Elon Musk Accuses Twitter Of MATERIAL BREACH, Twitter May be Sabotaging The Deal To STOP Takeover
Elon Musk Accuses Twitter Of MATERIAL BREACH, Twitter May be Sabotaging The Deal To STOP Takeover. In a legal letter Musk says that Twitter has not provided materials on checking for Spam and Twitter's response seems to confirm this.
Democrats and leftist activists are breathing a sigh of relief and claiming Elon has buyers remorse. But Twitter may be purposefully withholding information knowing that could affect Elon's ability to finance the deal.
Twitter going private and allowing free speech would be a huge blow to the left which has curtailed free speech and controlled the narrative on social media for years.
#democrats
#elonmusk
#twittertakeover
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk is threatening to end his Twitter buyout, saying that Twitter has engaged in a breach of contract for refusing to release data on spam bots.
The deal might not actually go through, but Twitter has responded saying they will enforce the transaction.
In our next story, protests erupt in Dallas as drag queens dance for children with a big sign that says, it's not gonna lick itself.
Parents and conservatives are outraged, but the left is actually defending what is effectively, literally grooming children.
In our last story, Taylor Lorenz has been called out for lying, and the Washington Post appears to be imploding over this and many other stories.
One individual is outraged that a co-worker retweeted a sexist joke.
The corporate press is going down in flames.
If you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
It's the best way to help.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Elon Musk has accused Twitter of a material breach of contract over their refusal to provide
him with data on spam bots on the platform.
He is saying that he will end his deal with Twitter if they do not comply.
Twitter, of course, is saying, no!
We don't have to give the data.
We already gave the data we're supposed to give, and you can't back out of the deal.
They're arguing that they will enforce the deal as written, and many on the left are breathing a collective sigh of relief.
Alex Jones.
Donald Trump.
They could have returned to the platform under Elon Musk's leadership.
But now it's looking like the deal won't go through and so they're all quite happy.
They've been arguing that Elon Musk screwed up because he did not argue for this data beforehand.
He waived due diligence.
But that's just not true.
Elon Musk has a right to this information, and it seems like Twitter is not providing it.
In a long statement from the CEO just recently, he stated that in order to calculate spam bots, they need to use private information they can't give out.
So, I'm sorry Elon, we can't tell you exactly how we know these people are or aren't bots.
Well then why should Elon Musk buy the platform?
Now I think, all in all, it may be bad news.
Many are arguing that Elon Musk is just trying to drive the price down.
I mean, yeah.
Whatever his intention is, that seems to be the case.
It seems to be.
I don't know for sure.
I mean, he could just buy the platform.
But it seems like whether it's a legitimate claim about spam bots, or he's just trying to make the price lower, the end result will be, give me a better deal.
If Twitter wants the deal to go through, and it seems like they're going to have to, Elon Musk will likely get a premium offer, and the number will go down.
We'll see.
Of course, there is that provision in the contract that says if any party breaks the deal, they owe $1 billion.
But let me tell you why this matters.
Why Twitter matters.
Why Elon Musk matters.
Here's a statement from Ben Sasse.
He's talking about the weirdos that are driving the political conversation and manipulating everybody.
And he's like, you know how many people watch Fox News, Tucker Carlson, or MSNBC?
Less than 2% of this country is watching cable TV on a given night.
Okay.
Well, Ben's wrong.
He's right that there are hyper-partisan weirdos driving the conversation, but he doesn't understand that it's not Fox News.
I mean, sure, older people are on, you know, cable.
I should say they are watching cable.
But the political conversation among millennials and younger, it's Twitter.
I've interviewed several young people.
Shout out to Brett Cooper of the Daily Wire.
She told us that she wasn't really on Twitter until working at the Daily Wire.
That's right.
As young people begin to enter the political fray, They adopt Twitter.
We've talked with several other young people, Gen Z, who weren't active on Twitter until they got involved in politics.
It seems that if there's one thing Twitter does have, it is the political space.
News media and politics.
That's why this matters.
Elon Musk taking this platform would be a tremendous victory for free speech, personal responsibility, and meritocracy.
So it's no surprise that the people who claim there is no censorship are now saying censorship is a good thing and Elon Musk shouldn't take it away.
They're now actively defending it.
So to Ben Sasse's point, it's not that there's a small handful of weirdos screaming at the top of their lungs on cable TV.
It's that weird things are happening.
That culture is shifting.
And if we don't retain the ability of free speech and stand up for things like this, and actually engage in the culture war, Things will get bad.
The idea around what Ben Sasse is saying is kind of like, regular people don't care about this stuff, and that's partly true.
For the longest time, people said Twitter is not real life, and then lo and behold, within 10 years, it became real life.
Libs of TikTok is publishing videos that result in a change of policy around the country, to the point where the Washington Post is writing about it and saying, this is bad for us.
Twitter is influential.
And that's why Elon Musk wants to buy it.
If he really does want to buy it.
But let's talk about what's going on with Elon Musk.
Let's talk about what's going on with the actual spam bots.
Because a study shows as much as 12% of the platform may be fake.
And why does that matter?
Perhaps.
The opinions you are seeing on social media are fake.
Now, you could just be arguing with a bunch of 12-year-olds who don't actually know what they're talking about, but it could be.
Special interests are creating bots to argue ideas so that you think it's popular and then you embrace those ideas.
And yes, that actually is happening.
Is it dictating mainstream news cycles and speech?
I don't know for sure to what impact it's having, but it does have one.
Let's read this first story from the Wall Street Journal about Elon Musk threatening to end the deal with Twitter.
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 of the TimCast IRL podcast, and you'll be supporting our journalists.
We recently hired Adrian Norman, who's excellent.
He was on TimCast IRL just a couple weeks ago.
And we also have this on-the-ground report from Elad Eliyahu, so we are doing that work to get you fact-based news to fact-check the media.
Call out their lies.
If you like the work we do, go to TimCast.com, click sign up, become a member, and also don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel right now, and share this video on every single platform, anywhere you can.
If everybody who watched this video, several hundred thousand people, shared it, then we would be the biggest news source like that.
Let's read the first story from the Wall Street Journal.
Elon Musk threatens to end deal with Twitter.
Tesla CEO accuses Twitter of not complying with his request for data on spam and fake accounts on social media platform.
They say, Mr. Musk has said, I'm sorry, Mr. Musk said Twitter has refused to provide the data necessary for Mr. Musk to facilitate his own evaluation of the number of spam and fake accounts.
In April, Twitter accepted Mr. Musk's $44 billion bid to take over the company and go private.
As part of the deal, Musk waived detailed due diligence that buyers typically perform on targets.
In a letter to Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijay Agade, Mr. Musk's lawyer, Mike Ringler, said Mr. Musk is entitled to the requested data, in part, so that he can facilitate the financing of the deal.
Mr. Musk has lined up a group of 19 investors to back his deal.
He has also said in filings that he is holding talks with other current Twitter shareholders, including co-founder Jack Dorsey, to roll their shares over into the private company.
Quote, In any event, Mr. Musk is not required to explain his rationale for requesting the data, nor submit to the new conditions the company has attempted to impose on his contractual right to the requested data, Mr. Ringler wrote.
At this point, Mr. Musk believes Twitter is transparently refusing to comply with his obligations under the merger agreement.
This is a clear material breach of Twitter's obligations under the merger agreement, and Mr. Musk reserves all rights resulting therefrom, including his right not to consummate the transaction, and his right to terminate the merger agreement.
Twitter spokesperson said the company will continue to cooperatively share information with Mr. Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.
He added, We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement at the agreed price and terms.
This is particularly interesting.
Could it be that Elon Musk can't get the financing unless he has the data?
I mean, that's what's being reported by the Wall Street Journal.
They're saying in order, in part, so that he can facilitate the financing of the deal.
Twitter may be spiking this on purpose knowing Elon Musk will not be able to secure the loans he needs to buy this if they withhold that information.
And then what?
A lot of people are arguing Elon Musk is the one attempting to back out.
But that might not be the case.
It may be.
But it might not be.
It may be that Twitter, who doesn't want to sell, Vijaya Gade, who cried when she found out he won this bid, they may have found a way to prevent Elon Musk from buying the platform.
We don't know.
You never know what someone's intent is or why it's really going on.
They go on to say, shares of Twitter fell close to 2% around $39 in midday trading.
The all-cash deal is priced at $54.20.
Now, full disclosure, I have, I think, like 21 or 22 shares.
Not that I'm all that concerned about this.
I would like to make money on that deal, but it's not like I'm a major shareholder.
Mr. Musk's latest letter is the clearest statement that he may abandon the deal, potentially spurring what could be a protracted legal battle between the two sides.
As part of the deal, both sides agreed to pay each other a $1 billion breakup fee if they cause the deal not to happen for certain reasons.
But specific scenarios must unfold for those to become relevant.
Twitter could also sue to force Mr. Musk to go through with the transaction.
There are only specific scenarios under which Mr. Musk would be able to simply pay the termination fee to walk away from the transaction, including if regulators try to block the deal or the debt financing falls through.
And there it is.
Let me say that again.
There are only specific scenarios under which Musk would be able to simply pay the termination fee to walk away, and that includes debt financing falling through.
Could it be?
That the people who have pledged their money to Musk said, we want to know how many bots are on the platform because we could make this deal and then lose 30% of our money overnight.
So Elon said, how do you calculate this?
In fact, Elon did his own analysis.
It seems.
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 they're claiming they've released all the data they're supposed to release.
Something doesn't seem to add up.
Who do you trust?
Twitter said last week the window has closed for federal antitrust regulators to block the deal.
And Mr. Musk has said he has financing lined up.
For years, Twitter has publicly disclosed its own estimate of how many of its daily active users represent false or spam accounts, putting the percentage at fewer than 5%.
Mr. Musk has pegged the feature at least four times as high.
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on May 16th tweeted the company had shared information with Mr. Musk about how it estimates spam figures.
Mr. Musk responded with a poop emoji.
Oh, jeez.
Well, you know, I'll take what I can get.
Elon Musk is not Superman or anything like that, but him buying the platform would certainly be better than what's going on now.
They want to mention basics about the deal, Mr. Musk offering to buy the deal for $44 billion, this we understand.
On Saturday, Mr. Musk brought attention to a tweet suggesting spam and bots were being used for misinformation and fake news against Elon.
Mr. Musk's one-word reply to the tweet, interesting, got more than 20,000 likes, and there it is.
Why does Elon Musk want to buy the platform?
Well, Initially, it probably had a lot to do with Babylon B. They posted a joke, Elon Musk likes the Babylon B, and then Babylon B got in trouble.
They got suspended.
Elon called them and said, maybe I'll have to buy the platform.
But could it be that people often post fake tweets from fake Elon accounts trying to rip people off, and Elon Musk is sick of his name being dragged in this way?
Perhaps.
That may be why Elon Musk is so intent on figuring out the spam bot circumstance.
In this tweet from David Gurra, he says, Twitter has released a statement, quote, Twitter has and will continue to cooperatively share information with Mr. Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.
We believe this agreement is in the best interest of all shareholders.
We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement at the agreed price and terms.
Something does not make sense.
First, let's break down that first sentence.
Twitter has and will continue to cooperatively share information with Mr. Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.
Let's break down some legalese.
Cooperatively sharing information.
What they did not say is, Twitter has complied delivering all information requested by Musk.
No.
They used weasel words to say they've cooperatively shared information, but they did not say they gave him what he wanted.
And in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.
Sounds like they're asserting that, so that in the event of a lawsuit, they can say, as far as their agreement, the agreement goes, we followed through.
Here's the initial letter from Musk's lawyer.
It says, Mr. Musk says, while we are in receipt of correspondence sent on Twitter's behalf dated June 1st, Mr. Musk does not agree with the characterizations in Twitter's June 1st letter.
Twitter has in fact refused to provide the information that Musk has repeatedly requested since May 9th to facilitate his evaluation of the spam and fake accounts on the company's platform.
Twitter's latest offer to simply provide additional details regarding the company's own testing methodologies, whether through written materials or verbal explanations, is tantamount to refusing Mr. Musk's data requests.
Twitter's efforts to characterize it otherwise is merely an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the issue.
Mr. Musk has made it clear that he does not believe the company's lax testing methodologies are adequate, so he must conduct his own analysis.
The data he has requested is necessary to do so.
I completely agree with this.
And I'm going to mention basically what we already know.
If Twitter is confident in its publicized spam estimates, Mr. Musk does not understand the company's reluctance to allow Musk to independently evaluate those estimates.
As noted in our previous correspondence, Musk will of course comply with the restrictions provided under Section 6-4, including by ensuring that anyone reviewing the data is bound by a non-disclosure agreement, and Mr. Musk will not retain or otherwise use any competitively sensitive information if the transaction is not consummated.
Then why deny it?
I can show you outright.
The response from Twitter appears to be outright weasel words.
Cooperatively share information?
What they did not say is we have complied with Elon's request for all data requested.
They haven't done that.
Twitter?
knows something.
Musk accuses Twitter of resisting and thwarting his right to information and fake accounts.
I'd like to show you this tweet from Meet Kevin.
Meet Kevin is a data analyst and financial analyst.
He's got hundreds of thousands of followers.
He is verified on Twitter and he says, Some say Elon Musk has to buy Twitter, as is with bots, because he, quote, waved his right to due diligence.
Wrong.
Section 10b-5.
Twitter can be liable for omissions of or misleading material facts.
Waving due diligence does not mean you have to accept a fraudulent disclosure.
Understated bots.
And it would appear there's evidence to suggest that Elon Musk is correct.
In a story from TimCast.com just about a week ago, Brett MacDonald writes, Study.
Musk's suspicions of Twitter bot traffic confirmed.
More than 12% of Twitter's 299 million active users may actually be fake.
Now, of course, this is my own website, but I'll push back a little bit, Brett.
Calling it confirmed, but then saying may actually be, Well, it makes me sigh, but it is accurate.
Suspicions of Twitter are confirmed.
Yes, Musk's suspicions that there may be more bots is confirmed.
Maybe.
Okay, okay.
But I have no problem calling that out, even if it's my own website.
That being said, this is a legitimate study, and it does confirm suspicions that the information from Twitter is not accurate.
Why?
Because there is a new study showing that Twitter's numbers are wrong.
At the very least, we can agree on that.
Check.
An Israeli cybersecurity firm and the Israeli Cyber Forum released a report cataloging the malicious effect that invalid traffic has on the online business ecosystem.
In a press release following up on that report, they specifically highlighted how Twitter's user growth has been inflated by the presence of bots.
Check found that 11.71% of all outbound traffic from Twitter, that's Twitter users clicking on links that lead to other websites, were driven by bots or fake users.
The conclusion was drawn after analyzing 5.21 million of these outbound clicks, with over 2,000 tests to determine the authenticity of each click, according to the report.
Earlier this month, Elon Musk tweeted that he'd be putting his acquisition of Twitter on hold, this we understand.
But Guy Titunovic, the CEO of Czech Reasons, that this indicates that 11.71 is probably a conservative estimate.
In fact, a significantly greater percentage of Twitter's user base may be the product of manipulative or malicious use.
Quote, Our study looked into users who came from Twitter to other websites.
But if you consider that many bots don't click through to other sites and only stay on Twitter, Then it seems very likely that bot traffic inside the platform itself could be significantly higher than 12%.
Ultimately, we are living in the era of the fake web, where bots, malicious users, and automation tools make up a large portion of all web traffic.
And this data supports what we're seeing out there.
Invalid traffic, according to the report, accounts for 40% of all web traffic, and its prevalence distorts the cost and value of paid marketing campaigns, segment targeting, and customer acquisition.
For a website like Twitter, which offers a free service to users in order to sell their user base to businesses running marketing campaigns, reliable analytics means everything to a prospective marketer's bottom line.
If marketers find that their campaigns are doing poorly on a marketing channel like Twitter, they're likely to limit their campaigns, in turn limiting the revenue generated by Twitter.
Check explains that these bots and malicious users of the internet result in nearly 700 billion dollars in wasted expenses each year.
Invalid traffic does not, however, just concern bots.
Although bots do account for a large percentage, it also includes malicious traffic from click farms, hackers, and fake accounts.
I gotta mention, Check is a software as a service company, founded in 2016, yadda yadda yadda.
Alright, let's talk about why this matters.
I want to bring you to this article about Ben Sass.
I mentioned this in the intro.
Senator Ben Sasse calls out weirdos dividing country in fiery Reagan Foundation speech.
He grazes the surface of what really matters.
He's right in some ways, wrong in many others.
Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska lit into the weirdos that he said are tearing the United States apart in a fiery speech at the Reagan Foundation that connected the hyperbolic political debate to the past few years with global threats facing the nation.
The Nebraska Republican ripped into performance artists on the far left and far right who have dominated politics for close to a decade, saying they're more focused on getting likes and retweets for themselves on social media than on preserving the U.S.
standing as a global superpower amid new threats from adversaries like China.
Quote, This is a government of the weirdos, by the weirdos, for the weirdos, Sass said on Thursday night in California.
Politicians who spend their days shouting in Congress so they can spend their nights shouting on cable are peddling crack.
Mostly to the already addicted, but also with glitterly hopes of finding a new angry octogenarian out there.
It was a bold statement from Senator Sasse, who was... wrong.
Wrong.
I mean, he's right that cable TV mostly is watched by people who are in their late 60s.
That's true of all of the platforms.
But there still is a large millennial demographic watching.
18 to 54 does watch, but in much smaller numbers.
I mean, Tucker Carlson gets, I think, around 400 to 500,000 views in the key demo, but he's getting like 3.5 across the board.
That shows a lot of old people.
What Ben Sasse does not realize is that this is mainstream politics.
When we're talking about Joe Biden and gas prices, we're not addressing fringe partisan issues that people don't care about.
When we talk about child drag shows, it is not just one gay bar in this country.
It is happening at schools.
It is happening all over the country.
And it just so happens that the corporate press has been ignoring it.
Or defending it.
You take a look at Bill Maher, who is shocked when he finds out this stuff is actually happening two years too late.
So Ben Sasse, you know it's fascinating that he lives outside of the political conversation.
I see what he's trying to do.
He's trying to rally the middle and be like, all those people are weird.
Here's what he said, quote, The last 75 years, with the U.S.
as the globe's unrivaled superpower, we have seen shocking peace and shocking prosperity by every historical measure, Sass said.
That's just, oh, it's so cringe-inducing.
I mean, technically not wrong, but dude, we've been at war nonstop.
Blowing up kids and all that.
In 75 years, we've had a ton of war.
Every generation has a choice.
To get off the couch and build, or to resign as the rich kid who lets the family business fall apart.
Because make no mistake, the loss of confidence we're experiencing has disastrous real-world effects.
Sass spoke at the Reagan Foundation's A Time for Choosing speaker series, which has featured a wide array of Republicans eyeing runs for the White House in 2024.
Yeah, blah blah blah blah, we get it.
They're going to say Thursday's speech was a definitional statement for Sass, pulling together his previous arguments of the direction of the country and the GOP into a clear thesis about what should come next.
Sass wrote the speech over several days, working off ideas written on note cards that he shuffled and arranged, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Political algorithms run on rage.
Nobody goes viral for being honest.
That 280 characters probably won't allow the space to have an honest debate.
It's dumb to talk about a particular piece of federal legislation as either the arrival of heaven on earth or the harbinger of hell by Tuesday.
Let me slow down there.
This is what he's talking about.
He's talking about Twitter.
And why the issue of Elon Musk is so important.
He's right.
Nobody goes viral for saying Twitter is not a good place.
I've done it.
And all that happens is I go viral for people ragging on me saying I refuse to engage.
There have been people who have said, Tim X, Y, and Z. And I respond with, why don't you come on the show because Twitter is not... Twitter is not the place to be having these conversations.
We can't get our ideas out.
And then people respond with, oh, you got smacked down?
And I'm like, yeah, that's exactly why I don't do Twitter debates.
It's exactly why we don't do Skype on Timcast IRL.
And it's exactly why a majority of these prominent left-wing personalities won't even come on the show.
I tell you this.
You know, I tried having a conversation with a prominent left-wing individual, and when we talk about morals and ethics, like deontology or utilitarianism, they say, I don't know what that means.
And I say, how can we discuss the way to solve these problems if you don't understand concepts around right and wrong, morality, politics, justice, ethics, etc.? ?
I am trying to find a way to bring balance to the force, so that we can compromise and live together to the best of our abilities.
But if you don't understand what these ideas are, how they work, then how can it happen?
And the problem is, Twitter is the lowest common denominator.
It's grunting, for all I care.
That's why I don't take the platform seriously.
In fact, before recording this, I posted a series of AI-generated images of various political figures, including Nancy Pelosi.
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.
He says, there's some evidence, Yahoo News goes on to say, there's some evidence that Sasse's approach may resonate.
Most polling has found that voters across the board are more concerned about inflation, gas prices, and pocketbook issues than about Trump's 2020 election lie in culture war battles.
What do you think the culture war battles actually are for those who are not on the left?
This is why it is important.
I tweet about inflation and gas prices and make videos about food and fuel shortages.
That is the culture war.
When we talk about Joe Biden getting elected because Donald Trump posted mean tweets, that is the culture war.
When we talk about drag kid story hour or drag, you know, these things, that's all culture war.
Now, those issues matter much less to people, I agree.
And so when they come out, and they talk about all of these issues, and we on Twitter use the platform to say gas prices, inflation, and jobs, but those people get banned?
This matters, doesn't it?
Twitter is the place where the news cycle is starting.
That's why it matters that Elon Musk takes it back and brings back these voices, and ensures you won't get banned.
But what's the point of using the platform if you're going to get banned for saying these things?
There are people who are talking about policies put forth by Joe Biden, specifically around culture war issues, and they get banned.
Now, I do think it is fair to say it's the economy, stupid.
But what do you think gets Joe Biden elected?
It wasn't his sound policy.
The dude didn't campaign.
He kept calling for he kept calling a lid on pressers and then going into his basement.
The issue was culture war.
Now, because people didn't like the orange man, because people did nothing but watch CNN and believe the lies, they voted for Joe Biden.
Oh, I've talked to friends who are like, I wish I didn't do it.
I'm like, yeah, I know.
Wake up.
Pay attention.
This is where we are heading.
Old people are going to phase out of the political space soon.
And they vote in large numbers, and they watch Fox News and MSNBC and CNN.
For the most part, they're watching Fox News.
But just because Fox News gets the most doesn't mean most people are watching Fox News.
CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, all of them together rival or beat Fox News.
And they're the ones who are pushing the nonsense.
They're going to mention Republican operatives remain deeply skeptical that anyone can dislodge Trump's hold on the party.
He is still the most popular candidate in a hypothetical 2024 matchup.
Meanwhile, benchmark issues of his time in office, specifically immigration and its white supremacist offshoot to the Great Replacement Theory, hilarious, continue to resonate with Republican voters.
Ben Sasse is aiming for the middle, and I think it's exactly why Republicans lose.
Democrats aren't... Look, it's the establishment uniparty.
They're not really pandering to anybody.
They're doing the bare minimum.
They will take a wedge issue, gun control, abortion, whatever, and they'll weaponize it against their opponents.
All the while, society is drifting towards more absurdity, like drag kids stories and dance-offs and things like that.
We've seen all that stuff, and it's starting to infuriate parents.
Ben Sasse, you're wrong.
In Loudoun County, parents were outraged when they discovered the cultural values being taught to their children.
And they stood up and they protested, and it resulted in a Republican winning.
You need to pay attention to this.
These parents are in their 40s.
Yeah, they're not the people watching Tucker Carlson.
It's not just the economy.
It is a lot of issues.
A lot of issues around the values of this country, freedom, liberty, justice, personal responsibility, all of these things.
You have a multicultural democracy fighting with a constitutional republic.
And the multicultural democracy types, the woke types, know they need to get your kids!
So I'll tell you what's more important.
Twitter may actually be the red herring.
You know why?
TikTok.
The kids are going on TikTok, they're posting their dance videos, they're using it more and more, and we are banned from TikTok.
You see how it works.
Timcast IRL got banned from TikTok and we did not break any rules!
What did we say?
Nothing.
They just banned us.
And that's interesting because TikTok doesn't usually ban people for breaking the rules.
They suspend you and then, you know, they don't have the same system like Three Strikes.
It may have been that we hosted Alex Jones.
Okay.
We had no warning that we weren't allowed to, but we got banned from TikTok.
The younger kids are going to be on TikTok.
We're going to be on YouTube and Twitter and Instagram.
The older people are going to be on these platforms.
We're going to fight over these platforms.
We're going to win and go, yeah!
And then we're going to have the Fox News of social media.
And then, in 10 years, when TikTok is YouTube and way bigger than everybody else, and you're banned from there, Then these kids are going to be influenced with no pushback.
That's where we are heading.
I hope you're paying attention to it.
That may be the big issue here.
I mean, look, I'm not going to sit here and pretend Elon Musk is the greatest savior.
I mean, him buying Twitter would be great.
Might not even happen.
It's better than losing Twitter.
But what about TikTok?
What about the fact that it's effectively Chinese propaganda?
You know, in China, their youth aren't allowed to watch this woke social justice stuff.
It's banned.
Here, the counterance to it is banned.
So you can go on the platform and say all the nonsense in the world, and if you speak out against it, you're gone.
For the time being, there's Instagram, there's Twitter, there's YouTube, there's Rumble.
But are you inspiring young people?
That's the big question.
Turning Point USA does a lot to reach high school and college students, but yo, let me just say, shoutout to Turning Point USA for being very, very uncool.
I got no problem saying that.
They do good work, but boy are they not cool.
Watching a bunch of stodgy dudes in suits, That's just, I don't know, that's just not cool.
You know, I like freedom.
I like the Libertarian Party, Mises Caucus guys.
Can we get some more, like, edgy punk rock, challenge the establishment kind of anti-establishment rhetoric?
Can we inspire young people to be independent while also being creative?
Now, I suppose what is cool is shifting, to be completely honest.
With the culture war, you end up with a left that is horribly uncool.
And you'll end up with a right that is also horribly uncool.
Yeah, here's my bet.
I think the right is more in line with facts today, and that's what matters.
I don't agree with all their political policy positions.
I don't like the left because they're stodgy, authoritarian, uncool, and wrong.
I'll tell you what I think works.
Punk rock, libertarian, teenage angst, you know?
Believing in yourself and knowing what's right.
That's why it's fascinating to me that right now the narrative is like, teacher is right!
And the people telling you teacher are wrong, they're bad people.
No.
If you're a young person and you're writing like Black Lives Matter on stuff, which is like the corporate slogan of Walmart and Amazon, That's just the weirdest, like, lamest thing I've ever seen.
Yeah, go corporations!
Conformity!
Not being yourself, not being unique, not pursuing your dreams.
Okay, I guess.
But maybe that's just me.
Maybe I'm an old man.
I'm 36!
That means I'm now entering my late 30s!
I guess technically it's mid-30s still, until what?
Until you're halfway through 37?
Whatever, man.
I'm not gonna sit here and tell kids what is cool or what isn't, because every generation has their different idea of cool.
When I was young, cool was skateboarding, punk rock, and saying F you to the machine, protesting war, and saying screw the government.
Perhaps what's cool now is conformity!
Oh yeah!
All right.
I mean, maybe.
Well, we better start inspiring young people to build their own worlds and not just conform to the old, because that's what is supposed to happen.
I'll leave it there.
It's got to start on social media.
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.
Protests erupted in Dallas, outside of a gay bar, after a family-friendly drag show was put on, and parents brought their young children to dance with and give money to drag performers.
The left is defending this.
Outright, they are saying there's nothing wrong with this, and it's akin to going to a pageant or playing dress-up or Comic-Con, where kids come and people dress up and they put on a performance.
People on the right are saying it's overt child abuse, and that's why many were protesting this event.
Now, even some leftists, well, I don't know if it's even fair to say because it's overtly tribal, but some people who play the more centrist type are calling this out, and I think it's fair to say any honest person Who actually wants to address political issues to better understand what is going on in this country and to speak up for what they believe is true and correct and moral and just any person who is being honest and in good faith will call this out and say what was going on at this bar was detestable and should not be happening.
Why?
On the back wall of this child drag show, or I shouldn't say child drag show, family-friendly drag performance where children tip the performers, it reads, it's not gonna lick itself.
Yeah, you know what that's a reference to, right?
They are grooming children, okay?
If they wanted to put on a catwalk performance, I'd be like, you know, you're getting, you're getting, you're on the line.
If all that happened was people dressed up in costumes and walked down the aisle, smiled and walked back like a catwalk show, I'd be like, if parents want kids to see this as normal and that's all it was, I'd be like, You're gonna have to give that one to the parents.
I mean, because really, what do you have then?
You have men dressed up in costumes.
Okay, I could understand that if that was the actual argument and that's what was going on.
That's not what's going on.
What's going on is they are normalizing stripping culture.
I'm not saying stripping culture in any way to like demonize stripping culture, but there is like There is a culture, I'm not saying it's a pronounced one, in stripping, as to different names, different types of stripping, and how you pay for the dancing, which is overtly sexual.
That is, you sit around as the dancers come by and you hand them money.
That overlaps with drag performance, and we have seen children, such as Desmond is Amazing, rip off his clothing As a young 9 or 10 year old child, as a bunch of gay men at a 21 and up gay bar are holding up money and paying him to do it.
Stripping.
They're grooming your kids.
This is literally what grooming is.
Okay, let me explain.
It's not gonna lick itself.
Right, you know, I'm just gonna jump straight to shoe on head.
who posted this image. You can see the dancer dropping it low, getting low to the ground.
You can see little girls and little boys and they're all laughing and filming.
It's not gonna lick itself in the background. Why are they putting children in front of a sign
at a bar that is 21 and up only grooming?
So let me explain.
Grooming is not when a child is brought into a dungeon and then they abuse the child, like when they actually make the children do things.
Grooming is when they introduce the child to the lightest form of this kind of activity, such as signage on the wall that says, it's not going to lick itself.
So, you know, that's what you tell someone when you would like them to perform an adult activity.
I don't even know if YouTube's gonna allow me to show that.
It says it's not gonna lick itself.
This is the crazy thing.
It's not gonna lick itself on the back wall at a family-friendly?
Is that what you think?
When these children are then told it's not going to lick itself, they're gonna be like, oh yeah, just like mommy and daddy told me it was cool, told me it was good.
They brought me there.
I remember that.
That's good.
It's not good.
It's not appropriate.
It's not for children.
That's what they're doing.
This is grooming.
Period.
They're not taking the kids into the back and physically touching them.
No, no, that's overt abuse.
Grooming is this.
This is what grooming looks like.
And this is also what they do in schools and what they're doing with kids.
Let's read the news, alright?
Let's get into the news here.
from Daily Caller.
Drag builds confidence.
Listen to drag queens defend their decision to perform for children.
YouTube channel Fleca's Talks shared a video Sunday containing interviews with drag queens at the controversial Drag Your Kid to Pride event in Dallas.
The drag queens performed in front of a glowing pink neon sign that read, It's Not Gonna Lick Itself.
Though the video focused on interviews with performers and adult attendees, children can clearly be seen holding out cash to the drag queens.
Oh, oh, what was that?
It's not just that they're having this signage and these performers.
out reluctantly walks down a runway alongside one oh oh what was that it's
not just that they're having this signage and these performers they
actually have children participate they have little girl little boy a little boy
There's even a photo.
I think I have it here.
Let me refresh this page from WFAA.
I don't know if they have the image.
Let me see if I can find the image.
They actually have kids walking down the runway, I guess you'd call it, at this event.
Here we have from the Daily Mail.
Drag your kids to pride event in Dallas where children take to the stage to dance with drag queens in thongs sparks fury.
They're grooming your kids.
Here's what you can do.
Share this.
Please.
I mean this one.
Share this.
I have a friend, and, you know, we're hanging out, and this dude's, you know, fairly left-leaning, and I passively mention, I'm like, this is the other day, and I'm like looking at my phone, and I'm like, so there was this drag queen children's event in Dallas, and then he just interrupts, what, what?
And I was like, yeah, yeah, I didn't finish.
What I was gonna say is, there was a Drag Queens event and protesters showed up, but just the fact that I said, Drag Queens for Children event, made him go, wait, what?
And then I'm like, bro, do you not follow the news?
And he's like, what are you talking about?
No, he doesn't.
That's why it's so important we talk about this.
So right now you have that don't say gay stuff in Florida.
It's mostly left the news cycle.
But there are people who genuinely do not know that they are having children stand in front of a neon sign that reads, it's not gonna lick itself!
You know what that means!
Yeah.
It's absolutely fascinating, isn't it, that this stuff is happening.
And it seems to be getting worse.
But you know what?
Let me throw it back to the tweet from Shuan Head.
Shuan Head, as of course you know, is a fairly lefty individual, but has no problem calling this stuff out.
She says, I don't like being gaslit about how totally not weird this
is.
Shu says, leftists, stop being scared to point out that the emperor has no clothes because you fear
being called a reactionary.
You know what, Shu?
Everybody loves Shu on head, you know, but Shu, I just think you're missing the big picture on this one.
The big picture is, they like it!
You know, you're the odd person out.
You're the social moderate, I guess.
Economic leftist.
Yeah, well guess what?
So am I!
There's a line, and it's here.
Now, economically, I have some relatively economically left positions.
I'd love to talk about tax policy.
But that's not particularly relevant right now, is it?
It's not a big issue that's affecting this country.
It kind of is.
Kind of, especially with inflation and everything.
But the issue right now, this country is bifurcated.
It is split in two completely.
And when Schuonhead comes out and says, leftists, stop being scared to call this out, They just outright come out and defend it.
First, we get some whataboutism.
Now, I don't think whataboutism is wrong, right?
This is the idea that if someone says X is a problem, someone says, what about Y?
Well, what about Y?
I think it's fair to point out, okay, we've got two problems.
That's fine.
But, I think you always start from a place of, you are correct, this is bad.
I completely agree.
We should have a conversation about it.
I also would like to add to the conversation that the holistic view of this is kind of bad, right?
That's fine.
The first response is, I think more so, stuff like this is also happening.
And with the way things seem to be headed, people are wary of accidentally adding to narratives that will maybe fuel violence against LGBT people.
Okay, now that's where you get the bad whataboutism.
Someone posted this video.
Quote, the fist of Christ will come down on you very soon, groomer.
Intensely violent Christian fascists who came to attack families at pride made a number
of explicit threats of genocidal violence.
Shut up.
Okay, the dude literally says that, and it's bad.
Chill out, seriously.
I mean, I don't know what that means, the fist of Christ?
I know, I know Jesus got mad sometime, like that, you know, flipping the tables and the money changers.
I know Jesus literally said, if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
In my understanding, according to the literature I have recently read, was that it was in reference to defending yourself against the state who would violate your rights.
No joke!
Yes, you should seriously read that passage.
I mean, you should probably just read the Bible so you can better understand what the arguments are from the right, or if you're Christian, you should probably read it because you're a Christian.
But a lot of people come out and they're like, where in the Bible does it say to buy a gun?
I'm like, yo, Jesus is literally like, hey, they're gonna kill me, buy a sword!
Anyway, I digress.
We don't need this.
You gotta be... We don't need violence from anybody, okay?
But that being said, This is, yeah, but they're being violent against LGBTQ people, and there it is.
That's it.
When you groom children, and have them stand before the glowing neon sign of telling these kids normalizing overtly adult activities, and someone gets mad, and then you say they're threatening violence against LGBT people, They are now, they've done it, conflating pedophiles with the gay community.
And that, I think, is wrong.
But this is what they're doing.
A lot of people tried claiming, a few years ago, that there was an effort to normalize child abuse in the LGBTQ community.
And many prominent LGBT activists pushed back, saying, we do not accept these weird things that are popping up on the internet.
There's a thing called, like, maps.
I don't even want to get into that.
They're like, no!
Now, they're like, well, we should defend it, otherwise it's going to be violence against all gay people.
Okay, you've accepted it.
You've accepted it.
You've defended it.
It's there now.
You take a look at some of the responses to Shoe on Head.
Look at this.
One person said, I mean, if you look at it, it's mostly families having a good time with their kids at a fun dressing-up show.
Nothing different than taking them to a cosplay event at Comic-Con.
Except for the strip culture of paying for sexual activities.
Now, this is the important point.
This is the very important point.
This is, on a scale of 1 to 10, Of severity of sexual activity a one that's the point they have people do sexualized maneuvers and dancing for money While they put a sexual it's probably not a one actually it's probably like a three or four Crossing that five is where you're getting into actual like physical abuse
But a one is like just having the kids watch the drag performance, where it's like you are now telling them to open the door into adult activities without having them engage in it.
As soon as they're giving money, and as soon as you're putting up a big sign that's not going to lick itself, now you've actually crossed the threshold.
You're at a three or four.
You're not overtly abusing, but you're now grooming these kids.
So what's the problem?
The sign?
Wow.
Literally nothing inappropriate is going on here other than the sign.
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing.
This is the game they play.
They groom your kids, and then they try and downplay it and say it's no big deal.
It's nothing.
It's just a sign.
Okay, we get it.
The sign's bad.
That's it.
I think Hsu also had another tweet, I think I may have retweeted it, where it's like, first they say they're not grooming your kids, then they say, what is it?
It's like first they say it's not happening, then they say it's happening and it's a good thing, then they say you're a bigot for opposing the grooming.
This is where we're at.
A lot of people protesting.
But the reaction I want to show you here are the people saying, there's a guy that, here's what he says, it's an event that happened in one spot in town, the entire country, and everything is awful.
Put on your shoes, go outside and touch grass.
Stuff like this is mad.
So here's, I always want to make sure, look at this one.
Someone said, as a centrist, I respect all political viewpoints, it's just a coincidence that I only show support for the fascist ones.
They're pedophiles.
Hands down.
Children, pre-bubescent children, at these events, giving money for a sexualized performance in front of a sign that says it's not going to lick itself.
They're grooming these kids, period.
Now, I want to make sure I point out accurately what the it's not going to lick itself is supposed to mean.
I don't know if I have it pulled up.
But, they also post advertisements where they show ice cream, and then it's supposed to be a double entendre, like, have the ice cream, it's not going to lick itself.
Yes.
That's the argument they're making, and it literally does not matter.
Because the point is, it is a overtly... It's just... I can't even show some of this stuff.
This is insane.
I can't even.
Alright, let me show you where we're currently at.
Let me see if I can... Eight-year-old drag queen says, if your parents won't let you do drag, you need new parents.
Canadian Nemesquin Melencion Golden hit the headlines earlier this month.
A drag child.
Do I have the other one pulled up?
I don't know if I have it pulled up.
Let's see here.
DC Public Schools to host drag queen performance for high school students.
There was another one that I had pulled up.
I don't know if I have it, but there's drag children.
And they're pre-bubescent.
They're being abused by their parents.
That's just it.
Look, the goal of the groomer and the pedophile is to try and figure out where the line is where they can get well-to-do liberals to be like, is that the line?
To go back to the Daily Mail article, they say, children take to the stage to dance with drag queens in thongs.
And they say, it's just dress up. They're abusing kids.
And this is the game they play with everything.
These people try and figure out where the line is for what would shock people, and then press against it.
So, you take a look at some of the arguments they have.
And I'll explain, too.
People get mad at me when I point this out, but it's a true fact.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, uh, you can't discriminate in public accommodation.
They, uh, race, gender, national origin, etc, etc.
I think it says sex, not gender, but I'm using that interchangeably.
So this was used to justify the end of racial segregation, because they would have, you know, black only and white only.
They'd say, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, therefore, we, you know, you can't have separate but equal.
Except we do now with gender.
You have the men's room and the women's room.
And the left is using similar arguments.
What about a five-foot-tall effeminate man?
Why is he going in the men's room?
What about a six-foot-five, you know, muscular, masculine woman?
Why is she going in the women's room?
Because they're men and women.
They're arguing now that gender is an arbitrary qualifier as to why we would segregate, and thus they use the same arguments to try and take the end, gender segregation.
And they are actually winning that in many ways.
I don't know about outright, but you take a look at unisex bathrooms.
Two things have happened.
In places like New York, new buildings have just basically gotten rid of the multi-use bathroom and now they have single-use bathrooms.
It used to be there was a men's room and a women's room.
You'd walk in the men's room and there'd be like three guys in there doing their business.
Now it's just four rooms.
I kind of like it better, to be completely honest.
See, this is fine.
You walk in the room, you close the door, you lock it behind you, you've got a bathroom to yourself.
Way better.
You know, I can pick my nose, I can... And I can take a dump without having to, you know, in privacy.
It's more comfortable, right?
In some places, they've just gotten rid of dressing rooms.
They've gotten rid of segregated dressing rooms, and now men and women are both dressing in the same area.
That happened in the UK, that was a few years ago.
This is what I mean by they try and find the line and then press upon it.
Because they'll use simple arguments where you're like, that is true.
1964 Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
Then how do you justify sex-based segregation?
Courts have ruled so long as equal access is provided, then it's not discriminatory.
Like, if the men have a bathroom and the women have a bathroom, they're not discriminated because everyone gets a bathroom.
And herein lies the big problem.
Now they're saying, oh, but the bathrooms are different.
In the men's room, there's only two stalls!
Well, that's not fair.
There's four urinals and two stalls, but in the women's room, there's six stalls.
Yeah, because women typically don't stand up.
I mean, they have those funnel things.
Well, now they're saying they're not equal.
And how do you respond in the courts?
Men and women are different.
And then they'll argue this.
What about biological females who got, you know, urethral lengthening?
Or what about somebody who's intersex?
And they'll say all of that.
And then they're going to try and use these arguments.
They want to find out where that hole is to shatter the breaking point, as it were, to make the whole thing come down.
That's what they're doing.
This is it right here.
Did any of these drag queens get nude?
No, but they were wearing thongs in front of children.
And so this is them taking a step over the line to see what the reaction is.
Well, the reaction was a protest.
But now, of course, because they've already normalized Disney doing drag shows, Discovery doing drag shows, Paramount sponsoring drag shows all for children, because they've done that enough over the past few years, they now take it one step further and have the kids go on stage with the adult performer.
But we've already seen worse.
There was a photo of a drag kid standing next to a fully nude man.
This is back in like 2018.
And the left defended it.
Okay.
This is what you need to share with people.
And you know, I'll tell you this.
You can tell your parents.
Show this to your parents, please.
I hear all the time, like, my parents watch CNN, they don't understand.
Be like, did you hear about the drag for kids thing?
And they'll be like, what?
Show them it.
Show them it.
Let them experience that cognitive dissonance where they're defending this.
And then tell them, are you serious?
You seriously defend this?
Because they won't.
Many will, many won't.
Share these stories with them.
People tell me that, you know, their parents are brainwashed.
They don't believe it's really happening.
Here you go, they've crossed the line.
But you know, I gotta be honest.
If four years ago we were seeing an eight-year-old child standing right next to a fully grown naked man, and they're in there, it's like a drag performance, but the man's nude.
Completely naked.
And they're like, this is fine.
Then I think those people must be lost.
And I don't know how you, I don't know what you do.
This is well beyond the line.
What they're trying to do is they step over it, then the left comes out and completely defends it, saying, oh, it's just a performance, and they try and push the line further and further, while something's happening.
People on the right are organizing, people in the middle are joining them, shoe on head is not right wing, and they're saying this is bad.
And they're holding the line.
Because these creepy people, you give them a few years, they will be trying to lower the age of consent.
They're already doing it now.
They're trying to say 16-year-olds should vote.
16-year-olds are adults.
They're trying to move the line.
It's getting creepy out there, man.
But you know what?
Let this be the red pill.
Maybe this will wake your parents and your friends up when you're like, please defend this.
There's an effort, there's a call, many on the right, and some right-wing politicians have said they're going to make child drag events illegal.
That's their effort.
And I'm like, I think they already are.
I gotta be honest, like, there are public decency laws about what children can be exposed to, and I think thongs and It's Not Gonna Lick Itself already violate that, but sure, I don't know.
Are police gonna do anything about it?
But they're saying they want to make it illegal.
And at the very least, I think people on the right should make this a prime issue for the midterms.
They should come out and be like, look, we think it's inappropriate, and force the Democrats to defend it.
Because they will, because they have no choice.
And then they can say, look, if it were me I'd be like, Look, I'm not, like, I'm, you know, drag events are fine.
I think adults can do what they want to do.
But why are, why are they asking, like, telling kids it's not going to lick itself?
That's, I'm sorry.
I can't do that.
Show that to the suburban moms.
I wonder what's going to happen when these, these drag events at, at, in, in schools, which are happening, when these parents find out about it.
I think, for a lot of reasons, if you can get that message out and tell people, please put an end to this, please, we can't allow this, then you will see a red wave.
But this stuff is only getting crazier on the left, and they're defending it, like I showed you with the shoe on that stuff.
This is why they're gonna lose.
Because regular people are like, I have a line, man, I have a limit!
It's gone too far.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
In a story for the Washington Post attempting to smear and defame YouTubers, Taylor Lorenz is being called out for lying.
What we are seeing here, my friends, is the implosion of corporate press, and boy, is it glorious.
Well, maybe it's not the implosion, but the degradation of corporate press into stupid drama channels, but that's the name of the game, I suppose.
The story goes quite simply.
That after the Amber Heard Johnny Depp trial, Taylor Lorenz decided to write about radicalized influencers, claiming that she contacted particular individuals for comment, who then came out and said no she didn't.
They then had to stealth edit the piece, which means they went in and changed the article without saying anything.
A huge violation of journalistic standards.
They apparently had to make two changes and still are accused of lying in their final interpretation.
Taylor Lawrence came out and said, it wasn't me!
It was the editor who put that in there!
I didn't put it in there!
Sure, whatever.
The outlets are exploding.
Imploding is the better way to put it.
We also have another story by the Washington Post where apparently one of their writers retweeted a joke that was deemed sexist and now the whole room is going crazy.
It's fun to watch, but you know what?
I normally don't care for... I don't care for drama.
But there's something more important here.
You know, whenever there's like a drama story, I come out and I'm like, I don't like drama.
But there is something more important here outside of the normal drama, and that is, a common tactic used by corporate press is no longer working.
I'll tell you what they do, and why this one makes me happy.
You see, these news outlets, they will find an old email, some garbage contact form, or they'll tweet at you from a garbage account, and they'll say something like, what are your thoughts on X?
And you won't see the notification on Twitter, or you won't see the email that goes directly to spam, and then they'll write either did not reply, didn't respond, failed to provide a comment when asked, to make it seem like you are choosing not to participate in the narrative.
In reality, they know that they can do the bare minimum to make it true.
We tried to contact them.
It's happened to me.
I've had people email an account, like an email account I had from like 20 years ago or something, and they were like, we reached out for comment and you didn't respond.
And I'm like, I have a website with my email address on it and they didn't contact me there.
It's a lie.
It's a manipulation because they are trying to just smear you.
Now here's another big element of this.
They have been for years trying to claim that we are all radicalized.
That by simply having an opinion, you're radicalized!
So when it comes to Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, the narrative that they were trying to swing was that people who sided with Johnny Depp were radicalized because they saw that it made them money.
Never mind the fact that these people covering the case, one I believe is a lawyer who covers cases, and the other person had been talking about the case for a year.
Taylor Lorenz is trying to claim, basically, that the only reason people talked about this was because there was money to be made.
Look in the mirror, Taylor Lorenz.
You are a liar and, dare I say, an unwell individual who has imploded on the public stage and I am shocked the Washington Post has not yet fired her.
Let me walk you through the story.
Starting with the National Review, Taylor Lorenz has responded to the accusations, only making things worse.
But more importantly, I want to show you a thread from Glenn Greenwald where he talks about this sexist joke because the Washington Post newsroom is just on fire.
These people are losing it.
They're publicly fighting with each other and these employees who are like, please stop doing this, they get blocked and then they get pulled into the fight.
It's like, Remember when the Tasmanian Devil in Looney Tunes would start spinning, and then someone would get pulled into it, and then there would be like a fight, and then people would get pulled into it, and it's all crazy?
That's what's happening.
But it is fun to watch WAPO implode.
From the National Review, YouTubers claim Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz lied about requesting comment for Hit Piece.
Now, this is not the latest story.
We have a development from June 4th.
Washington Post issues two corrections to Taylor Lorenz's article that had already been stealth edited.
Amazing.
Stealth editing is some of the dirtiest, dirtiest maneuvering that these news organizations do.
Let me go back in time and tell you a story.
I worked for Fusion, and I remember an article was written by the New York Times.
The New York Times was talking about CEO Ellen Powell, and I believe the story at the time was that she was stepping down as CEO.
The story that was published was very basic.
It said, Ellen Powell resigns as CEO.
Something like that.
Or, I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was some story there.
Just flat news.
I saw the story, and the next day, the story changed.
It became an op-ed about feminism in Silicon Valley, and it was titled, like, Big Tech Bros 2, you know, uh, Silicon, you know, like, Feminist Zero, or something like that.
And I was like, well, this is an op-ed now.
That's weird.
The reason that's wrong, if you shared that story with your friends as a fact news piece, the next day when they click it, they get some feminist opinion piece and might think that's your opinion you're sharing or just ask you why you shared it.
Furthermore, it violated the rules of Reddit and other big social media platforms.
Notably on Reddit, you can't post a link to a story in the news subreddit With a different headline to the news itself.
You have to use... Because they don't want people doing propaganda and manipulation and things like that.
I don't know if that's still the case.
So I reached out for comment to the moderator saying, What is your policy on when a news organization changes their article without notifying anybody or without a correction?
They immediately deleted what was, I believe, the third and fifth most upvoted story on Reddit in Reddit history.
Meaning, just very prominent posts.
It was a huge violation.
When I told this, when I mentioned this in the newsroom at Fusion, this is a big story, it's a major violation of ethics, and it's having a huge impact on digital and internet culture, I was told, we do the same thing, so just don't say anything.
And then I was like, we change articles without notifying our readers?
And they're like, yes.
All the time, in fact.
Wow.
I am very strict at TimCast.com.
I was like, any change has to have a note as to what that change is.
I wouldn't mind having a log where you can click it and see all the revisions as well.
Here's the story.
The piece, which had been secretly edited after it was published on Thursday, detailed how content creators made out big In the sensational Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation lawsuit, two YouTubers Legal Bytes host Alit Mezeka and an anonymous user named ThatUmbrellaGuy were singled out in the article.
Lorenz, citing Business Insider, claimed Mezeka earned $5,000 in one week by pivoting the content on her YouTube channel to non-stop trial coverage and analysis.
That umbrella guy earned up to $80,000 last month, according to an estimate by social analytics firm SocialBlade, Lorenz wrote, adding that neither YouTuber responded to requests for comment.
I want to pause and just say, SocialBlade is wrong.
SocialBlade is absolutely wrong.
Not only do they give wild financial estimates as to what the amount of money you're making, it's just not correct.
There's no way for them to actually know.
But they use this to try and make it seem like you're making more or less than you really are.
Anyway, here's a picture of Lorenz.
They say Mosaica and that umbrella guy claimed Lorenz never reached out to them prior to publication for the story, Fox News reported.
Lorenz also made a second error, wrongly attributing a statement to Depp's rep, Adam Waldman.
Although a note at the bottom of the article acknowledged her story was updated to clarify comments made during Waldman's testimony, Waldman's, the claim that Lorenz had reached out to the YouTubers for comment was deleted without any acknowledgement.
After Fox News Post published the story about the stealth edit, the Washington Post issued a correction at the bottom of Lorenz's report, saying a previous version of the story inaccurately attributed to Adam Waldman a quote describing how he contacted some internet influencers.
The quote was removed.
The story also has been amended to note the Post's attempt to reach a light mosaic and that umbrella guy for comment previous versions omitted or inaccurately described these attempts.
Oh, I love this one.
Let me tell you a story.
The New Yorker once wrote a story about me.
In it, they included a false statement.
The long story short of it was, they made a fake quote up about me.
I believe it was the New Yorker.
They made up a fake quote from me.
They said, Tim Pool said these things, and it was like one quote, but it was actually two different things pushed together.
They later, when I said, this is fake news, and actually Vice complained as well, because the quote was not real.
I never said it.
They said, we have removed a quote from Tim Pool because it was inaccurate, or something like that.
Making it seem like I said something that was wrong.
These people are garbage.
They lie.
And when I called them, they said, do something about it.
I was pissed off.
But what can you really do?
Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars going up against him to try?
Yeah.
The problem was, the statement that my quote was inaccurate was a true statement.
So I called some lawyers and they said, they're right.
Well, now it seems like they're framing it in a way you could probably go after them.
But the reality is it was cleverly crafted by lawyers so that it could be true that they published an inaccurate statement, but that it makes it seem like it was my inaccurate statement.
These people are nasty!
That's why they're fake news.
Hey, shout out to the, uh, was it WFAA.com or whatever?
They called the drag event in Dallas a family-friendly event.
Yeah, that's just because the abusers were calling it that.
They didn't actually, that's insane that they would do that.
Let's take a look at the latest development.
First, why this is important.
Who won the Depp Heard Trial?
Content creators that went all in.
Influencers discover there's money and clout to be made in covering breaking news.
It's celebrity gossip, dude!
What do you think YouTube is if not just endless celebrity gossip?
It is probably one of the top entertainment content stories, period.
If you make content about the law like LegalBytes does, then you're gonna cover a high-profile trial.
Taylor Lorenz is playing the stupid game again.
Oliver Darcy, wow of all people, said in a series of tweets Lorenz blames her editor for having inserted the error into her story and says she is the victim of a bad faith campaign.
Here we can see this thread from Taylor Lorenz, which I'll read, but I want to point this out.
Lorenz responded to Oliver Darcy saying, No, actually, this type of coverage is so irresponsible and
dangerous.
It's misrepresenting my words to amplify a manufactured outrage campaign by right-wing
media and radicalized influencers, which is driving a vicious harassment smear campaign against me.
CNN is gleefully piling on.
Taylor!
When YouTubers, regular people, and CNN, corporate press, all point to you and say, you did wrong.
You don't go, it's not me, it's the whole world that's harassing me!
Amazing.
Absolutely amazing that you could be standing there.
It's like the family guy joke where Peter's standing in an elevator with one other guy and he farts, looks at the guy and goes, it was you.
Like the joke.
No one believes you, dude.
You're not being harassed when everyone is telling you you're the person harassing people.
Here we go.
Here's the thread that Lorenz posted.
She said, Last Thursday, an incorrect line was added to a story of mine before publishing due to a miscommunication with an editor.
I did not write the line and was not aware it was inserted.
I asked for it to be removed right after the story went live.
The line was a sentence saying that I had reached out to two YouTubers for comment for my story.
The inclusion of the YouTubers was only in passing, citing another outlet's reporting.
After the story went live, I reached out to both YouTubers mentioned in the sentence just to be extra sure there wasn't some sort of commentary they wanted to add.
Neither provided comment for the story and both continued to post about me.
Here's the funny thing, apparently that's not true either!
Amazing.
The mention of these two individuals was not remotely the focus of my story.
It's become a huge distraction.
I spoke to over two dozen creators for my story about this trial, along with other experts who are quoted in the piece.
This should have been a small correction for a miscommunication, but it turned into a multi-day media cycle, intentionally aimed at discrediting the Washington Post and me.
No, y'all have done that to yourselves.
Blah blah blah blah.
I know the stuff I write about and go through is a hugely unfamiliar to the vast majority of people in media.
I have great hope that all of us can learn from the experience.
Here's the point.
Taylor Lorenz is calling these people radicalized influencers because they're talking about celebrity gossip.
You've lost the plot, Washington Post.
You're going insane.
Don't believe me?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next big meltdown from the Washington Post.
Oh Bezos, what has your money bought you?
Glenn Greenwald says, so typical, Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez is now on her third straight day of publicly bashing her own colleagues.
She pressured the Post to publicly malign Dave Weigel as reprehensible, forced him to repeatedly apologize, now is attacking another Washington Post reporter for politely objecting.
Amazing watching the implosion.
Dave Weigel, I might add, writes fake news.
He once wrote a fake story about Kim Dotcom and Seth Rich, and it was laughably insane.
He made some ridiculous arguments trying to make it seem like Kim Dotcom had hacked some Gmail account or something like that, or was trying to.
Fake news, Dave!
And then they stealth-edited the piece.
None of these people are worthy of any of our admiration or empathy.
They are just bad people.
But ladies and gentlemen, I give you The first tweet from Felicia Sonmez, who tweeted, Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed.
Here we go.
Cam Harless tweeted, Every girl is bi.
You just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual.
Haha, it's an offensive joke.
It's an edgy joke.
Offensive to some.
David Weigel retweeted it.
Well, is David Weigel a manager?
Does he work over anybody?
Did he say this to anybody in the newsroom?
Then I don't see what the issue is.
Perhaps it's an issue of the PR for the company and they don't want their high profile.
Dave Weigel's got a ton of followers.
I mean, you know, I can understand why they're like, come on, man.
You know, we're not trying to engage.
He's got 600,000 followers.
Fantastic work.
Here we go.
Jose A Del Real says, Felicia, we all mess up from time to time.
Engaging in repeated and targeted public harassment of a colleague is neither a good look nor is it particularly effective.
It turns the language of inclusivity into clout chasing and bullying.
I don't think this is appropriate.
Fighting sexism and misogyny matters deeply to me.
I always admire your bravery in sharing your story, and I support your fight against retribution for doing so.
Entirely separately, I hope you reconsider the cruelty you regularly unleash against colleagues.
To which she says, when women stand up for themselves, some people respond with even more vitriol.
Last night, a post colleague publicly attacked me for call- Attacked you!
For calling on another colleague's sexist tweet.
Alright.
I'm sorry.
Maybe it's a bit esoteric to all of you watching the establishment media just blow up on itself from hiring these kinds of people, but boy, do you love to see it.
Listen.
Felicia.
You need to learn to do your job and understand that in this world, people say naughty things.
We're not going to hold your hand as you cry about the fact that someone posted a mean joke on the internet.
That's what the internet is.
Don't bring it to work.
But I'll tell you, Twitter certainly has made corporate office politics wacky.
It really is amazing to watch the Washington Post just blow up.
Okay.
You know, look, man.
I run a company.
We have issues.
We have complaints.
Everybody's trying to get along.
We're trying to figure things out.
You know what I would say to somebody who came to me with a complaint that happened not at work?
I'd be like, I don't know what you want me to do.
It didn't happen here.
If an employee went to another employee... Let's put it this way.
If I had a journalist who was in a room full of people, and they were all drinking by the water cooler, and one person said, let me tell you a joke.
You know, hey, here's one.
Every woman is bi.
He's got to figure out if it's polar or sexual.
And then they all high-fived.
I'd be like, okay.
That is tough.
Let's be real.
Some people don't want to work in that environment where they're made to feel uncomfortable or the boat of jokes.
I'd probably say your complaint is duly noted.
I don't see this as a major issue.
I would say to the employee, rest assured, you know, we're going to ask people to try and tone it down.
But that's about it.
I don't know that we can do anything other than take note of it.
And I'll tell the employees, keep in mind, some people might not want to hear that stuff.
There is a real challenge you need to understand.
You can't, in the modern era, just ignore workplace complaints like this.
This is thanks to civil rights law.
And I mean that, I mean that.
So, what that means is, if someone feels like they're being discriminated against because of the environment, the employer can get in trouble.
The dominoes will keep falling over until everyone is wearing a grey jumpsuit.
For me, I'm kind of like, listen.
Here's what we tell employees.
You're in an environment where we are developing culture.
This means there's going to be edgy comedy.
Things like Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Ryan Long.
These videos will be played.
You will hear these things and we will read these jokes.
If you have an issue with that, there's nothing we can do to make you feel more comfortable.
Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, offensive comedy is a major component in the cultural content we produce.
That's all I can say.
Now, if someone is actually harassing, we'll tell them, like, hey, you know, just try and keep people's, you know, feelings in mind when you tell these jokes.
Not that you can all the time.
The reality is, I want people to get along, but I think at the end, these people, like, you can't live this way.
If we're gonna be producing videos on this stuff, and we're gonna be reporting on this stuff, and people are gonna tell these jokes, nothing you can do about it.
But here's the ultimate point.
This didn't even happen at work.
It's a guy, he retweeted something.
I gotta be honest, if it were me, and there was a non-workplace incident, and the employee went to this degree, I would probably reprimand them for harassing the employee.
I'd be like, listen, employee told a joke, not at work.
You are now harassing the employee outright, creating a tense work environment.
What do you expect is gonna happen?
As for Taylor Renz, oh man, she'd be fired so fast, I can't imagine why they hire her.
I know, I know.
They hire her because she generates controversy, and then we talk about the Washington Post.
But hey, let me tell you something, my friends.
I just went to—I went antiquing this weekend.
That's right.
I love going antiquing.
It's really great.
I got a bunch of newspapers.
I got a Clinton impeachment Washington Post, mint condition, wrapped in plastic.
That is cool.
And it's like Senate divided on impeachment or whatever and it's got a picture of Bill Clinton and I'm like, yo, 1996 or something like that.
The once great and prestigious Washington Post, now a rage bait blog for feminists to complain about the radicalization of the internet and people saying mean jokes.
Jeff Bezos.
Everything $250 million could buy and more.
Oh, you hate to see it, don't you?
No, you love to see it.
The Washington Post is imploding.
We are speaking out.
We are the media now.
We are taking over.
And I just can't wait till these people are just washed away into cultural irrelevance.
Because that's what they are.
You know what this is?
These are people who only have followers because they are propped up.
That's it.
They are propped up by institutional platforms, and the moment these platforms can't make it work, and they can't now, the moment you let this go on, it'll be gone.
These people will no longer be able to push their anti-meritocratic ideas on the world.
Ideas that no one wants to hear and no one agrees with.
