate press walks in lockstep with the mainstream media, rest assured the Washington Post will blame the right-wing disinformation machine for shutting down such a noble effort.
Incredible.
Journalism is supposed to challenge the power.
Well, the old saying is that it afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted.
There, I got it out.
And that is to say that for those that are in power, it's going to challenge you and question your power.
And for those that are being oppressed, it's going to highlight why you are being oppressed.
Now, journalism isn't perfect, and sometimes there are bad people who are poor, and sometimes there are good people who are rich, but the goal is to properly inform people so they know what's going on in the world and can make proper decisions.
This disinformation board, in my opinion, its entire goal was to control the narrative.
I'll tell you exactly what would have happened.
Now, I stated this before, but I'd be willing to bet the disinformation board, like Nina Jankowik's, she'd come out, And she say, this story about Hunter Biden's laptop is fake news.
The Russians are pushing it.
Then Twitter would say something like, due to the disinformation board's opinion on this being an attack from the Russians, we are barring the sharing of this story, giving the private company an out.
Well, the company may go to Elon Musk that his information board has failed, but there's something particularly nefarious in this beyond just what they were trying to do with censorship and manipulation.
It's also the outright admission from journalists like Taylor Lorenz.
That you should not be allowed to challenge the government or the authority.
Isn't that creepy?
Because anybody who did was engaged in a right-wing disinformation campaign.
But of course, when Taylor Lorenz herself goes after libs of TikTok, well, that's good journalism.
You see, the issue with Nina Jankowikz that's resulted in her resignation and the collapse of the disinformation board was that people started digging up posts from her where she claimed fake news was real news.
And now she's supposed to run the disinfo board?
Maybe she can reflect upon being wrong.
It's remarkable, and they're like, she truly was a disinformation expert.
Yes, perhaps an expert in sharing it herself and then finding out later.
Maybe that's why she resigned.
So good for her.
Maybe she acknowledged that she was bad at her job.
This is a dodged bullet, but it shows.
Well, the night is always darkest before the dawn, and the dawn may be coming.
With Elon Musk's maneuvers to expose and purchase Twitter, with the disinformation board's almost immediate failure, I think it was only like 20 days and this lady was out.
It shows you that regular people standing up can make a difference.
Every day we see it now.
The Democrats are in disarray, Republicans are expected to win bigly in the midterms, and then following that likely do nothing.
But we'll see.
Maybe there will be some good primaries.
Rand Paul won his.
Madison Cawthorn lost his.
It's hard to know exactly what's going to happen and who's going to step in, but if the establishment takes a hold of the Republican Party, rest assured nothing will change, and you will see more problems like this arise.
Then, things will only get worse.
So...
You should make sure you're voting in your primaries.
You should make sure that you know who you're voting for, and you're voting for the America First candidates, the people who believe in supporting the working class, challenging the power, and calling out the corporate press's lies.
But let's talk about Nina Jankowik and her resignation before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as support our journalists.
We have many people who are writing awesome stuff all day every day.
And as a member, you're basically making sure they're employed.
We're trying to hire many, many more people.
It's really difficult.
But you're also supporting the infrastructure, because we use Rumble.
And by supporting us, supporting companies that use alternate technology companies, we are directly competing with Silicon Valley.
So these big censorious platforms that want to silence us, shut us down, they are going to lose power and we will build something somewhere else so it can't be done.
When Dan Bongino got banned from YouTube, he said, so what?
I have more subscribers on Rumble anyway, and that was huge!
Speaking about all of this censorship, the lies, the manipulation, is more important than ever to support the companies you believe in.
We've got more infrastructure changes coming soon.
We use Rumble's Video Player and we use Rumble's Cloud Infrastructure.
We've got other companies we're going to be integrating with to challenge the machine and speak out against censorship manipulation from people like Nina Jankowikz.
So whenever we talk about censorship, rest assured we are putting our money where our mouths are.
And when you become a member, your money is helping to make these things a reality.
Thank you so much.
Smash the like button.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this video right now wherever you can.
Let people know.
Let's read the news!
The Daily Caller reports disinformation czar resigns and the board is on pause.
Well, it's been suspended.
The Department of Homeland Security put a pause Monday on its disinformation board after the truth czar who resigned Wednesday came under fire for spreading disinformation herself, the Washington Post reported.
Of course, the Washington Post is trying to make it seem like it was a disingenuous disinformation attack.
Oh, heavens.
I love to see all these corporate journalists be like, stop, stop.
We must defend the government.
Oh, the great journalistic tradition of defending the government.
Good for you guys.
DHS shut the board down Monday, and Nina Jankowikz, who was tapped to lead the department, drafted a resignation letter Tuesday, according to the Washington Post.
Django X was reported. I believe this is the same story from Taylor Lorenz, but we'll just
put up a case. Django X was reportedly pulled into a meeting late Tuesday night, however,
with officials giving her the chance to stay on as a department determines whether to move
forward with the highly polarized board. Django X formally resigned Wednesday, according to
The Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz.
The decision comes as Jankowikz faced extreme backlash for pushing disinformation.
Jankowikz attempted to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story as a Trump campaign product while speaking to ABC News in 2020.
During the presidential debate, Jenkiewicz posted that President Biden cited 50 former NATSEC officials and five former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian influence op.
The laptop was authenticated by several outlets, including the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Jenkiewicz also claimed the now-discredited Steele dossier was funded by Republicans in a 2017 tweet.
She also expressed concern about Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter and what would happen if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms.
Jenkiewicz also said in 2021 the GOP is made up of disinformers who have seized on issues like critical race theory to spread disinformation.
Of course, Jenkiewicz is a liar!
She is a liar and a figurative thief.
Uh, liar and a thief is the phrase.
I don't know if she actually stole anything, but, um, she was attempting to steal information from our very minds.
I'm kidding with that one.
No, she was attempting to lie to us, to manipulate us, to trick us into supporting bad policy.
Or, she's just really dumb.
You know, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she has a degree in economics, and she doesn't know what capitalism means.
That, to me, is not surprising.
AOC made a video where she said, you're not a capitalist, because you're not a billionaire!
And it's like, what?
Capitalism is just the private trade of goods, whereas socialism is the public trade of goods.
When the public owns it, it's a communal decision, and people don't have a say.
When it's capitalism, a private individual can determine what they do with their capital.
Bro, read a book!
I don't even have an economics degree, I just looked up the general terms.
But that's AOC, right?
It's no surprise.
Jankowicz herself does not know what's real and believes disinformation.
Millennials are a hurt generation.
And it's particularly troublesome to me that we have so many people who are the opposite of who should be in a position in those positions.
Jankowicz is somebody who should sit down and be lectured to by an expert on disinformation.
And you want to know who is an expert on disinformation?
You are!
All of you who watch these videos, and I'm not talking about because you watch these videos, I'm saying because you watch a bunch of news, you already know she's wrong!
How is it that you, sitting there, looking at your desktop computer or perhaps driving to work, know more about what's real than a Department of Homeland Security disinformation expert?
Something is broken.
Now, I'll defend this woman on a couple points.
When she tweeted, Joe Biden cited 50 former NATSEC officials, she said, I was just quoting what they had said.
Trump said Russia, Russia, Russia.
Biden said 50 officials.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America 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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Now, in reality, sometimes you quote people, and sometimes those quotes are wrong.
I'm not gonna blame her for that.
But if we want to get, you know, down to the nitty-gritty, if someone is supposed to be determining, fact-checking, they shouldn't just be pushing things out without checking into it.
Fact-checkers should not be like, quote was, you know, 2 plus 2 equals 5, saith the quote.
They should be like, fact-check, does 2 plus 2 equal 5?
The answer is no, it doesn't.
So, if her goal is to be a disinformation expert and to call out lies, her tweet should have said, Biden says this, Trump says this, Biden is wrong.
Or at the very least, later on, said, noted Biden was incorrect, this story was true.
Let's take a look at this story from the Washington Post, from Taylor Lorenz.
Why was this taken down?
Well, as the news, corporate news outlets, march in lockstep with the government and suckle the teat of Big Brother, How the Biden administration let right-wing attacks derail its disinformation efforts.
You mean to tell me that the Washington Post gets a scoop, and instead of writing, breaking, the board is suspended, and Nina Jankowik resigns, they write right-wing attacks?
Okay, Washington Post, this is an opinion piece!
All right, NewsGuard.
Come on, NewsGuard.
100 out of 100.
Newsguard contacted us recently over at TimCast.com.
They said we do a pretty good job.
Out of the thousand plus articles we have, they had five issues.
Just five.
And you know what?
They were right about those issues.
So we took care of them.
Factual errors, things like that.
And we were like, that was an oversight.
We made a mistake.
We will correct immediately.
Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
We make sure everything's labeled opinion, and dude, I have a very low threshold for what becomes opinion.
We had an article that said, what could happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
And I immediately said, could opinion, slap the label on it, and the editorial team went, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, Tim.
Wait.
Okay.
It's not an opinion piece.
We are showing you the existing laws.
And I said, ah, okay, all right, all right, I'll let that one go.
But I'm ready to be like, I will put an opinion label on any one of these, because who cares?
If there's anything in there where you think something may be, or you think something could mean, then we put an opinion label on it.
In this instance, What could happen was a reference to trigger laws and pending legislation.
And so the argument was, it's not that it could happen because we think it might, it's because there's pending legislation that may or may not get voted down.
That's a fact.
And I went, ah, ah, ah.
You got me?
You got me.
This right here from Taylor Lorenz is disinformation.
It is an opinion piece masquerading as news.
Bravo, Washington Post.
Democracy dies in darkness, I suppose.
Taylor Lorenz, you know where you love her, writes, In the morning of April 27, the Department of Homeland
Security announced the creation of the first Disinformation Governance Board, with the
stated goal to coordinate countering misinformation related to Homeland Security. The Biden
administration tapped Nina Jankowik, a well-known figure in the field of fighting disinformation
and extremism, as the board's executive director. In naming the 33-year-old
Jankowik to run the newly created board, the administration chose someone with extensive
experience in the field of disinformation.
Um, I want to pause there and say someone who also shared tons of disinformation, but I digress.
She goes on to say, which has emerged as an urgent and important issue.
Once again, NewsGuard.
How about this?
Can everybody, and I mean it, let's be activists for a moment.
How about, okay, so look, NewsGuard isn't the end-all be-all.
But NewsGuard rates The Washington Post a 100 out of 100.
NewsGuard is integrated, I believe they're integrated with Microsoft Edge and mobile browsers and things like that.
And it's a certification process, of which there are a few.
How about everyone just email this article to them and say, hey, they forgot to label this opinion?
How about any time you see CNN, The Washington Post, not label something opinion, you just send it to NewsGuard?
You know, one of the things they emailed us on NewsGuard was they were like, why didn't you include clinical trials?
We had an article.
The article was about a bill in New Hampshire related to the use of ivermectin.
They asked us why we didn't include information on clinical studies related to ivermectin.
And I said, I'm sorry?
Is there an error in our reporting?
Because if we report that politicians say X and do X, that's the story.
I said, are you suggesting an editorial change?
NewsGuard should not be asking us, that was over the line.
And I have no problem saying it.
I am a fan of NewsGuard, by the way.
Because I actually think they may be biased.
And when they do things like this with the Washington Post, which allows for disinformation from these outlets, this is where they do a bad job.
The Washington Post does a lot of fine news, but I guarantee you that NewsGuard is not accurately assessing what the Washington Post is.
Because Taylor Lorenz publishes opinion pieces masquerading as news, when are they going to get knocked for it?
They don't update, they don't correct.
Anyway, I digress.
They're going to say, within hours of the news of her appointment, Janka Wicks was thrust into the spotlight by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating.
The board itself and DHS received criticism for both its somewhat ominous name and scant details.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Janka Wicks was thrust into the spotlight by the forces she dedicated her career to combating?
The right?
Taylor, are you saying she's a left-wing political activist who dedicated her life to fighting the right?
I'm confused by what you mean.
Nobody created disinformation.
They shared literally what she was doing.
Jane Quicksilver was on the receiving end of the harshest attacks, with her role mischaracterized, and she became a primary target on the right-wing internet.
The right-wing internet!
A unique and separate space from everyone else.
Oh, please.
Opinion piece masquerading as fact.
NewsGuard, where you at?
Just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being paused.
It's suspended.
According to multiple employees, good.
Tuesday night, Jankiewicz was pulled into an urgent call with DHS officials who gave her the choice to stay on, as we know.
Alright, let's move on from here.
We have this, let me pull this up from Glenn Greenwald.
It's a cause of momentary celebration that the Department of Homeland Security was forced by popular anger to pause its disinformation board and the absurd resistance cartoon they hired to run it.
But read this to see how angry Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz are that it happened.
Investigating and criticizing a Homeland Security official is now harassment and bullying.
According to the Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz, only ordinary citizens can be investigated, not a high-level U.S.
security state operative.
Them's the rules.
Glenn says, summary of the rules from the Washington Post, high-level officials of the Department of Homeland Security off-limits from investigation and criticism.
Anonymous citizens who tweet bad ideologies, dox, unmask, bang on relatives' doors.
You know, If I didn't know better, I'd say Taylor Lorenz was working for the intelligence agencies.
But a stretch too far.
No, news outlets just walk in lockstep with them.
It's what they do.
If the government says it, it's true.
If anyone else says it, it's not true.
That's the game.
Glenn says, in sum, a free press exists to unmask and punish private citizens with wrong politics.
Shoelace reporting.
Not to investigate and scrutinize the beliefs, conduct, and claims of powerful government officials.
Harassment and bullying.
Without having the U.S.
Government's Department of Homeland Security, without having their disinformation board run by Nina Jenkiewicz to decree truth and falsity, how will we know what we should believe and not believe?
How could a democracy function without Department of Homeland Security telling us what is true and what is false?
The people can stand up, and the people can win.
And y'all did just that.
And a shout out to our good friend Bill Maher!
Bill Maher rails against Nina Jankowik's disinfo governance board.
These are not bright people.
The HBO star says critics are right to compare the DHS board to Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
And this is the reality.
Reality czar Ricky tweeted, I guarantee right wing attacks didn't derail this.
The Biden administration has proven over and over they bulldoze over concerns of real America.
This must not have polled well among Democrat voters and or been a constitutional liability.
I completely agree when Bill Maher goes on his show and speaks to a predominantly moderately liberal audience and says these are not bright people.
They hear it, and Biden goes, yo, it's hurting our polls!
Pull back, pull back.
They say, real-time host Bill Maher blasted the so-called Disinformation Governance Board and Nina Jankowik, and this story is from May 14th.
During his panel discussion on Friday, Maher knocked the Department of Homeland Security, which he said itself had a creepy name, for rolling out its new initiative, which he insisted is even creepier.
Yes, they're right to compare this to Orwell in the Ministry of Truth.
That's exactly what it sounds like.
After acknowledging that he was alright with DGB's mission to go after disinformation from Russia and migrant traffickers, Maher took issue with the DHS's definition of disinformation, which is, quote, Well, you could have said that about, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Mar reacted, referring to President Obama's infamous claim about Obamacare, which was declared lie of the year by PolitiFact.
It said also, here's a phrase, Can take many forms.
OK, now we're going faster down the slippery slope, including but not limited to the two I mentioned.
OK, so government should not be involved in deciding what's true or not true, because a lot of people are saying.
And my follow up question would be, who do you think the truths are is going to be in 2025?
Mar added.
Former Rep.
Jane Harman, a Democrat, who says she's on the DHS Advisory Committee, knocked the DGB, telling Maher, I don't get this piece, and that she was never consulted about it before the rollout.
She added that the board would be fine if it was confined to narrow missions, but broadening their authority would be highly unfortunate.
Maher then pointed to remarks Jankiewicz previously made about wanting to essentially edit Twitter in order to add context to certain tweets.
I don't know if he said it exactly like that, but I love impersonating Bill Maher.
That's what Twitter is.
When somebody says something and you add context, these are not bright people in our government.
I don't know if he said it exactly like that, but I love impersonating Bill Maher.
Last week, Mark closed his show with a monologue decrying censorship on the Internet.
Bravo and respect to Bill Maher.
Quote, This idea that we can clean up Twitter and and protect you from fake news and disinformation.
It's so ridiculous.
People always lie.
That's what people do.
Every age is the misinformation age.
And whenever a new means of communication comes along, some reach right for the censor button.
In 1858, The New York Times thought we couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph.
They said it was superficial and too fast for truth.
Lies are all around you.
Lies are all around you.
Develop a better bullish detector.
That's a better solution than me giving up what I'm allowed to read.
Who decides that?
Who decides what gets the no evidence for that sticker slapped on it?
Sometimes misinformation is just history's first draft.
I see a lot of things on social media, and also old F's media.
And I don't completely believe any of it.
Not right away.
Not until I check it out.
But when I ask, is it true?
Usually the answer turns out to be, well, sort of.
Or, yes, but.
So you see, we've all become very adept at saying things that are technically true, but lack context, or leave out half the story.
So if we're going to ban untruth, does that include the half-truth, the quarter-truth, and wait, don't the wokest people in the world believe that what really matters is your truth?
This is still America, where people have the right to express what they think, including to be wrong, to lie, and yes, the right to be an a-hole.
But if you think you know everything and no one else could possibly have some other truth, you should be glad for that protection because you're an a-hole, Marr added.
Bravo!
Bravo on that monologue.
You know, Bill Marr, I wish you would get with the program and pay more attention to what's going on with the news.
But here's a guy who lives with mainstream corporate press.
I am surprised he's been able to break out as much as he has.
Jon Stewart lost his mind.
Here we go.
Nina Jenkiewicz promoted Trump-Russia claims, urged government intervention and disinformation in 2020 book.
This is not a good or bright person.
Robbie Suave for Reason writes, Nina Jenkiewicz's faulty record, not her critics, doomed the disinformation board.
Even Elon Musk somehow found his way into this segment.
Okay, Elon.
I think the past 12 segments that TimCast has done about you, have done, have been about you.
So, you, how are you in all of the news now?
Elon Musk slams Nina Jankowik's call for verified users to edit tweets.
Well, there it is.
Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter, and Nina Jankowik's actually called on Blue Checks to be able to edit your tweets.
Dude.
A step too far, no?
Musk was responding to a video of Jankowik's, the, you know, we know she is.
Disconcerting, Musk wrote.
Jankowik's told participants in a recent Zoom chat that she is verified by Twitter before adding that there are a lot of people who shouldn't be verified who aren't legit because they're not trustworthy.
Ah.
I thought the verification badge wasn't a, wasn't an endorsement, wasn't a symbol of quality.
I thought verification was basically like this person is who they say they are.
For the longest time, James O'Keefe was not verified, Julian Assange was not verified, and why?
They were who they say they were, but they didn't- I think James had his verification removed, actually.
She adds, verified people can easily start- can essentially start to edit Twitter in the same sort of way that Wikipedia is, so they can add context to certain tweets.
Ben Shapiro is verified, should he edit tweets?
No!
But is this what they're arguing?
Elon Musk called it disconcerting.
Talk about, these people are dumb as a box of rocks.
Or she's just lying.
I'm glad she resigned.
fraud, someone could add context from one of the 60 lawsuits that went through the court or something
that an election official said so that people have a fuller picture rather than just an individual
claim on a tweet. Talk about these people are dumb as a box of rocks or she's just lying.
I'm glad she resigned. Nina, you're singing is fine.
I've heard it's not that good.
I enjoy it.
Your weird political singing is a little cringe, but the musical number?
Pretty good, actually.
I'm impressed.
Your disinformation perspective is so wrong.
You should never, never have agreed to take this job.
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 that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Do you know anything about the lawsuits that went through the courts and why you saying that does nothing?
The lawsuits that went through the courts were dismissed mostly on standing, not on merit.
They were dismissed, but that is not an argument.
A judge said that you aren't the right person to file a suit, so therefore we've disproven it.
No, you haven't!
I am just so frustrated when you see crackpot, low-intelligence people thinking they're so smart.
Wonderful.
I don't think I'm so smart.
I think I'm good at strategy.
I think I'm good at calculation.
It doesn't mean I'm a genius.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the room.
I just have opinions.
I'm very opinionated.
So, there are a lot of things I don't have strong moral positions on.
Tim, why don't you talk about this issue or that issue?
I'm like, I don't know!
I don't know enough to advocate strongly Maybe if you can show me some data and some definitive proof that your opinion is backed by facts.
Here's what I can't stand.
Low intelligence people like Nina Jankowik.
She doesn't, she's a midwit.
She's a little bit smart but not smart enough to do something like this.
But she is so arrogant that she would assert authority over you.
It's what we experienced.
We typically when we invite people from the left on the show, because these people don't know what's going on.
Tendency, not all the time, but it is the rule.
When I talk to someone who's on the left and I'm like, Joe Biden in Ukraine, and they're like, that's fake.
And then I'm like, here's the video.
And they're like, I didn't know that video was real.
And I'm like, did you Google search it?
I tell you, I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I think I just know how to use Google.
I just search for stuff.
I just look up stories.
I verify the sources.
She doesn't!
And she was given this job.
The resignation was the right thing to do.
I commend her for it.
Bravo, Nina.
You are not qualified for this position.
Resigning was the right thing to do.
Here's the real reason I think they shut down the disinfo board.
The Atlantic writes, Democrats' midterm identity crisis.
Biden's agenda is stuck.
His party hasn't figured out how to replace it.
Well, that's what it is.
The midterms are coming up.
This probably polled very poorly.
The Democrats don't know what they're doing, so they're fumbling and falling apart.
They go on to mention, you know what?
Let's talk about the media.
President Joe Biden arrived in office with a throwback theory of how to expand his party support.
Full stop.
Write news.
Okay.
It's a column.
You know what I don't like about modern journalists and columnists?
Is like, they don't know how to write anything.
They really don't.
They're terrible writers.
This is what you see so often in news.
There'll be a headline and it'll be like, Nina Jankowik's resigns.
Actually, let's see if Taylor Lorenz did this.
Let's see what she writes.
On the morning of April 27th, the Department of Homeland Security announced that with the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate blah, blah, blah, the Biden admin tapped Nina Jankowik, a well-known figure to the defeat, in naming her into the committee of the board, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is called wasting time.
Because, um, first, it's not the worst example of it, but the first paragraph should be, like, the first paragraph should be, Nina Jankowik, who was to run Biden's Disinformation Governance Board, has resigned, and the board has been suspended.
So, how many paragraphs until she breaks the news?
Just three weeks?
So, what, we're on the fourth paragraph?
I don't know, that annoys me.
You know what really annoys me, though?
She didn't do it here, but it'll be a story that'll say, like, you know, Joe Biden does backflip.
And then you'll be like, wow, what happened?
And you'll open it, you'll scroll to the first paragraph, and it'll say, it was a cold summer morning.
The crisp air could be felt on one's neck.
The sun had risen, and the dew was on the morning grass.
A crowd emerged, and I'm like, okay, dude, shut up, and tell me what happened, and then write me a novel.
I can't stand when news outlets do that.
But in this instance, what we can see here is Taylor Lorenz is... Oh, it's remarkable how bad she is at this.
She's got sources.
She's controversial.
That's why she gets hired.
This is terrible.
This is not journalism.
That's why they hire her.
Rage bait that will get to the left and the right to click it because here we are, right?
Okay.
Taylor Lorenz got a scoop on a big story and then wrote an op-ed and buried the lead.
In my opinion, the reason they hired her, the Washington Post hired Taylor Lorenz, is because she is a very whiny... So actually, let me get this.
I have sources inside New York media.
And my understanding is that, it is believed, she is whiny, controversial, scandalous.
And those are all positive traits for generating rage bait to make money.
The Washington Post wants to make money.
So, well, there you go.
There are comments on the Washington Post article.
I'd like to see some.
One person says, will this information have the same definition with a Republican in the White House?
I would be concerned an agency will be used for political purposes regardless of which party is in power.
I also worry when government says it will protect our freedom of speech, again, regardless of who's in the White House.
Wow, a whole long article on this, and they didn't mention the most important thing, her own disinformation role in the Hunter Biden laptop.
That was the big moment for me, putting someone like that in charge of the board like this, who herself played a role in disinformation.
Taylor Lorenz is kind of like a shock jock for a news outlet.
They know that her articles will be scoured by right and left, and then everyone will get angry about it, and then they'll generate a lot of buzz, and then people will sign up for the Washington Post.
But I also know something else.
The Washington Post has veteran journalists there.
If you work for the Washington Post, I know you know what I just said is true.
And you know more, because I have sources who have told me certain things about what's going on behind the scenes.
If you're an old school journalist who believes in truth, and you are watching the op-eds masquerading as news articles, you are watching this, and you are angry about it, You need to do the right thing.
You need to blow the whistle on illegal activities, unethical behavior, malfeasance, whatever it may be.
I'm not saying they're doing anything illegal.
I'm saying just blow the whistle on whatever you blow.
You can blow the whistle on expose these people I have it on good authority that Taylor Lorenz is widely despised by the veterans of the company because she's viewed as a... She constantly has temper tantrums.
She's always, you know, complaining about something behind the scenes.
She's freaking out, all that stuff.
Now, that's just what I've heard from people in media.
We'll see.
If someone's willing to speak up, spill the beans, and share what it's like working with this diva.
Taylor Lorenz is a liar.
She doxed libs of TikTok and then denied it.
She did.
And many on the left just lied to cover her, but we have documents showing that she did dox libs of TikTok, period.
It's all that matters.
We have public housing records, so we know.
Taylor Lorenz is not a good person.
And I hope NewsGuard takes a look at this Send it to him, I guess.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Elon Musk's Twitter takeover may not happen.
We don't know.
The deal's on hold.
Elon Musk says he wants Twitter to prove that less than 5% of its users are bots, because that's what they've claimed.
And so far, they've refused to do it.
Now, many on the left who don't want Elon Musk to be able to buy Twitter are arguing that this is it.
Elon Musk is trying to pull out.
The deal is screwed.
And Twitter has now come out and said, we will enforce this deal.
I find it kind of funny.
It's basically, Elon Musk has turned the tables on Twitter.
A lot of people are saying Twitter has turned the tables on Musk.
It's like, no, no.
Elon Musk was doing a hostile takeover.
And that, well, I guess you can call it a hostile takeover.
He was trying to buy out the company and they didn't want it.
And now, he's got Twitter going, you better buy us, Elon Musk.
He's like, oh, I guess.
But with them wanting to enforce the deal, it means Elon may be able to negotiate a lower price.
And I think many people who just hate Elon Musk for tribal reasons can't see what's happening right before them.
Elon Musk has now responded to two different stories from Project Veritas.
The first, it is an engineer saying they're commie as F. Yesterday, we got this breaking story where lead client partner at Twitter, Alex Martinez, says that they're gonna say it's the ideology that's making, that is the reason why they're not profitable.
He says they don't believe in free speech.
The people who work there believe in something bigger and they want to change the world or something like that.
That messaging is more important than a functioning business.
Now we've got a new filing, a new story, that shines a light on what may be happening.
Elon Musk apparently talked to Jack Dorsey and asked him to stay on.
Jack said no.
Jack told Elon the company needs to go private.
So Elon said, I am not joining the board.
I'm buying you out.
The company resisted, tried to stop it.
Now it's flipped.
This is all really weird.
I want to make one point, as I break down the master stroke that is Elon Musk's moves.
No guarantee he wins, I think he will win.
And I think, for some reason, people on the left, the tribe, the left tribe, for whatever reason, they just have to align themselves with one frame of thinking regardless of facts.
So we had a progressive guy on the show on IRL.
And before the show, we were talking a little bit about Elon Musk, and he said, yeah, well, Elon, screw it, because you have to pay a billion dollars now.
And I was like, no, he won't.
And he was like, well, he's got, it's in the contract.
And I was like, and?
You know, it's really fascinating.
I mean, I've learned a lot of really important lessons over my 10 years working in... Man, it's been that long, huh?
Just 10 years working in the media industry.
But, you know, before this, I mostly did smaller, more typical jobs.
But when you get in high-stakes media, you know, areas that have consequence in the political space, you really start to see what it means to have a contract.
And that contract means diddly.
They're all coming out and they're like, Elon Musk got a contract, he's gonna lose a billion dollars.
No, no, no, okay, yes, yes, yes.
Alright, I'm not trying to say it's not the case that there's a billion dollars on the line.
If Twitter backs out of the deal, they gotta pay Elon Musk a billion dollars.
If he backs out, he's gotta pay them a billion dollars.
But I think Elon knows what he's doing.
And I'll put it this way.
It is an insurance policy for both groups.
Elon has an out.
So when I say Elon's not gonna have to pay this money, initially, when you see this deal, it's like, oh, there we go.
Either they do the deal or they lose the billion dollars.
He's got them in a vice.
Now, Elon's playing games, for whatever reason, saying, what's up with these bots?
Many people on the left, because they just choose to- I think they only hate Elon because they're on the left, which makes no sense because he's like the green energy guy who's doing the most to end climate change, but sure, whatever.
They have to hate him.
He's also rich.
These Project Veritas videos may have just saved Elon Musk billions of dollars.
When it comes to contracts, contracts, they're valuable.
You should have them.
But they're only enforceable against people who don't want to face judgment.
In this instance, does Twitter or Elon want to actually go into war, lawfare, for years to determine who is right or wrong?
The answer is no.
If Twitter backed out and just abruptly said, we're not gonna sell, okay, then Elon's probably gonna win very quickly.
If Elon right now says, you know what, I'm not buying, then Twitter would probably win very quickly.
But variables have been introduced.
New videos have emerged showing that people at Twitter don't work.
One guy said he worked like four hours last quarter, I guess?
I thought he was saying per week, but apparently someone said he only worked four hours last quarter.
Maybe I missed that one.
Maybe I got that one wrong.
And if that's the case, what Elon Musk is now seeing is that ideology drives the company.
Did they disclose that?
That they're not profitable.
Did they disclose that?
That employees are saying, in this video, this guy, Alex Martinez, disparages Elon Musk for having Asperger's, saying that he's special or, you know, suffering from some kind of disability of sorts.
I mean, we can actually just jump to What does he say?
I'm like, you're Elon Musk's special needs.
You're literally special needs.
So I can't even take what you're saying seriously.
Interesting.
That plays a role.
Now, there's an argument.
Does any of these statements from these Twitter employees have any merit in a legal argument?
Maybe not.
But he can still argue them.
And that's going to make this a protracted legal battle that I don't know if either side would want to be involved in.
Elon Musk's response was, Twitter executive trashing free speech and mocking people with Asperger's.
Elon can take these two videos, and he can craft an argument that Twitter is not disclosing everything they were required to disclose to him, and thus, the contract, they are in violation.
Look, You can sue a ham sandwich.
It doesn't mean you're going to win.
It's possible Elon could argue that Twitter's in breach and they owe him a billion dollars.
I don't know for sure.
Elon is calling them out because a new report has come out saying half of Joe Biden's Twitter followers are fake.
Audit reveals.
Elon says, interesting.
So that would be like 10 times more than 5%.
The fascinating thing is He then responds, or 14 times higher than Twitter's 5% in my case.
Because I think this report actually, I think we can pull it up, goes on to say that Elon Musk has more fake followers.
But let me make sure I have the number right.
SparkToro's tool found that 49.3% of the accounts following at POTUS are fake followers.
This is obvious.
It doesn't mean the entirety of the platform.
When someone creates a bot account, what they want to do is they want to follow prominent figures to make the bot look like it's actually engaging, like following people.
The President of the United States is an obvious one.
That's the at POTUS account, which I believe was held by Donald Trump as well.
But I think they reset the followers, I'm not sure.
So bots sign up, or people create bots, and then they auto-follow, you know, POTUS.
So they go in and give some context, blah blah blah.
Musk, the world's richest man, claimed 20% of Twitter accounts were fake or spam, four times what Twitter claims to be true.
It is not clear how Musk arrived at the 20% figure.
We suspend over half a million accounts, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, so somewhere here they did mention, here we go.
Musk's account has more than 93.3 million followers.
SparkToro found that 70% of those accounts are fake.
So Elon Musk only has like 25 million followers and the rest are fake?
That's crazy.
So Musk then responds basically.
He says 14 times higher, in his case, than Twitter's 5% bias.
Pradeep Patel says, Twitter needs to provide much more clarity as to how they're calculating more than 95% of legit users on the platform.
Absolutely.
Dr. Crypto says, go to POTUS or Joe Biden, click followers, scroll down about two pages, then start hovering over accounts.
What you'll see, no profile pic and or zero followers.
They are fake.
Interesting.
POTUS, huh?
Has anybody tagged the POTUS account?
I don't think they actually tagged Joe Biden.
Some people actually started pulling up videos.
or made videos where they go through Joe Biden's followers and all of them are just weird,
generic, empty profiles with no tweets, no followers, no following, nothing.
Seem fake. Here's the here's the here's the issue.
If they're not tweeting, then they're not playing a role in the active user environment.
In which case, if Twitter is saying, of our active users, 5% are bots, perhaps what Elon is saying, of all users, that's the question.
When they say that half of Joe Biden's Twitter followers are fake, how many of those Twitter followers are active?
How many accounts have signed up on Twitter and done nothing because they're inactive and they're real people or they're bots but they don't do anything?
So, Elon Musk may be having a conversation, and we're kind of missing the point here.
When Parag Agarwal talked about the bots, he said, calculating MDAUs, I think it's called daily, monthly, daily active users or something, or daily active users by month, I don't know what the number actually means, but it means active users.
If he's talking about active users and Elon Musk is talking about all users, you're arguing apples to oranges.
Now, either way, I agree that they should reveal how they came to that conclusion publicly.
Elon Musk says they're not doing it.
Why not?
You don't have to reveal the personal information.
You can show the formula.
You can show, you know, here's how we did it.
I think the issue is that the CEO of Twitter is obviously lying.
That's my opinion.
I do not believe he's being honest.
And I think it's because People did bad things and the SEC probably should investigate because they're defraud- I think Elon Musk found fraud.
I'm not saying I know for a fact.
I'm not saying it's greater than probability or definitively true.
I'm saying I think there's a strong possibility that's the case.
The board and Mr. Musk agreed to a transaction at $54.20 per share.
Twitter's board said in a statement, And?
Twitter's board said in a statement, We believe this arrangement is in the best interest of all
shareholders.
We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement.
And?
So Elon Musk is roughing him up a little bit.
Maybe they'll have to negotiate a lower price if they want to enforce this deal.
He can argue that they didn't properly disclose.
He can argue, off of the Veritas videos, they didn't properly disclose.
And then there's going to be a protracted legal battle nobody wants to get into.
In which case, Twitter is in trouble.
Their stock is going down.
And that's bad for Elon, too.
Could be good for you, I don't know.
No financial advice.
Right now, I think Twitter's trading at around $38.
If, my understanding is that if, you know, for me, because I have like, I think, 11 shares.
If I were to sell now, I'm at $38.
But if the deal goes through, I get $54.20.
I'll take the Elon deal.
If Elon renegotiates, I guess I still end up making more money.
Because, you know, it's gonna go up in price.
So I don't see this as being a done deal.
I don't see it as being over.
And I don't see it as turning the tables.
But there is some insight into what's going on behind the scenes.
And it seems Jack Dorsey played a role in everything that's happening.
New filing reveals the full story behind Musk's bid to buy Twitter.
They say in a new filing with the SEC, it sheds lights on Twitter's board early conversations with the billionaire.
Tuesday's filing reveals a timeline of conversations from Twitter's perspective in the lead-up to the deal.
Beginning on March 26th, when Musk reached out to former CEO Jack Dorsey to discuss the future direction of social media, that same day Musk also reached out to Twitter board member Egon Durbin.
And the two discussed the possibility of Musk joining the board.
The following day, Musk spoke with Twitter board chair Brett Taylor and CEO Parag Agrawal about his interest in Twitter, saying he was considering joining the board, trying to take Twitter private, or starting a competitor.
After meetings between the board members with Musk, that included lawyers and bankers, they reached an agreement on Musk joining the board in early April, contingent on a background check.
On April 4th, Musk reached out to Dorsey about his perspective.
Dorsey told Musk he personally believes Twitter would be better equipped to focus on execution as a private company, according to the filing.
Musk asked if Dorsey would stay on the board even though he had already been set to leave.
Dorsey declined.
Soon after, the board completed Musk's background check and his appointment to the board was set to go into effect April 9th.
Leading up to that date, Musk and Agarwal continued discussing Twitter's business and products in anticipation of his new role on the board.
But before the appointment came into effect, Musk told Taylor and Agarwal he would no longer be joining the board and would instead make an offer to take Twitter private.
That set off a frenzied few weeks where Musk made what he called his best and final offer.
The board later adopted a poison pill shareholder rights plan to prevent Musk from moving forward.
But he then floated the idea of a tender offer appealing to shareholders.
In the deliberations over the bid, the filing reveals Twitter's board considered its historical challenges in growing the business.
And also determined it was unlikely other potential acquirers would be interested or able to buy Twitter based on regulatory financial or execution risks.
They also considered that Musk could start an unsolicited takeover and that Musk's first offer was likely the best value that Twitter could reasonably obtain from him.
I'll tell you what I see happening.
Twitter needs to just clean house.
They should give everybody a political perspectives test.
A corporate values test is a better way to put it.
And then fire everyone who does not fall in line with the proper values that would help this business grow.
Twitter.
I believe it was like the second big social network.
I know we had LiveJournal, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook.
But Facebook and Twitter were dominant.
What happened, Twitter?
What happened?
I'll tell you what happened.
Jack Dorsey is a terrible leader.
I don't think Jack's all that bad.
I just don't trust the guy.
But this is all Jack Dorsey's doing.
He was blind to the problems.
He swam in his own refuse.
They hired psychotic individuals.
And now you have this revelation from Veritas where guys like only work in four hours this
past quarter or whatever.
Four hours.
They mill about, they do nothing, and they extract the money from the company.
Money that could be put to better use in growing the business.
They had vine, they shut that down.
Morons.
Terrible leaders.
Elon needs to come in and clean this up.
In the meantime, we're stagnant.
We don't know what's going to happen.
And if this deal doesn't go through, Twitter is a doomed platform.
Gen Z doesn't want to use it.
Young people don't want to use it.
They don't want to use Facebook.
They're using Instagram and TikTok.
Facebook bought Instagram.
It was a clever move because young people are on Instagram.
Twitter, with as much influence and power as it has, should be dominant.
But for some reason, it is not.
Elon Musk recently, I think this is, he said interesting in a post responding to, oh I'm sorry, this is the old tweet.
He tweeted interesting and then said five times, oh I'm sorry, ten times more fake accounts.
Elon Musk calling out the Aspergers.
So let's talk about that.
This is another component that I didn't get into all that much.
I didn't mention in the beginning.
I wonder if there is disparagement in Twitter's contract, if this is a Twitter employee.
Remember they said that Elon Musk could not speak about the merger and disparage Twitter.
I'd have to check the filing, but you have Elon Musk pointing out a Twitter executive, if this guy is an executive, Publicly disparaging Elon Musk, calling him special needs in relation to the merger.
Employees speaking out about it.
I'm sure any deal would be only about the Twitter board.
However, let's throw it back.
If Twitter's Alex Martinez says Musk has literally special needs and he is someone who is prominent within the company, look, it's not as clear cut as most people think.
It's not going to be... Twitter's going to force Elon to buy it.
Elon's going to dive out.
It's hard to know for sure.
I do think the big thing that's coming out of this story with Elon was that he's said Joe Biden isn't the president.
Whoever controls the prompter is.
Elon Musk says he's going to be voting Republican.
This is a big shift, regardless of whether he buys Twitter or not.
I think he's got to do it.
I think we need the public town hall back.
I think we need someone to fix this platform.
I think there's tremendous potential here.
I also think Elon Musk doesn't entirely know exactly what he's getting himself into.
I really do think so.
Look, we may dislike The opinions of these Twitter employees, but they're not all completely wrong.
When they say things like, we have a problem with this information, well yeah.
You do.
And how do you deal with that?
I'm of the opinion, freedom.
And that's about it.
And that means some people might spread disinformation and it might catch on, but the challenge is, when you manipulate, people are unwilling to listen.
Because they know you're liars.
So let's take a look at any wild claim that goes viral on Twitter.
The earth is flat!
They scream.
Okay.
If you go to these people and tell them they're spreading dangerous disinformation and they're liars, Are they more likely to believe you?
They're more likely to believe you are their enemy.
You can't approach people as an enemy.
You need to say, all right, dude.
You think the earth is flat.
Tell me why.
I'm listening.
And then when they say these, these, these, and these things, you ask them questions about their ideas.
And you point things out.
You show them counter evidence.
And what happens?
Either they're finally willing to just come around and be like, okay, maybe I was wrong about that.
Many have.
Or they'll double down.
But either way, When we have, you know, like I mentioned, we had a progressive podcaster on the show on Monday, and I asked him questions.
There are only a few instances where I outright was like, I will not stand with you, I will stand against you.
And that was after we already asked him these questions, and he didn't answer them.
I'll say something simple, like, do you think, you know, we should have abortion at nine months?
And he says, it's the woman's choice.
I say, okay, but what about the baby?
After a certain amount of time, you realize these people can't be argued with because they don't know what they're talking about, and they have nothing to say other than, look, My identity is that I agree with whatever they say, regardless and without reason.
Okay, I guess you can't argue with that.
How do you then convince these people?
Interaction with them.
You bring them out, you have conversations, you show them news, and eventually they'll start seeing other information and asking questions.
We had another liberal guy on the show, Jamie Kilstein the other day.
Now, he's not, you know, ultra woke, because he's been through, he's seen some stuff, and he's been canceled, and so he's had kind of a wake-up call.
And he was saying the other day that he's mostly pro-choice, but Seamus, who's pro-life, made a bunch of really, really good arguments that made him think about what his position really is, and what that means.
And I'm like, well, exactly.
When, you know, a month ago, I was talking to Seamus, and on the show, I said, abortion is not just the idea that you're killing the baby, it's the termination of the pregnancy.
And Seamus says, no, it's not.
And so we had an argument, I was wrong.
The legal definition, according to the CDC, is terminating a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth.
Meaning, in instances where a woman makes an elective abortion in past viability, the baby would be killed in the process.
Or in the instance where a mother, if the pregnancy would harm the mother, then you would kill the baby in the process.
And then I simply said, oh, Seamus was right.
If the mother's health is at risk, and you need to remove the baby, why kill it?
Now, there are certain circumstances, I understand, where they can't induce labor.
There are certain circumstances where maybe a c-section is not possible.
Great.
So, you would need to say, in that provision, all efforts to save the life of the baby must be made, and you cannot, you know, there's got to be more strict criteria.
But regardless of any of that, you know, when this guy said he was in favor of elective abortions at nine months, I'm like, we're clearly at odds.
We need to have on Twitter.
People interacting with each other.
Now, Twitter is a rage machine.
Twitter creates tribal rage where people are unwilling to listen to each other, and that's why Timcast IRL does not do digital conversations.
The internet is not good for this.
You need face-to-face conversations.
I don't know if Elon Musk understands that challenge.
But, I would add to this.
Twitter's idea of manipulating people to control them makes things worse.
It's not solving the problem.
So, it's like, they recognize the problem with the rage machine, And they're like, let's make the rage machine stronger!
And I'm like, that's not ending the rage machine, you're making it worse.
I'd like to see free speech on the platform.
I'd like to see people say whatever they want to say.
And then I'll quote, tweet, and say, wrong.
Not like it's perfect.
But we'll see how this plays out.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Last night, we got a new expose from Project Veritas.
In it, Twitter's lead client partner says that ideology has led them to be not profitable, that they don't make a profit.
Well, that is a very bold and powerful get woke, go broke, but rather overtly.
The guy saying, I don't know exactly what he's referring to, but he says, it's gonna say, he says, we're not profitable, so it's gonna say, ideology, which is why, comma, which is why we're not profitable.
Maybe he's referencing someone else saying ideology will say they're not profitable, but it sounds to me like he's saying, this is, it's gonna say ideology, which is why we're not profitable.
So, just want to issue that clarification, make sure we're all on board with this, but I think we got a very strong get, whoa, go, bro, well, my friends, How about I give you, as a bonus, another very big Get Woke, Go Broke.
In this story from The Verge, Netflix is laying off 150 employees and cutting dozens from its Tudum fan site.
Most affected employees are located in the U.S.
Oh, say it ain't so!
Now, for Netflix, I can sympathize, empathize with people losing their jobs.
It's not the same as, say, like, the Washington Post or CNN or anything like that.
But come on, man.
You work for these companies.
You know what they're doing.
I'm not gonna have all that much.
I'm not gonna cry for you.
I'm not.
Sorry, it's not gonna happen.
But it's not just this one story.
It is also this, from theinformation.com.
Netflix cancellations rise among long-standing subscribers.
This is it.
Now part of me wonders, is what's happening to Netflix really get woke go broke, or are tastes changing?
Do people have different desires from their streaming services, or perhaps technology has advanced to the point where there's just too many?
Could it also be that Netflix is just kinda bad?
I haven't watched Netflix in a while, actually.
They lose a lot of good shows, they don't have really good movies, they make, they've made shows and then abandoned them, it's like, You know, you've got a show, Netflix, and it's not getting you 10 million views on Game of Thrones or anything, but you cancel it.
And see, I liked that show.
Here's the issue.
With Netflix and other services like it, Netflix has more and more content coming out.
They had a show called The Order.
I liked it.
I don't think it was the greatest show in the world.
It was like CW level, you know, werewolf vampire witch drama or something like that.
No vampires.
It was witches and werewolves or something.
But I liked it.
I wanted to see where the story was going.
I liked the lore and it was fun.
And they canceled it after two seasons.
That was like the only show I liked watching.
Now, there are many other shows on Netflix I'm sure that are fine.
I think I watched Attack on Titan on Netflix.
Maybe not.
No, I think I watched that on Amazon to be honest.
But if you're someone, let's say 500,000 people watch a Netflix show and you're one of those people, Netflix says, we're not getting enough views, cancel it.
Okay, well then you leave.
So I think that plays a role.
But, when you combine these two stories, and you see that long-standing Netflix subscribers are leaving, I believe this is absolutely a get-woke-go-broke, especially when you jump to the story from just a few days ago, where Netflix told its woke employees, if you don't like it, maybe Netflix isn't the place for you.
And that's it.
Netflix is laying people off, they're losing subs, and they're telling woke people to shut your mouths.
Finally!
It's unfortunate it had to get to this point before our company took action.
But until their bottom line was hurt.
Now, the funny thing about Twitter is that they're not profitable, and for some reason, they're not getting the big picture.
Well, maybe Elon Musk will come in.
The story from The Verge.
Netflix is laying off around 150 employees, as well as dozens of contractors following a disappointing earnings report, citing slow revenue growth.
You want to know why I got rid of Netflix?
It was cuties.
Um, they, they published Cuties and defended it!
I mean, first of all, why would you publish that film?
The left was defending it like crazy, like, it's just, it's just critique, it's critique!
It's like, no, it's actual little girls performing these dances in a film.
Like, I don't care what the theme of the film is!
I care that they actually took little girls and did that, that's, I'm not a fan.
I think it's messed up.
Then you have Big Mouth, which I rag on all the time.
Big Mouth is adults doing comedy, but it's a cartoon about children engaged in sex acts.
So, uh, no, Netflix, you are messed up.
What?
I, I, I, it's funny, because, um, you know, if you've watched TimCast.rl, you know Ian.
Ian and I disagree on so much, but just last week, Ian was like, he's like, dude, I know we disagree on a lot, but I watched that and I was like, what the is this?
And I'm like, yeah, I know, seven seasons of kids doing these things, and I'm just like, what is wrong with Netflix?
You deserve it, Netflix!
That's why you lost me, and me and my family have been on Netflix since it started.
We used to get the discs in the mail, remember that?
Netflix started with, you'd like, what would you do?
You'd go online, you'd be like, I would like this movie, and then they would send you the DVD.
Then once the internet improved, streaming service emerged.
And all of a sudden, many of the movies are just available online.
And so we're like, this is cool.
We started using it.
YouTube got hurt by it because all of a sudden you had premium quality content and movies available for streaming.
And then Netflix was like, let's do weird stuff with kids.
And I was like, that's disgusting.
Don't do that.
The streaming giant told The Verge that most employees affected by the layoffs are located in the US.
Mason Hall issued a following statement in response to The Verge's request for comment.
I want to mention, They say a source told The Verge, the cuts include at least 26 contractors and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Prior to the recent round of laughs, Netflix cut around 25 marketing roles.
So this is stacking up.
They said, as we explained on earnings, our slowing revenue growth means we are also having to slow our cost growth as a company.
So sadly, we are letting around 150 employees go today, mostly US-based.
These changes are primarily driven by business needs rather than individual performance, which makes them especially tough as none of us want to say goodbye to such great colleagues.
We're working hard to support them through this very difficult transition.
A number of agency contractors have also been impacted by the news.
Announced this morning, we are grateful for their contributions.
Last quarter, Netflix reported losing around 200,000 subscribers.
They're going to mention a disclosure, The Verge is producing a series with Netflix.
Well, Netflix, you haven't learned your lesson, have you?
The Verge, you want to get woke, you want to go broke, I don't care.
The Verge is more establishment-left garbage.
I don't mind reading their stories when their stories are clear-cut.
But that's The Verge.
I'll give them some credit on a few of their reports.
They called out Twitter for their lies, it is what it is.
But these New York-based, you know, whatever.
Similar.
The information says Netflix cancellations rise among long-standing subscribers.
Let's talk about how they try to justify this.
What's really happening?
Oh, it's not our fault.
It's just, you know, things are changing in the world.
Or, get woke, go broke.
Take a look.
Netflix is losing its grip on long-standing subscribers.
New data show that people who have been subscribed to Netflix for more than three years accounted for a significantly greater share of cancellations in the first quarter than they did two years earlier.
And there, my friends, is the data you need to see.
Take a look at this.
Streaming way.
We can see this.
If you're a subscriber for less than a year, you got the red box.
One to two years is blue.
Light blue is two to three.
And gray is three or more.
We can see in the first quarter of 2022, it was their longer viewers they were losing more of.
Now, they lost viewers across the board.
A lot of one-year viewers.
I do think it's fair to say that Netflix is losing subscribers because of things like Paramount+, HBO Max.
I got all those services too.
You know what's funny?
Someone said, um, you've got all these streaming services like Paramount, HBO.
If only there was a way that someone could, you know, like, bundle it all up.
So that it's all in like one package, and they could call it something like, to represent, maybe like if you took a bunch of strands and spiraled them together, it would be like, it would be a cable of sorts.
So maybe we could take all of these different streaming services, and then you could pay like, I don't know, 70 bucks a month to get access to all of them, and we would bundle them together and we would call it a cable, or just cable TV, as the, you get the point.
Okay?
Cable TV.
It's basically what it was.
All these channels were bundled together.
Now you got all these streaming services where they're like, subscribe to us for five bucks a month.
People are basically spending the same thing, and they're basically getting the same thing.
It's just weird.
Just offer up a streaming cable platform.
Offer up an app that has all of these, and you pay one fee, and they're all included in it.
I suppose you don't need to do that anymore, because now people are just choosing what they want.
I mean, HBO was always like a premium add-on for cable.
If you had cable, you'd be like, I'll spend the extra ten bucks a month to get HBO.
Here's what they say.
The data provided exclusively to the information by research firm Antenna show the rising popularity so far of Comcast and Peacock and Paramount Global, Paramount Plus, among other streaming subscribers.
Ahead of Warner Brothers, HBO Max, and Disney Hulu, both Peacock and Paramount have benefited from beefing up their program offerings, including in the case of Peacock, the Super Bowl in February.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They're going to mention that Netflix is losing subscribers.
The one thing they're not going to tell you is that Netflix Has been rocked by very serious political controversies.
And if we were to look at quarter four of last year to quarter one of this year, I wonder what it could be.
Could it be political controversies?
How is it that in quarter four of last year, you have 2.5 million cancellations, but then you see a nearly 30% increase, 3.6 million cancellations a month in the next quarter.
We don't see.
We did see, okay, in quarter two of 2020, a big jump from 2.1 to 2.8.
But for the most part, cancellations are steady.
What changed?
Why?
Why right now?
These other streaming services have been around for a long time.
Yo, I'm telling you, it's get woke, go broke.
The New York Post.
Carol Markowicz writes, Netflix is proof Americans have had enough of woke speech policing.
Last week, Netflix issued a long memo detailing the company's culture, the company culture it hopes to foster.
The streaming service lays out that it produces a variety of content and won't allow its employees to cut programming.
Netflix lets viewers decide what's appropriate for them.
And if the employee doesn't like it, there's the door.
Quote, depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful.
If you'd fight it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.
Netflix employees famously protested Dave Chappelle's stand-up comedy special last year.
No.
I'd say it's possible people canceled because of Dave Chappelle.
Mmm.
No, I don't buy it.
I really don't.
If people canceled because of Dave Chappelle, they were like, he made an offensive joke about this group or that group.
I'm quitting.
We would have seen that in his previous stand-up specials like Sticks and Stones.
But it was critically acclaimed.
I mean, that was years ago.
That was a long time ago.
It was acclaimed.
Dave Chappelle, everybody thought it was hilarious.
People weren't quitting because of that.
Why would people quit now?
Well, everybody seems to have loved Dave Chappelle's stand-up, except the critics.
And they stayed on the platform.
And then Dave Chappelle produces his third, The Closer.
I thought it was awful.
Okay, not awful.
I thought it was bad.
Like, there were many funny parts in it.
Dave Chappelle is really, really funny.
But what was... The comedy was good, but what was bad It really just felt like Dave Chappelle was trying to justify his humor and defend himself.
It seemed like he really got angry.
And he wasn't up there telling jokes and having a good time for the most part.
It's like he was really worried and even said, y'all don't get the joke so I'm not gonna do them anymore.
And I'm just like, okay.
I'm out.
Bro, if you can't stand up for yourself, if you're so worried about these people, dude, I don't care.
I think Dave Chappelle is one of the funniest guys who's ever lived.
They call him the GOAT, the greatest of all time.
It's crazy how good Dave Chappelle is.
It's crazy how amazing his show was.
It's amazing how his Netflix stand-up specials were so great.
And The Closer is like, dude, they got you, man.
They got you.
Stop.
Stop.
Just stop.
Just do your thing.
Ignore these people.
You know, we've seen shows with Ryan Long.
Ryan Long is outright just like, dude, don't care.
He's like, he goes up there, he tells a joke, he says naughty words, and he's offensive, and people love it and they laugh.
It's comedy.
Joe Rogan says similar things, but dude, if you're gonna get pushed back by that, if you're gonna get held down by that, well then maybe people don't want to watch anymore.
So for me, I'm looking at Netflix and I'm like, what do they have to offer?
QE's?
I don't think Cuties is the catalyst for the cancellations, for the same reason I don't think Dave Chappelle is.
Conservatives got offended by Cuties, many quit, but I don't think all that many.
In fact, maybe that's why we see the big spike we do in quarter two of 2020, although I think, when was Cuties?
I don't actually even remember the exact time it came out.
I don't think conservatives outright abandoned Netflix because of this.
I think with the latest... I think it's a combination of new streaming services are growing in prominence, and a lot of long-standing users are just like, I just can't take it anymore.
I'm just done.
The reason why I think that's the most likely case is that Netflix issued a memo saying if you don't like it, you can leave.
Because I think they recognize what's hurting their business.
People who have been on Netflix for longer than three years, I'll put it this way, when Zuby posted that meme, I think it was Zuby, I posted the meme following him, that said, it's like, who radicalized you?
And the guy says, no one, I'm just a regular person from 10 years ago.
That explains it.
And it's funny because I've had progressives say, dude, that proves you're a conservative.
Because like, people in 1964, they were like, I'm just a regular person from 1954.
And they didn't like the change in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You know, these are very different things.
Advocating for eugenics, I'm not okay with.
Eugenics failed the 1900s.
When the left comes out and says that they're in favor of killing babies, I'm sorry.
Terminating the life of a fetus post-viability because of abnormality or defect.
Let's make sure we use their language properly.
I'm like, yo, that's eugenics!
When they are like people with Down Syndrome, you know, when they advocate for aborting babies with Down Syndrome, I'm like, that is eugenics.
Okay.
I'm not a fan of that.
I believe that you need a diverse gene pool in order to create a strong and robust species.
If you start purging undesirable traits, where does it end?
Eventually, you're going to end up with people being like, well, he's going to be how tall?
Well, the DNA profile suggests he's only going to be 5'10".
No, abort.
Someone who's 5'10 can't survive in a 6-foot world?
Come on, look at all of the Tinder profiles with like, if you ain't over 6, I'm not gonna be hooking up with you or whatever.
So these guys are getting angry.
What happens when you get to designer babies?
Eventually, you eliminate certain traits.
Eugenics kills species.
Because you need genetic diversity.
A virus emerges, and all of a sudden it's like, there's a gene in the body that correlates with the production of an enzyme, and people who happen to be a little bit tall, and then tall people all get wiped out.
I mean, I'm not suggesting we see that, but I mean, things like this are possible.
Certain carriers of certain genes are more susceptible to this virus and die.
Let's say you eliminate all of genetic diversity, you risk destroying your species.
So this is why when I see people say things like, You know, we should abort at eight months if the baby's got some kind of defect.
I'm like, that's eugenics.
I'm not in favor of that.
I don't like these things.
You can see that something 10 years ago, that within the past 10 years is emerging, it is not a good thing.
So this is what I mean to say.
People in 2010 who are on Netflix probably think, you know, terminating a baby's life after eight months, not a good thing.
Netflix runs Michelle Wolf's, you get an abortion, shut your abortion!
And there's probably a lot of people from 10 years ago who are like, you've gone too far.
They're not conservative.
They're reasonable.
And when Netflix starts going too far, they say, alright, I'm out.
I'm done.
I'm not gonna be on this platform anymore.
I think that's what we're seeing.
I think the big change, I will say this, the fact that Netflix issued their statement and the fact that there's a major jump between quarters suggests to me it is politics, it is get woke, go broke.
I think that maybe Netflix is starting to succumb to millennial takeover.
This is gonna be interesting.
Millennials, man.
Our generation are a bunch of lunatics.
For all the things we complain about for boomers, Millennials are just awful.
But I suppose I can just say that it's the Boomers' fault Millennials are awful.
Some people say, you're forgetting Gen X, man.
Well, Millennials are predominantly the children of Boomers.
And then you do have, I suppose, later, younger Millennials who are the children of Gen Xers.
But not for the most part.
I think what was Gen X?
Gen X is like the 70s.
So they were in their 20s in the 90s.
So kids who are in like the mid 90s, they are millennials, I suppose.
But like, there's still a difference.
Maybe it's split, but they're like leaps in generation, sort of.
But anyway, I think Gen Xers, they want edgy comedy.
I think Boomers, they like it as well.
Millennials?
Lunatics.
As the Millennials take over these industries and they're overtly woke and crazy.
The content suffers.
Gen Xers and boomers don't want to watch it.
They dip out.
And they're the ones who are likely to have been on for 10 years because they're older.
So you got a boomer who is, they're going to be what, in their 40s?
What is it?
No, 50s.
Yeah, Gen X and boomers, they're gonna be in their late 30s, 40s, 50s, going into the Netflix era.
They sign up, and now we're at the point where the content is garbage, they're canceling shows, it's overtly woke.
Millennials start taking over, have no idea what's going on, and the people who have been on the longest are like, I'm out.
I don't know what this is.
This is not appealing to me.
And now, there are boomers who are running these companies, are saying like, what's happening, dude?
You got cultural problems.
Four million cancellations, the highest point.
3.6, that's where we're at.
You've got cultural problems, and I don't know what the solution is.
Perhaps Netflix, here's what you're gonna have to do.
You're going to have to find a semi-rural area, just out of the suburbs, but in the more rural area, where you're going to find moderate center-right individuals who believe in comedy and free speech.
You're going to have to hire them to run these companies, because the woke millennial is Not fun, not funny, and not entertaining.
You want to be pure flicks, Netflix?
You want to make cringy garbage?
Go ahead and do it.
I canceled.
I canceled over the Cuties nonsense.
I'm sure a bunch of other people are canceling for similar reasons.
The Dave Chappelle nonsense, your employees walk in.
I'm not giving money to this.
I know people who still fund it, and truth be told, I do have Amazon.
This is why I say here's what we got to do.
Alternatives.
Head over to TimCast.com, be a member.
Help us build more and do crazy stuff so we can rival these companies.
I understand if you don't want to cancel Netflix or Disney.
I do.
Because I bought Disney for a year, so I still have it, but I canceled so it won't renew.
Because I was like, I'll watch some of these shows.
But now I'm just like, I don't want to do it anymore.
But we like entertainment.
So we need alternatives.
We need TV shows.
Daily Wire's been producing.
Maybe they'll be in full swing by next year.
I want to see, you know, you're going to need big shows.
Daily Wire has, I think, three movies.
They've got several more coming out.
It's not enough.
If we can produce entertainment, then people can be like, well, I don't like Netflix.
I'm going to cancel them because I know I can subscribe to TimCast.com and get shows I do like.
TimCast.com does not have shows.
I mean, we do, we have like podcasts, though.
We need scripted television stuff.
We're working on expanding the vlog.
The goal is to make it semi-scripted, to make it like a comedy show.
And we've had this plan for some time now, it's just not our area of expertise.
We've gotta find the people, and it is hard to find good people these days.
