Elon Just Dropped BIGGEST Bombshell Yet, Twitter KNEW Trump Ban Was A LIE Leaked Comms Reveal
Elon Just Dropped BIGGEST Bombshell Yet, Twitter KNEW Trump Ban Was A LIE Leaked Comms Reveal. Twitter Files 5 proves that staff knew Trump broke no rules and were desperate to find an excuse to justify his ban.
Bari Weiss reveals new information in the 5th installment of the twitter files
#elonmusk
#twitterfiles
#donaldtrump
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is December 12th, 2022, and our first story.
The latest Twitter files dropped.
In what may be the biggest bombshell yet, internal communications leaked proof.
Donald Trump broke no rules.
Twitter knew he broke no rules.
And they banned him anyway.
In our next segment, Elon Musk gets booed on stage with Dave Chappelle on the left is gloating.
And another Twitter story, Yoel Roth, the head of trust and safety who banned so much, including the word groomer, has some interesting predilections and is being called out for saying children should have access to sexual applications.
Interesting.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Now we have the latest release in the Twitter files, this time coming from Barry Weiss.
Elon Musk has been releasing more and more information, and today we have leaked communications, which I believe it's the biggest bombshell yet.
Now, of course, we knew because of a lawsuit out of Missouri and previous reporting we've seen from a variety of individuals, and we did see a big story from The Intercept, that federal law enforcement was directly accessing Facebook, Twitter, probably YouTube, In order to censor key information.
What we learned from the Twitter files was that they were having regular communications.
Now that is a major bombshell and may actually be criminal.
I'll pull up 18 U.S.
Code 242 in a bit during the segment.
But what Elon Musk showed us was the internal communications as to what was going on around that.
We did kind of know something like that was happening because of the Missouri lawsuit.
Good job to the AG in Missouri, as well as the Gateway Pundit.
Now we actually have, and this one, this one I think is big, the team at Twitter, internal communications, outright saying Trump broke no rules.
But how do we ban him?
This one's amazing.
The internal communications show that employees were discussing amongst themselves how to ban Trump knowing he broke no rules and how they could try to desperately justify that something he did did in fact break the rules.
What did they come up with?
Okay, he didn't incite anybody to violence.
He didn't actually tell anybody to do anything.
He didn't support anything on January 6th.
But he did say the word patriots.
And if you take this narrow interpretation that Patriot refers to January 6, well then, that proves it.
And that was their justification.
I pulled up the initial announcement, the original announcement from Twitter, when they did take Trump down.
And in it, they are very, very careful not to say that Trump directly broke their incitement rules.
They say, risk of further incitement and additional violations.
Why?
Because internally they knew Trump broke no rules.
Now think about what that means for someone like Donald Trump, who's particularly litigious, or at least very much threatens to sue people.
It means that internally there was an actual malice standard.
If they came out and said Trump did violate incitement to violence, but internally they all said no he didn't, well that's going to be a very interesting discovery.
So they said, well you know, glorification it is.
And that's what they put on their webpage.
That's what they put on their blog.
Glorification of violence through some ridiculous interpretation.
The reason I'm doing this segment live is that Barry Weiss is currently going through The threat is not yet done, but we're learning something massive.
The effect on the world of banning Trump was massive.
The ripple effects.
Even Parag Agrawal, the later CEO after Jack, said that this is going to have ripple effects and we need to discuss this.
The era of centralized moderation is over.
World leaders were outraged, saying, we cannot allow an American businessman and private entity to shut down our voices in our own countries.
It's become too powerful.
More importantly, however, provided by Barry Weiss is the context surrounding Donald Trump's ban, which most of you already know.
Other world leaders were directly calling for death.
They were calling for the death of some people, even in their own countries.
And Twitter employees seemingly had no problem with this.
The double standard was real.
Now, of course, an astute observer knew all of this.
And I see people say this often.
Yeah, we knew this.
So what?
And many of the establishment and Democrat aligned media are trying to play the game of, yeah, well, we all knew this.
No, no, no.
We quote unquote knew this.
We, the Astute Observers, put two and two together.
It's not even as hard as a Sudoku puzzle.
We figured it out.
When the Ayatollah is tweeting, when Communist Chinese Party members are tweeting, but Trump tweets, you ban him.
We get it.
But we need those receipts.
And now we got them.
I'm excited for this Twitter Files, my friends, because as you know, I've been whinging on Twitter about these Saturday evening releases, these Friday releases.
The story is dying.
Well, it just so happens we got a banger bombshell Monday afternoon.
Now that is perfect timing.
That means that we can rip through these communications and drop them into everybody's lap right when they're going for lunch and they got time to skim the news.
This is great.
It means that Monday morning, the cycle is being set.
They lied.
Now, I gotta wonder if there is some kind of conspiracy here.
And I mean a legal, literal conspiracy.
Because behind the scenes, they're attempting to justify the termination of his account.
There's gotta be some kind of contract violation or potential.
Maybe actual malice.
Maybe there's something Trump can do.
If there's internal arguments about whether or not this is glorification, maybe Trump still could argue.
They knew it wasn't, and they were trying to justify it.
Maybe.
So let's go through the thread, break down the news, get in your super chats.
I'll try and read as many as I can as we do this segment live today.
And I hope you're all having a wonderful Christmas season.
It's gonna be a lot of fun.
Next week, we'll be up at Turning Point USA in Phoenix.
Hope to see many of you there.
It's gonna be very fun and exciting.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member in order to support our work directly.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments in the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as all of our other shows, like the Cast Castle vlog, Tales from the Inverted World.
Smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and in this segment, get in your superchats.
I'll try and read as many of your comments as possible.
I think because we've got a breaking live story here, your input is going to be invaluable.
So get in your superchats and highlight things that we may be missing.
This story is actively breaking right now on Twitter.
So let's just get into it.
We got Barry Weiss coming in at 1 p.m.
The Twitter Files Part 5, The Removal of Trump from Twitter.
Now we'll skip through a bit of that exposition and just get to the point.
She says, 6.46 a.m., Trump tweets, with one remaining strike.
The 75 million great American patriots who voted for me, America first and make America great again, will have a giant voice long into the future.
They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape, or form.
Now, take note of this.
75 million great American patriots.
Who is he referring to?
Simply put, he was referring to people who voted for him.
To all those who asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.
This was on January 8th.
Weiss says for years, Twitter had resisted calls, both internal and external, to ban Trump on the grounds that blocking a world leader from the platform or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information that people should be able to see and debate.
They said, quote, Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly, the company wrote in 2019.
Twitter's aim was to protect the public's right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.
But after January 6th, as Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberg have documented, pressure grew both inside and outside of Twitter to ban Trump.
There were dissenters inside Trump.
Quote, Maybe because I am from China, said one employee on January 7th, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.
Barry says, But voices like that one appear to have been a distinct minority within the company.
Across Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump hadn't been banned earlier.
After January 6, Twitter employees organized to demand their employer ban Trump.
Quote, there was a lot of employee advocacy happening, said one Twitter employee.
Full stop, right there.
January 6, before Trump tweeted anything, employees had already begun lobbying the company to ban Donald Trump.
Tweet 10, quote, We have to do the right thing and ban this account, said one staffer.
It's pretty obvious he's going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules.
And this is January 8th.
They say, that last sentence, we have to do the right thing here and ban this account, he said it three times.
We don't have a good track record of acting on his account except in the clearest and most explicit of cases, and even then, They say, in my opinion, extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary leadership.
It took three years, but I've lost faith, etc., etc.
In the early afternoon of January 8th, The Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump's ban.
Quote, we must examine Twitter's complicity in what President-elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.
A political term, not a legal one, mind you.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Quote, I think we'd have a hard time saying this is incitement, wrote one staffer.
It's pretty clear he's saying the American patriots are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists.
We can call them that, right?
From Wednesday.
Another staffer agreed.
Don't see the incitement angle here.
Even among a group of people who desperately wanted to remove a sitting president from social media, they could not do it.
Here's what they said.
I see Redacted, an individual, has pinged us to ask about incitement for the DJT tweet and want to see if we can align.
I don't see the incitement of fear.
What PC could it be trying to incite fear about?
And it says it three times.
I wonder if that's just due to it being edited and it's not actually being said three times.
I think we'd have a hard time saying this is incitement.
It's pretty clear he's saying the American Patriots are the one who voted for him.
Yeah, it is.
Quote.
I am also not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet.
Annika Navaroli says, I'll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios for the Donald Trump one.
That's no violations.
Flagging that Yoel is looking for an assessment of the DJT tweet.
She does say that as an FYI, safety is assessed.
The Trump tweet above and determined there is no violation of our policies at this time.
Let that sink in.
They reviewed it.
They said no, no violations.
How then did it escalate?
Later, Navarroli would testify to the House January 6th Committee, quote,
For months I had been begging and anticipating, and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing,
if we made no intervention into what I saw occurring, people were going to die.
Yet for some reason, when it came to the actual internal communications,
Anika says, uh, no, nothing wrong here.
Next.
Twitter's safety team decides that Trump's 7.44am tweet is also not in violation.
They are unequivocal.
It's a clear no violation.
It's just to say he's not attending the inauguration.
There's nothing else there.
Here we go.
Barry Weiss, bringing the receipt, says, To understand Twitter's decision to ban Trump, we must consider how Twitter deals with other heads of state and political leaders, including in Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia.
Now, To that extent, I will not read the entirety of the tweets from these individuals.
Why?
Because their overt calls for violence and death.
But you get the point.
Barry says, In June of 2018, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, Israel is a malignant – you get the point – in the West Asian region and then he calls for their removal and eradication.
Saying that it's even possible it will happen.
Twitter neither deleted the tweet nor banned the Ayatollah.
More than that, there's no flag on it.
Is there anything here saying that this should not be allowed?
It's amazing.
2020, October.
The former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was a right for Muslims to... And then he goes on to say that they have a right to harm French people.
Twitter deleted this tweet for glorifying violence, but he remains on the platform.
The tweet below was taken from the Wayback Machine.
Muhammadu Buhari, the president of Nigeria, incited violence against pro-Biafra groups.
Those of us in the fields for 30 months who went through the war, he wrote, will treat them in the language they understand.
Twitter deleted the tweet, but it didn't ban him.
In October of 2021, Twitter allowed Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to call on citizens to take up arms against the Tigray region.
Twitter allowed the tweet to remain up and did not ban the Prime Minister.
Yet Donald Trump?
We get it.
We know.
But hey, let me go through the receipts for you.
In early February 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government threatened to arrest Twitter employees in India and to incarcerate them for up to seven years after they restored hundreds of accounts that had been critical of him.
Twitter did not ban Modi.
But Twitter executives did ban Trump, even though key staffers said that Trump had not incited violence, not even in a coded way.
Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump's tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gade, ah, it's always Vijaya, isn't it, Trump's head, I'm sorry, Twitter's head of legal policy and trust, asked whether it could, in fact, be coded incitement to further violence.
These people are evil.
They knew it.
They knew Trump did nothing wrong, but they wanted political interference, and so they did.
Vijaya says, the biggest question is whether a tweet like this one this morning from Trump, which isn't a rule violation on its face, is being used as coded incitement to further violence.
If you have any context or insight, we should consider I'm all ears.
This is the semantic game of an evil person.
She is saying here, justify it to me!
And she continues, e.g.
use of the term American patriots and they will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way shape or form.
A redacted individual says this is an interesting question.
I'm going to speak with my team ASAP to see if we can run a quick survey to get reactions to the language contained in the tweet and get back to you.
Vijaya says, I'm not sure I would rely on a survey.
I worry about how that would be perceived externally.
It's very clear what Vijaya is saying.
She's saying, I understand you've said there's no rule violation, but seems coded to me, American patriots, better not survey anyone if you get MADRIFT.
A few minutes later, Twitter employees on the Scaled Enforcement Team suggested that Trump's tweet may have violated Twitter's glorification of violence policy.
If you interpreted the phrase, American Patriots, to refer to the rioters.
They had already determined.
American Patriots referred to 75 million voters.
He literally said that.
There weren't 75 million people in D.C.
But here they go.
Team.
Scale is asking if we would consider Trump's tweet for glorification of violence.
If we consider American patriots to refer to the rioters, they have a point.
From my point of view, team, my laptop is frozen, blah blah blah.
Scale has said they understand our position but will continue to push their GOV assessment with leadership.
They see it that he is the leader of a violent extremist group who is glorifying the group and its recent actions.
Do you think we should square off GOV and the DJT assessment or would it be helpful at this point?
Annika responds blank.
I think it would be helpful to a redacted person.
I think it would be helpful to maybe have a write-up on what a violation assessment could look like.
Barry Weiss says.
Things escalate from here.
Members of that team came to view him as the leader of a terror group responsible for violence and deaths comparable to the Christchurch shooter or even Hitler.
On the basis and on that totality of his tweets, he should be deplatformed.
That's right.
Yoel Roth, who called Donald Trump a Nazi and said there's Nazis in the White House.
You have it right there.
They knew he didn't break any rules.
Vijaya intervened and basically said, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
We know he did.
Let's take a look at this.
This is the official announcement.
January 8th, 2021 from Twitter.
As per the permanent suspension of Donald Trump.
This was cleverly crafted.
I would assume a team of high-powered lawyers sat down, probably internal counsel, to determine exactly the wording they needed to use to remove Donald Trump and avoid serious lawsuits.
They wrote, after close review of recent tweets from the Donald Trump account and the context around them, specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter, we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement to violence.
Now hold your horses there, my friends.
First, they mention how other people are interpreting them, not what was actually said.
They're also saying the risk of further incitement.
They did not say that Trump incited anyone.
Why?
Because internally, they know he didn't.
And if they said he did, Donald Trump could sue for defamation and have, in discovery, discovered actual malice.
They say, in the context of horrific events this week, made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the rules would potentially result in this very course of action.
Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly.
It is built upon a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
They said additional violations of the Twitter rules.
They did not say Trump violated any rules.
They did not say he incited anyone to violence.
That way, Trump has no real legal recourse in terms of their speech.
It's not defamation if you don't accuse him of doing anything.
They say.
However, we made it clear going back years, these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence among other things.
You see what they did there once again.
This is very important to break down the legal language here.
These accounts cannot be used to incite violence.
Again, they did not say Trump did, but they are trying to trick you using assumptive language to make you believe they are saying outright Trump did incite to violence.
This is evil.
They are manipulating the ignorant with assumptive language.
They say we will continue to be transparent around our policies, and that one is an outright lie.
Below is a comprehensive analysis.
They say based on these criteria, they believe that Donald Trump is glorifying.
And they do go on to say there is some potential, they say glorification of violence.
Trump's statement that he will not be attending the inauguration is being received by a number of supporters as further confirmation the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing the previous claim made in two tweets by his Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.
What?
Trump bullies are like, hey, I won't be there, just so you know.
He's basically saying the election is this, that, or otherwise.
The second tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the inauguration would be a safe target, as he will not be attending.
This is insane.
All he said was, I won't be there, and they're saying, aha, that was a signal to his supporters to attack.
What?
These people are crackpot conspiracy theorists, is what they are.
The use of the words American patriots to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the Capitol.
75 million people is not some, it's all of his supporters.
All of them.
Every single one.
The mention of his supporters having a giant voice, blah blah blah.
You get the point.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the Capitol.
It's funny.
When Antifa was organizing violence, they didn't take the tweets down.
I had to call them out on Rogan and show them, and they didn't take the tweets down.
At the end, they said, you know, why don't you tell us what the tweet was?
And I'm like, I'm not here to give you people's names so you can ban them.
I'm here to point out that you're not banning these people.
That you're lying.
Now we have this.
Barry Weiss says, multiple tweets have quoted the banality of evil, suggesting that people implementing our policies are like Nazis following orders, relays Yoel Roth to a colleague.
You see the game they're playing.
How they've gone from, Trump didn't break any rules, he's just telling people he won't be there and he's calling his supporters patriots.
They turned that into, actually he's talking about the rioters, actually he's telling them to attack, and therefore if we don't ban them, then the employees of Twitter are Nazis.
That is the level of derangement and manipulation that exists within this company.
Oh boy, it goes on.
One hour later, Twitter announces Trump's permanent suspension due to the risk of further incitement to violence.
Many at Twitter were ecstatic, cheering, celebrating.
Big props to whoever in trust and safety is sitting there whack-a-moling these Trump accounts.
The next day, employees expressed eagerness to tackle medical misinformation as soon as possible.
Well, that's right.
The game has changed.
We can shut down anyone if we can shut down a president.
Barry Weiss says, for the longest time, Twitter's stance was that we aren't the arbiter of truth, wrote another employee, which I respected, but never gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
But Twitter's COO Parag Agrawal, who would later succeed Dorsey as CEO, told head of security Mudge Zetko, he's the whistleblower by the way, I think a few of us should brainstorm the ripple effects of Trump's ban.
Centralized content moderation, IMO, has reached a breaking point now.
outside the U.S. Twitter's decision to ban Trump raised alarms, including with French
President Emmanuel Macron, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, and Mexico's President André
Manuel López Obrador. Macron told an audience he didn't want to live in a democracy where the
decisions—a democracy—where the key decisions were made by private players.
I want to be decided by a law voted by your representative or by regulation, governance, democratically discussed and approved by democratic leaders.
Merkel's spokesperson called Twitter's decision to ban Trump from its platform problematic and added that the freedom of opinion is of elementary significance.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny criticized the ban as an unacceptable act of censorship.
Now, that's interesting.
Berry says, ultimately, the concerns about Twitter's efforts to censor news about Hunter Biden's laptop, blacklist disfavored views, and ban a president aren't about the past choices of executives at a social media company.
They're about the power of a handful of people at a private company to influence the public discourse and democracy.
She says, this was reported by Schellenberger, Isaac Grafstein, Snoozy Weiss, Olivia Rheingold, Peter Savotnik, Nellie Bolas, and they say, follow our work on Twitter, at the FP.
Now there's more I want to highlight here.
A few things.
Notably this.
I tweeted this earlier today.
The Twitter files reveal that high-profile accounts required manual escalation for suspension.
Elon Musk, please release the Twitter files pertaining to the banning of James Lindsay at Conceptual James and the word Groomer.
Considering what we've seen from Yoel Roth, I think it is of utmost importance we learn exactly what they were saying about all of this.
But someone said this to me and we read it on IRL for a little bit.
And I want to read it and then just give you a little bit of my thoughts on what's going on.
Then go through some of these super chats.
Super chats.
18 US.
Code 242, Section 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.
It says, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this country, or to different punishments, pains, and penalties on account of such a person being an alien, or by reason of his color or race, that are prescribed for
the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than
one year or both.
And if bodily injury result from the acts committed in violation, blah, blah, blah,
you get the point. Now, the reason why I think this may be a bit silly to highlight is you can
argue that calling a protest and unlawful assembly would violate this law. But I do think that a
certain point, you have to ask yourself whether or not this law is being directly violated.
Of course, not by employees of a private company, but by the law enforcement agents that colluded with Twitter and Facebook to suppress the speech, the legal, legal speech of individuals.
The law enforcement agents who went to Twitter and said, hey, be on the lookout for this, Now they'll argue, we didn't break any laws.
You know, a lot of people have this movie view, this movie-esque vision.
of how the law works.
And they'll say, well, you know, those FBI agents who met with Twitter never told them to ban Trump, so that means they didn't break the law.
Do you think a judge interprets things that way?
Rats!
He didn't actually traffic in the drugs because he had them on a kite, and he wasn't actually carrying the drugs, and the law says whoever carries, possesses, or otherwise, man, they got us.
Yeah, right.
Judges interpret.
So if you can prove that some law enforcement agent went to Twitter and said, we don't think this content should be allowed, you may see it coming, just so you know, our opinion is that it should be removed.
Yeah, we get it.
You are acting in collusion with private companies to deprive someone of their rights.
Granted, again, I don't know to what extent this law would actually apply.
Someone just sent to me and said that we should read it and talk about it.
So, okay.
I want you to see this.
Lori Mills for CA Assembly 42.
She wrote, this evil tweet was allowed to stay while this one was not.
Referencing the tweet from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia calling for death.
Donald Trump on January 6th said, I am asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remain peaceful.
No violence.
Remember, we are the party of law and order.
Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
Thank you.
So hold on there a minute.
You can of course try to make the claim that Donald Trump was good, bad, whatever you want to say about him.
You can try to argue, if in a vacuum, that his tweets on January 8th were incitement.
I think that's ridiculous, and your argument is garbage.
But there is no way you can argue that when he tweeted this, and you apply that context.
Vijaya Gade is an evil person.
She lied to try and justify some kind of way to ban Trump.
Why?
Because they want to stop Trump.
They want to gut and destroy this country.
As George Carlin said, and I highlighted in the previous segment, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy when they all know what's good for themselves.
They all go to the same schools, they're friends with the same people.
In context, the January 8th tweets can never, never be interpreted as to glorify violence.
Why?
Because Trump said, we are the party of law and order.
We respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
So how could you claim that anything he said after that fact was secretly coded glorification of violence when he literally denounced it?
Because they're lying.
Because they lie.
Well, now we have the receipts.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I will add, thank you for putting the story out on a Monday, because this one, I think, is the biggest.
I'll tell you why I think it's the biggest.
As I stated early on, and just quickly to reiterate, we knew the government was colluding for some time.
We had a lawsuit out of California, I think it was California, maybe Colorado or Arizona.
But we knew that Twitter had emails with law enforcement.
And that was the start of it.
We then saw the lawsuit out of Missouri, where we actually got many of these emails.
We knew actually then, thanks to, I think it's Gateway Pundit, and I think it's Eric Schmidt, among many others, that was the hard evidence.
When the Twitter files dropped and we saw this, it's like, okay, here's hard receipts, you know, here's documentation, that's good.
But with these internal communications, we now know, despite their political biases, they had no justification for banning Donald Trump.
They knew they had no justification, and they lied to desperately try and justify it.
You can see the sophistry in real time, the hard evidence, everything we've been saying about bias against conservatives, bias against Trump, fake suspensions and manipulation of the platform.
It is laid out right there in front of you, plain to see.
We can speculate, and we quote-unquote know they're doing it because we're not morons, but now you have the receipts.
So I have to wonder.
Does this mean we may see lawsuits?
Maybe a class action?
When you sign up for Twitter, you agree to certain terms.
Twitter says they won't ban you unless you break the rules.
We now know that Twitter was actively banning people who didn't break the rules, and they were lying about it.
So what does that ultimately mean?
Well, let me know what you think.
Smash that like button if you haven't already.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share the show with your friends.
The next show's gonna be up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL, but in this special live version segment of the show, I will read just some of your superchats.
There actually aren't that many, so I'll just read through some, and I appreciate everybody who supported the segments here.
And I just want to say, as I'm here, I could use your thoughts and prayers for Mr. Bocas.
He is our cat.
He's on the website.
He is very sick.
His prognosis is poor.
He's receiving care from top vets, and we're gonna try and make sure that we can get him all the help that he needs to the best of our abilities.
He was a gutter kitty, so he has underdeveloped kidneys, meaning that eventually his blood cells, he stopped producing enough blood cells as he was using, and so he's getting weaker and weaker, and we didn't see any symptoms until it was very, very bad.
But would appreciate your support.
Alright, let's see what we got here.
Murph Try says, Tim, doesn't Trump or a PAC have a class action lawsuit with Twitter?
How would any of the dumps affect the suit?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I would speculate that now that we can see the internal communications, it's much more likely to get passed a motion to dismiss.
If you made a claim like, they accused me of saying or doing this, or they breached the contract in this way, they could say, there's no evidence to support this, we dismiss it.
And how do you prove it?
A judge is gonna be like, you have no reason to say this thing is happening just because you speculate.
Well, now we got receipts.
Now you can go to a judge and be like, look at this, they outright said Trump broke no rules, and then you can see, your honor, they desperately try to justify why and how it may be a rule violation, despite the fact, the previous tweet, he denounces violence.
I think a reasonable judge is gonna be like, yeah, they're lying.
But maybe you'll get a partisan judge, so who knows?
All right, Alec30 says, the most armed population in the world had an in-armed insurrection.
Yeah, right.
Exactly.
That's, that's, that's, exactly.
Classy Caribou says, Covfefe brand Covfefe.
Ah, yes, I actually have some samples.
from Jeremy's Coffee Brand Coffee.
It's really, really good stuff.
Shout out to The Courting.
His coffee's legit.
We are also launching our own coffee brand, and it's because we are launching a physical café.
And so, as part of that, we are going to have our own branded coffee.
And physical locations.
So, look, I know a lot of people do the coffee stuff.
I don't want to get into that.
But we did want to open a cafe for a variety of reasons.
For a physical location, as a hangout.
Here's the easiest thing.
A sandwich shop is tough.
A burger joint is hard.
Pizza is rough.
Coffee, relatively easy to open a coffee shop.
With the bare bones, we serve coffee, espresso.
We got a variety of milks and all that stuff.
But we needed coffee to do it.
So I said, alright, let's go for it.
So that's what we're going to do.
We're going to be launching our own coffee brand and we'll be sponsoring that.
We'll have a physical location that y'all will find out about once we get it set up, which hopefully will be soon.
Waffle Sensei says, Is it not treasonous conspiracy against the President of the United States?
What if it was another country controlling a tech platform?
Talking like this and then subverting that leader's ability to speak, ultimately costing him the election.
Yeah, they censored the Hunter Biden laptop too.
It was more than just banning Trump.
This whole thing, it's crazy.
Clay Bomb says, censorship is the biggest threat to Americans' individual rights in U.S.
history.
Twitter files is in the top three biggest scandals in modern U.S.
history.
Hear, hear.
All right, Joseph Henson says, I love how Tim makes me feel like eating some chocolate-covered espresso beans.
Boy, that's right.
Chocolate-covered espresso beans are, in fact, amazing.
What we're doing with our coffee is just, I think we're gonna have like five.
We're gonna have French Roast, Colombian, oh no, I think we might have four.
French Roast Columbian Breakfast Blend and a special Ultra Dark Blend, which I'm really excited for because that's the one that I like.
It's just, like, really dark.
And it's, you know, as I stated, Joe Ramirez says, Coffee Brand Coffee is for groomers.
Hey, that's not okay.
It is not.
But thanks for your money anyway.
No, shout out to Coffee Brand Coffee.
Legit.
I've been talking with Jeremy quite a bit about it.
So we'll see how things go.
We'll see how things go.
117 says, hey Tim, finally caught you live.
I have a friend who thinks Elon is faking all of this and is bribing people to not sue him.
Any tips as to show him how that's impossible and probable?
Bribing people not to sue him?
Who would sue?
Is it because he got Twitter and now he's liable for all the lawsuits?
I'll tell you this, man.
Maybe that was the reason he decided not to buy Twitter.
Trump announces he's going to buy the platform.
They agree to it.
Then someone goes to him and says, So what?
Once you own it, all those lawsuits are going to be coming after you?
And he went, oh.
Oh crap.
So how does that work?
Elon's the new owner of Twitter.
Twitter's the company that broke contract and did all these things.
Is Elon going to be liable for all that?
Maybe Elon said, OK, I have to buy it.
The only way past these lawsuits is to get them all dismissed as, I'm calling these things out.
I'm new management.
I did not do these things and we're rectifying them all.
Perhaps, perhaps.
I don't think so.
says Trump might be getting some of Elon's 44 billion.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Ice Castle says YouTube did this, Tim, too.
No difference in the malingering of accounts.
Maligning of accounts, you mean?
It says malingering?
Everybody knows Poole's number should be beyond the blue.
What does that mean?
YouTube did this, too, Tim.
I know that YouTube is suppressing and censoring stuff outright.
EekTheGad says, just here to shout out Chicken City.
Shout out, Chicken City.
Alright, let's grab some, a couple more Super Chats.
Let's see what we got here.
I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, How is this anything else but a coup against the Trump administration?
Treason for all.
And yes, armed men were part of this coup.
Fed agents are armed.
Not treason.
It's sedition.
Treason would be aiding and abetting a foreign adversary.
So if they were actively supporting, I don't know, Ukraine maybe, you can argue it was treason.
But we weren't, well actually no, we're not enemies.
It would have to be China.
An adversarial nation.
But we're not at war with China, so treason is hard to justify.
Sedition, however.
Sedition is basically just trying to subvert and destroy the government.
You betcha.
Through illegal means and conspiracy.
Another excellent point.
As they noted with that Anika woman, when she went to this January 6 hearing and said, oh, you know, I was warning them and warning them, yet behind the scenes she's like, no rules were broken, move on.
They were just showboating.
Eek the Cat says, for Mr. Kitty.
Thank you, thank you.
It's expensive, man.
So, Justin says, Tim, praying for Bocas.
I know you don't need the money, dude, but I love animals.
Feel free to pass it on.
I'm rooting for Kitty Cat.
Animals are too good for us.
So, Mr. Bocas.
was uh... a little lethargic but uh... I didn't notice anything too crazy and uh... we brought him to the vet and they said that uh... they told me he was mostly fine I think they were like make sure he doesn't eat dog food or something the issue is that we didn't do full blood work so over the next month or so he started getting... he was very thirsty he was peeing a lot and we noticed that as well and I said okay we gotta send him to the vet and then it was just uh... on friday friday night He came over, he walked down to where I was, and, because, you know, he goes outside only when it's warm out.
And, you know, sometimes it does.
And then we thought he was going to leave, but then we noticed that he just laid down.
And we were like, oh, so we're going to pick him up and bring him back to the house.
And when we brought him in, he just slumped down and just fell, straight in his face to the floor.
And I was immediately like, okay, it's been too much.
We brought him to the vet.
They said he was fine.
You know, we thought maybe he was constipated or whatever.
He went to the vet and they said his red blood cells were dangerously low.
And this is what the annoying thing is.
They said to us, maybe you should just bring him back and spend time with him.
And I said, what?
Like, that's it?
There's nothing we can do?
Well, it turns out there were things that could be done.
We went to a bigger hospital, an ER.
He got two blood transfusions.
His blood cell count improved from the blood transfusions.
He was put on IVs.
They say that he's spry.
He's ish.
He's doing well.
His prognosis is still very poor because it seems like his kidneys aren't working.
He's not producing enough red blood cells.
There's a hormone that needs to be released.
So then they said, look, we gave them the blood transfusions, we got them antibiotics, but it's not looking good.
We'll give you some updates.
Now we're learning, and this is really annoying, there's even stem cell options.
Here's what I think.
I think the issue is that it's very expensive.
It's already been like $6,000 for these treatments.
Everything we've done for them so far.
I think it's been like $5,000.
But they wanted a down payment to guarantee certain coverage, so we had to pay $6,000.
And they keep telling us, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
And then we keep pushing, we keep pushing, saying, there's nothing that can be done, nothing.
And they're like, well, there is a hormone treatment that will replace the kidney hormones.
And I'm like, so we can just put them on medication?
Like, yeah.
Like, why didn't you tell us that?
I think they just assume most people would let their pets die, and most people can't afford it, which I understand, but that's the frustrating thing to me.
And now, I'm doing my research, and these hospitals, these higher-end hospitals offer stem cell treatments.
Granted, $2,000 to $4,000 per treatment, and for a cat, I get it, most people won't do it.
And you might need a series of them.
So that's the tough thing.
You know, do you spend $10,000 to try and save your cat?
But we love Mr. Baucus.
He is our friend.
And if I can, I'm not going to just let him die.
So we will see what we have to do.
We'll see what we have to do.
The stem cell treatment can restore kidney function and he can live a much longer life.
They think it may be genetic.
He's got underdeveloped kidneys and he was an outdoor cat and he may be inbred.
So it is what it is.
We gave him a good life.
We did the best that he could.
So thank you for listening to me ramble on about Mr. Bocas and how much, you know, it means to me because I am deeply worried about him.
If you go to TimCast.com and click join us, you will see that Mr. Bocas is our center square talent for this company.
He's appeared in multiple thumbnails.
He's appeared behind me during segments.
Alex Stein held him in the thumbnail.
We very much deeply care for Mr. Bocas.
And I'm worried right now because he's currently at the ER and I don't like him being there for now, you know, since Friday.
I don't want to just leave him there.
And so this morning I was considering not working and just going to be there and just wait to figure out what they could do for him.
We called in the morning, and they said he's doing well.
He's eating.
He's drinking.
His blood cell count has improved.
So, we're gonna get him to internal medicine and see what the options are.
And I said, okay.
So long as he's doing, you know, well, I'm not gonna run out the door in a rush and abandon everything for him.
But, you know, if they call me up, and they say that he's taken a turn, I'm gonna be there with Mr. Bocas, and there will be no show.
I'm not going to.
You know, I thought about this this morning.
Because...
You know, I really want to do this work.
I really, really believe in just getting the work done, being there, reporting on the news, commenting on the news, and all of that stuff.
And as I was getting ready, I thought to myself, there will be no point in my life moving forward where I look back on this day and say, I'm so glad I talked about Elon Musk when I knew that my cat was dying.
They told me that he's doing alright, so I'm not going to drop everything and abandon my responsibilities because I have a cat.
But I will say, if they call me up and say that it's taking a turn and we're not sure we're going to be able to save him, then yes.
Because I will tell you, for any pet, for any family member, more importantly, but for any creature that I love, there will never be a time in my life where I will look back on this day and say, I'm so grateful that I did not go and say goodbye to my pet.
That'll never happen.
So that was the extended ending, I suppose.
Just so you all know, I really do appreciate everybody.
Thank you all so much for your support and hanging out.
Next segment will be tonight at 8 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We got more coming!
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The one thing I can't understand.
Why Elon Musk wants the Twitter files released on Friday and Saturday night.
Anybody who works in news, media, and PR, advertising, etc.
knows that Friday and Saturday night ...are where the news goes to die.
The one day that people usually pick, Friday night, and I'll tell you why.
Because people are working.
So, if you work at a media outlet, if you work for a political campaign, if you work for a big corporation, you're going to put out that press release Friday night, when your employees are in the office, and you're going to put it out at 5.
That way, The employees of all the other media outlets and all the companies are going home and thinking about relaxing and not working.
But here's the thing.
It's not just about the media.
It's also about individuals.
And I can tell you this from working in media and tracking ratings.
I would love nothing more than to work through the weekend, and I used to.
And there's a reason why a lot of people don't.
There's a reason why a lot of shows do Sunday through Thursday or Monday through Thursday instead of Monday through Friday.
We know that Fridays are low-traffic days because people, they want to get out.
They want to go hang out with their friends.
They want to socialize.
Saturday more so than Friday.
So when you put out a story on a Saturday, The only conclusion is you want the story dead.
But that makes no sense.
Elon Musk is choosing to release this information.
My only assumption could be that because Friday and Saturday are low-traffic days on Twitter, there's not a lot of political activity, Elon is hoping to boost traffic on weekends by releasing these files on Saturday.
Well, here's what ends up happening.
The big story today, this morning, pertaining to Elon Musk, is that he was viciously booed by stadium crowd at Dave Chappelle's show.
Okay, well, it was San Francisco, so I'm not really surprised he got booed.
I don't know.
But also, like, people in San Francisco want to go see Dave Chappelle, seriously?
The kind of people who would like Chappelle but boo Musk?
That's a weird group of people.
You're not woke, but you don't like Elon who's bringing back free speech, or maybe it's a lot of people who just don't know.
Dave Chappelle's a celebrity, they've seen his show before, they don't know a lot about the controversy, they just know Elon Man bad.
So Gizmodo's got this article, Elon Musk gets viciously booed.
You shut the F up, Chappelle.
Sad as the crowd.
Booed the billionaire?
Oh, we'll talk about the Twitter files from Saturday.
Don't get me wrong.
But this is the big story.
Now, of course, Gizmodo has, like, the worst possible framing.
They, like, outright call Elon Musk a prick, like, right in the beginning.
And it's like, okay, dude, we get it.
You don't like Musk.
That's stupid.
But I want to read this one anyway, and then we'll talk a little bit about the Twitter files from Saturday night.
And I'll tell you, boy, there are a lot of people who don't like me pointing out the obvious.
So I tweeted that, you know, we're at Korean BBQ.
It's not just about it being Saturday, it's also dinner time, okay?
Like, we're not working.
We're not able to adequately get this story out.
That's what's frustrating.
Some of the most shocking revelations Finally being released, and Elon's like, let's put it out at a time when people are with family, friends, or eating dinner.
Like, dude, I get it.
You want to put it out on Monday?
Fine, but if you put it out on Monday at 7 o'clock, that's a really hard sell.
Now for us, on Thursday we're doing, Thursday and Friday I think, we're doing Timcast IRL, and they put out Twitter files at like 7, 7.30, and it's like, okay, well we can grab that right before the nightly show, because we're an agile, fast-moving, kind of live hangout.
But the average publication, the average individual can't get that.
I get it, I get it.
People say he's trying to change the game.
But let's read about Dave Chappelle, along with Elon, what happened.
Gizmodo writes, Elon Musk, the billionaire who wants nothing more in life than to be adored by legions of fans.
Okay, that's clearly not the case.
Was loudly booed by a crowd in San Francisco on Sunday night, after he was invited on stage by comedian Dave Chappelle.
And the footage is pretty rough, even if you don't particularly like Musk.
You mean even if you do like Musk?
If you don't like him, you're gonna be laughing.
unidentified
If you do like him, you're gonna be like, oh man, they're really booing that guy.
But, uh, I gotta say, you watch the video and it is kinda cringe.
Like, why just stand there?
What's the point of bringing Elon on stage, especially in San Francisco?
I don't know.
Musk says, Dave, what should I say?
And then I like how Gizmodo's like Musk said, clearly desperate and getting embarrassed at the roar of booing.
Don't say nothing, it'll only spoil the moment.
Do you hear that sound, Elon?
That's the sound of pending civil unrest.
I can't wait to see what store you decimate next, Mother F-er.
You shut the F up.
The mood in the stadium definitely changed when Chappelle started to get hostile.
Says, I wish everyone in this auditorium peace and joy of feeling the peace and the joy of feeling free.
Chappelle said, clearly exhausted.
And your pursuit of happiness.
Amen.
At that point, Chappelle clearly decided to throw in the towel, thanking the crowd and saying goodnight, but a third video shows Chris Rock joining the stage.
One of the men on stage is asked by Chappelle to shout, you know, I'm rich, bitch, and then I guess Elon does.
Look, it was a mixed crowd.
I'm not surprised.
It's political partisanship.
Elon Musk gets on stage, half the people are going to be cheering.
You can hear people right up close cheering for him.
Half the people are going to be booing.
That's partisanship.
It's a crazy world that we live in, my friends, but I'm watching it all and I just feel like it's a slow motion collapse.
Slow motion, I guess.
The big news that's hitting right now for the average person.
Dave Chappelle, Elon Musk, booing.
This story was put up a few hours before reporting it, but let me show you this.
Well, let me give a shout-out to this tweet from Elon Musk.
Elon Musk said, the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters.
And Luke Rutkowski said, we are either in a mass awakening event or a total collapse of society.
And Elon said, exactly.
That exemplifies what I was just trying to say, that we're at an inflection point in this country.
With the Twitter files and everything that's going on, it feels like we may be watching the collapse or, you know, as Luke said, a great awakening.
I'm fairly optimistic.
With the optimism comes the negative, don't get me wrong.
We have a lot of good things happening, particularly with Elon Musk buying Twitter.
The Twitter file is getting released.
We're seeing every day that people are waking up.
At the same time, it means the institutions are crumbling.
I was thinking back to what it was like in the 80s, 90s.
With limited media, everybody just marched in lockstep.
Right now, you and I are very critical of those who are marching in lockstep.
But back in the day, we all would have been too.
During the 90s, when the news was the news and that's all you got?
Well, you'd believe what everyone else believed.
But now you have options.
And within those options, you have people saying no to the CIA-FBI narrative machine.
I know, I know, not every single person is CIA, FBI.
I'm saying the intelligence agencies work on these stories.
They work to control public opinion.
They can't do it as well anymore because of the internet.
And censoring social media just makes them look like China, so hey, rockin' a hard place.
But I have questions.
If it is a Great Awakening and not a collapse, why publish at 6.28 p.m.
on December 10th, Twitter Files Part 4?
Michael Schellenberger.
The removal of Donald Trump January 7th.
As the pressure builds, Twitter executives billed the case for a permanent ban.
Okay, there's a lot of reasons for this.
What's the story?
Well, the story's fairly interesting.
It's not the biggest Twitter files drop.
It's just Yoel Roth and some employees talking about how they want to censor things.
Let me tell you first my issue with the Twitter-style release.
We've learned from these journalists and personalities that they are being granted access to these files in exchange for some simple terms.
They must publish the story on Twitter.
Okay.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
Only three tweets.
There's only three.
He says, as pressure builds, Twitter executives, blah, blah, blah.
It then says, on January 7th, senior execs create justifications to ban Trump.
It then says, indeed, notes Rothschild.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
Only three tweets.
There's only three.
Where's the rest of the Twitter thread?
In order to see it, you have to actually click this third tweet, and then you realize
Twitter just naturally skipped over the entirety of the thread.
Putting the news on Twitter is Elon's attempt at generating more users.
It is smart in a certain respect.
He's got something of public interest that he can release because he now owns it.
It's going to get people on the platform.
It's going to get regular people wanting to read the news in this way that I get.
But Saturday night, I guess the issue is Elon does not want the news to write about it.
Because it's more important to build up Twitter than it is to actually get the story out about what happened with big tech censorship.
Now, I don't completely disagree with Elon, but I don't completely agree with him, and I don't know exactly if that is his plan.
But if I was going to do a critical assessment, I would say the reason Elon is doing this at night, not say Monday morning, the best time would probably be Tuesday at 11 a.m.
If he did release this Tuesday at 11 a.m., what would happen is that every single news outlet would then write the story up, and people would get the news filtered through news outlets.
Elon wants to bypass the corrupt news establishment, so he's having them put out on Twitter and on a weekend.
Meaning, the only way to consume the news is through that Twitter thread, for the most part, until someone comes up and actually starts breaking the story down.
But, I think it's still better, in my opinion, that news outlets write about it, and individuals have access to both the Twitter thread and the news reporting.
Saturday night is where news goes to die.
So you have to weigh the pros and the cons here.
Is it going to bypass the corporate press?
A little bit, yeah.
But in doing so, it's reducing its exposure.
So what's the strategy?
Is the strategy that if the media gets a hold of this, they'll lie about it anyway?
We've already seen with the previous Twitter file releases that a bunch of these companies just downplayed it and said it was a nothing burger.
Maybe that's the plan.
I think it's much simpler than that, my friends.
I think Elon Musk is looking at his traffic numbers and he can see that Monday goes up, Tuesday is really big, Wednesday peaks, Thursday goes down, Friday tanks, Saturday is gone, Sunday starts coming back.
I just feel like these documents pertaining to Donald Trump's removal and what's going on are so important, we need to maximize their reach.
And that would mean something like Tuesday at 11 a.m., I guess.
Give everybody an opportunity to write about it.
It would be mainstream evening news.
You'd have left and right.
Everybody's talking about it.
So what's the game here?
Well, it could be that by limiting access to the story to those who would read mainstream media, the only way to actually consume the news is to get it through Twitter, but I just don't see it.
I gotta be honest.
I don't see regular people being like, wow, I really want to learn about Elon Musk and what happened with Twitter.
I better sign up for Twitter and go check this out.
But does it matter how many?
One is enough, right?
What does Elon have to lose?
So Michael Schellenberger goes through one, two, and three, and I'll tell you this.
Some people have also said the reason why this was released Saturday is because it's actually not a big story.
These Twitter files are some of the least consequential.
They're important, right?
It shows us the biases of Yoel Roth.
And, I mean, that's about it.
Basically saying that they view Trump politics as bad and should be removed.
Talking about how Jack, quote, just approved repeated offender for civic integrity, meaning they could now get close to banning Donald Trump, which they really, really wanted to do.
The story isn't that big.
Michael says Roth's colleagues query about incitement to violence heavily foreshadows what will happen the following day.
On January 8th, Twitter announces a permanent ban on Trump due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
They just made it all up.
The one thing we get out of this thread, the Twitter files, is that we learn, you can actually see in the messages released, that these employees are overt partisans trying to justify banning things they don't like regardless of if they know they're true or not.
Here's a funny one.
Schellenberger reports, Roth immediately DMs a colleague to ask that they add Stop the Steal and Kraken to a blacklist of terms to be deamplified.
Roth's colleague objects that blacklisting Stop the Steal risks deamplifying counterspeech that validates the election.
And also, the word Kraken?
It's a word!
Indeed, notes Roth's colleague, a quick search of top StopTheSteal tweets and their counterspeech.
But they quickly come up with a solution.
Deamplify accounts with StopTheSteal in name profile, since those are not affiliated with counterspeech.
Interesting.
Here's the funny thing about, uh, I think, where do they have the Kraken one?
Here we go.
He says, but it turns out that even blacklisting Kraken is less straightforward than they thought.
That's because Kraken, in addition to being a QAnon conspiracy theory, is also the name of a cryptocurrency exchange and was thus allow-listed.
Amazing.
Kraken.
So you couldn't talk about Pirates of the Caribbean.
You know, you got Captain Jack Sparrow right here, remember?
At the end of the second one when the Kraken comes and eats him.
Couldn't talk about it.
Deboosted.
That's the name of the game.
And we're seeing exactly that.
Interesting.
So some have said that, uh, you know, they knew the story wasn't that big.
That's why they decided to release it on a Saturday.
Uh, no.
If the story's not big, that's the one story you want to put out on Tuesday, right?
So, think about it this way.
If you've got Twitter files that shows, you know, Yoel Roth talking about committing a crime, something very serious, and outright saying, like, we are gonna steal, we are gonna metal, blah blah blah.
You put that one out on a Saturday because then everyone is going to want to read it.
Big story does not need a reach boost.
But you got a small story about how they were like banning the word Kraken, that's got to go up Tuesday at 11 to maximize the reach.
Well, it didn't happen, man.
So what can I say?
I can't read Elon Musk's mind.
I don't know exactly why he wants them released this way.
I would say it's clearly to get users onto Twitter.
But Elon, this is one of the worst possible ways to deliver and consume the news.
There are a lot of people that are happy that Elon's doing this.
Totally agree.
Totally get it.
This is good stuff.
But it's remarkable to see how many people are failing to realize this is a net negative release.
The style of tweets, slow-rolled, very slowly coming out, on an evening, on the weekend, is just, like, really, really trying to kill the story.
I don't think Elon's trying to kill the story.
Let me clarify.
I think what he's trying to do is utilize the fact that he's got direct access to these documents to stretch out as long as possible people being on Twitter.
Then he can come out and say, look how our active users have increased.
Someone pointed something else out.
This is revenge.
You know, he wanted to buy the platform.
Then he decided not to, but they forced him to do it.
So he's like, okay.
If you make me do it, I will make you suffer.
But I do have some questions.
Why is Yoel Roth uncensored, but these other people are censored?
I want to know who these people are.
Do they still work at Twitter?
There's some interesting revelations coming out about Yoel Roth that, um, they're kind of scary.
That's one way to put it.
He's, uh, very much interested in children and adult content.
And, uh, well, you know.
So we'll go through that and I'll clarify and all that.
But there's a bunch of tweets, DMs, his PhD thesis itself.
These are crazy days, my friends.
We are entering Christmas.
You know, I got half of mine to just take the rest of the month off.
For those that follow me on Twitter, you know that our good friend Mr. Bocas is sick, and we don't know how bad it is, but You know, it's kind of things like that that make you take stock of everything.
Take stock.
Especially during the holidays.
You know, we got some Christmas lights put up.
I don't know if you can see the Christmas stuff all over the place.
Christmas lights.
But Mr. Bocas is the Castle Cat, and he's got kidney disease.
So, we don't know how much time he has left.
But this is the sad reality of life.
So I look at all this stuff, especially now, with the stresses of the holidays, and the good stresses, you know, you're trying to get to family, you're trying to get presents and all that stuff, and you take a look at just the level of interest from the average person, and I guess what I'm trying to get to is this.
Not only is it a bad idea to release on a Saturday, but it's like we're a couple weeks out from Christmas.
This is just... I don't know, man.
I don't know what his plan is.
It's hard enough to do shows when everyone's got family on the mind.
It's hard enough to cover the news when it's on a Saturday evening.
You know, I had people saying to me, like, oh, Tim can't interrupt his weekend for breaking news affecting the country, and it's like, interrupt my weekend?
Yo, I work weekends.
What I can't do is just dinner in general.
It makes it really hard to track.
But more importantly, the reason why I don't put out, I don't do live recordings on Saturday, like this one, we do clips from Timcast IRL, is because, what is it like, 80% of people won't watch it!
And so the concern is, if a big story happens, like this, and then I say, let's record this Saturday and get it up right away, nobody sees it!
I want people to know what's happening, so we save it for Monday.
The issue is, you get this.
This is the dominant headline.
Elon is trending for being booed, not for the leaks or the releases.
Look, look, look, I'll say it right now, the releases aren't even that big from Saturday.
So, okay, fine, fair point.
It's basically just giving you insight into how these people were banning for political reasons, which we know and understand, and it's interesting to see them actually talk about it, so that's good.
But other than that, that's about what it is.
Yoel Roth, you can see him and the other staff members' political biases and how they're like, we gotta ban this stuff.
And this is the way I framed it.
When they announced that they were gonna be banning QAnon stuff, it's evil.
You do not have a right to determine what people are allowed to say in contribution to the public spaces.
I'll tell you why.
I had a conversation with Moxie Marlin Spike, the hacker, and he explained to me the very simple reason why people need to be able to communicate publicly.
And to an extent even break some laws.
Non-violent civil disobedience.
He said, right now we're seeing marijuana legalized across the country.
How would we know we want it legalized or decriminalized if we couldn't try it or even talk about it?
It's a good point.
We need to be able to communicate even bad ideas.
How are we supposed to know if something is true or false if we just allow censors to shut everything down?
Now, I think the QAnon stuff is almost entirely false.
Almost entirely because some of it is simple enough to where it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I'm sure Media Matters will love that one.
But no, but a lot of this stuff was just vague and nebulous and hard to decipher and just outright wrong.
I think people are allowed to say it.
And then maybe I'll be wrong.
But the only way that can happen is if people are allowed to speak.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will just say, you know, lastly before I go, I will request your prayers for Mr. Bocas.
You know, this is, uh, uh, it's, it's tough.
He is, he is a good friend.
He is, he is the cat who hangs out at the castle, and he's been on the shot a couple times.
You know, Alex Stein has been holding him, and we don't know exactly what happened, but for those that are curious, he has underdeveloped kidneys, and, uh, it could be because he was a gutter cat, inbred, maybe, malnourished, and, uh, we gave him a good life, but he's been slowly getting weaker, and what they said was that he, his body isn't producing enough red blood cells, and it's, he, he's, he's just pissing them out.
So, it may be really, really bad.
There are options.
We'll see.
But, man, these are tough times.
Kidney dialysis and a blood transfusion, you know, once a week, it's like 10 grand or something to save him from, you know, for this.
And so, what do you do?
What do you do?
It's tough.
We don't want him to die.
And, uh, I don't care if he is a cat or otherwise.
He is a friend and we are loyal to our friends.
But, uh, you know, tough questions about what you can do.
And I will lastly say that, um, It is better to have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery.
And that means that we afforded Mr. Bocas his choices to do his thing, and it may be that what ultimately happened was genetic for his kidneys, and due to malnourishment.
It seems leaning that way, but it could be a disease or something.
Hopefully antibiotics take care of it.
And we can give him these hormone treatments to, you know, and then just keep him on medication.
But, you know, if he lived a good life, and he lived the way he chose, we will do what we can to keep him alive.
But, you know, be proud of that.
We should be proud and recognize that dangerous freedom is the preferable choice.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
For the longest time, we knew that on Twitter, child exploitation content, photos and videos
were proliferating.
And for some reason, Twitter did not make it a priority.
After Elon Musk took over, all of a sudden it became a top priority and was purged seemingly
overnight.
We have several bits of analysis talking about why that may be.
From SuperContra by Pedro Gonzalez, Yoel Roth, Gay Data and Child Exploitation on Twitter.
Did the former head of Trust and Safety's views on underage sex influence Twitter's content moderation policies?
This individual has a series of tweets being uncovered talking about how, uh, well, just, let's just say inappropriate.
Just inappropriate tweets.
And he didn't care.
He didn't care.
He was posting things that would be shocking to the average person, but he did not care.
Why?
He lives in San Francisco.
The people there weren't going to shun him or ostracize him.
They were going to say thank you for promoting this stuff to children.
This then spreads around the country.
So we have that viral clip going around of Elon Musk being booed on the stage with Dave Chappelle in San Francisco, but of course he's being booed in San Francisco.
The worldview of San Franciscans was being exported to everyone else.
Now, I want to show you a clip before we read about how Yoel Roth was... Well, Elon Musk... I'll put it this way.
Elon Musk posted that Yoel Roth was advocating for minors, for children and young people, to get access to online sex services.
Why?
Why?
It should be for adults.
It should not be for young people.
Well, when you see that, you may start to understand why it is no one was doing anything about the exploitation on Twitter.
You may think, with what we know about Epstein, there's a grand conspiracy, and that the more we learn about what's going on behind the scenes at Twitter and other platforms, it seems like it's intentional.
And it may be.
But I want to play for you a clip first, to help you understand George Carlin, he's very brilliant.
unidentified
There is no national conspiracy to buy elections and control America.
You don't need a formal conspiracy.
When interests converge, these people went to the same universities and fraternities,
they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs,
they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them, and they're getting it.
And there used to be seven oil companies in America.
There are now three.
It will soon be two.
The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice.
There are two political parties.
There are a handful of insurance companies.
There are about six or seven information.
But if you want a bagel, there are 23 flavors because you have the illusion.
So when they ask you, is there some grand conspiracy to promote grooming and all of that stuff?
There doesn't need to be.
What we know is that these people live in the same place, they work for the same companies, they hire their friends.
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy.
Birds of a feather flock together.
They seek out positions of power so they can gain influence, and they are doing it.
So this guy, Yoel Roth, or however you pronounce it, he holds these views.
Nobody fires him.
He tweets these things.
Nobody fires him.
Why?
Because they know what's good for them.
And the people who were flying on that plane with Epstein and going to that island, you think they're going to pull their investment when they see someone advocating for their desires?
Of course not.
This is one thing I explain to people about the media.
There is no grand conspiracy at media to bribe journalists to get them to report only favorable news.
There doesn't need to be.
What these media companies do, they go into a room and say, we're hiring.
10 people all raise their hands and say, I'd like a job.
And they go, OK, what's your politics?
And the person goes, I'm moderate, moderate, moderate, conservative, moderate, liberal.
OK.
Hey, you over there, you're hired.
They hire the people who naturally have liberal worldviews, and that way, the only message that goes out is the message that they want.
They don't need to conspire with the journalists or with anybody else.
They hire these people on purpose.
Yoel Roth has a PhD, presumably, in what do they call it?
The ethnography of using Grindr or something like that is what people are calling it.
Why do you think Twitter hired him?
Do you think that he showed up and they said, so are you good at coding?
And he was like, I have a PhD in using gay dating apps.
And they were like, you're hired.
Why?
Is it a grand conspiracy?
I guess you can call it whatever you want.
It is powerful groomer interests hiring people who they believe will share their worldview.
Pedro Gonzalez writes, On Friday, Elon Musk revealed that Twitter had refused to take action on child exploitation for years.
His comments came in response to news that Ann Collier, Erliany Abdurahman, and Leslie Podesta, Democrat operative John Podesta's niece, resigned from Twitter's Trust and Safety Council.
Isn't it funny?
John Podesta's niece was on the council?
Very strange, don't you think?
That rubbed ex-CEO Twitter Jack Dorsey the wrong way, who flatly replied to Musk, this is false.
Musk, in turn, dressed down Dorsey.
He responded that when Ella Irwin, who now leads Trust and Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety.
Musk also noted that Ned Seagal and Parag Agrawal, who briefly served as Twitter CEO, rejected Irwin's request for more resources to tackle the issue.
Musk swiftly fired Seagal and Agrawal for taking over the company and made it a top priority immediately.
But the story took an even stranger turn when it came to light that Yoel Roth, the former head of Trust and Safety, appears to have, let us say, progressive views of what constitutes appropriate relations between adults and minors.
Some people, like human trafficking survivor advocate Eliza Blue, ...have suggested that this might explain why Twitter has been unwilling or unable to combat things like child exploitation on the platform.
In his doctoral dissertation entitled Gay Data, Roth argued that minors should have access to Grindr, an app that enables gay men to instantly pinpoint each other using GPS technology.
Okay, it's a dating app.
Calm down.
Make no mistake, as Vice News colorfully puts it, Grindr is more about hooking up than dating.
It's basically a 24-7 merry-go-round of sex in your immediate locale, and uses geolocation to provide an approximate location of the closest users to serve up on the nearby grid.
Roth, who is gay, noted in his paper that he was documenting and analyzing my own use of these services.
As of December 11th, Roth's dissertation has been withdrawn from the University of Pennsylvania's website.
However, it is still available to readers through the Wayback Machine.
In one section, Roth wrote, While gay youth-oriented chat rooms and social networking services were available in the early 2000s, these services have largely fallen by the wayside in favor of general-purpose platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat.
Perhaps this is truly representative of an increasingly absent demand among young adults for networked spaces to engage with peers about their sexuality.
But it's worth considering how, if at all, the current generation of popular sites of gay network social ability might fit into an overall queer social landscape that increasingly includes individuals under the age of 18.
To put it simply, Now, they'll keep lying and saying they're not groomers, but you don't have to listen to them because they're lying.
Not all LGBT people are groomers.
Not all groomers are LGBT people.
They're saying that because they want to shield pedophiles under the guise of the LGBTQ community.
That is to say, they want to call you a bigot, a homophobe, a transphobe, if you oppose grooming.
He says, even with the service's extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hookup-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers.
But the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can't readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture.
Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr, including possibly their role in safely connecting queer young adults.
Okay.
Look.
Young people hook up.
And there are young queer people.
I get it.
But allowing young people to utilize an app where there are adults on the platform is a recipe for disaster.
This is what grooming is.
Incrementalization.
That's how it works.
And it may not be intentional.
It may be emergent.
And what I mean by that is, if someone came out and said they wanted to make an app for minors to date or whatever, Then people might say, hey, that's inappropriate.
Kids should not have these mechanized systems.
If someone came out right and just said they wanted kids to do it, they would face backlash.
People would question.
Well, you know, I had a... I'm talking to this leftist guy about the Project Veritas expose last week, where the dean is talking about giving butt plugs, among other objects, to children.
And this leftist guy said, well, it's fine.
It's educational.
And I'm like, there it is.
If ten years ago, you would have told someone that they would be cheering and defending butt plugs being handed out to children in a school, they'd say, oh, shut up!
That's not what we're talking about.
But here we are.
If you don't hold the line, this is what happens.
Now, for Yoel Roth, he advocates for dating apps where minors can use it, right?
I mean, there are adults on the platform.
So what happens?
You open the door.
You're opening the door for adults to start talking to kids.
It's already bad enough that they can't on the internet, and you got these pedo-hunter groups that try and shut it down.
But you learn a lot about what this guy really wanted.
Oh, and there's more.
Former Twitter exec Yoel Roth asked if teens could meaningfully consent to sex with teachers in 2010.
Why?
Jack Posobiec says, if only there had been some warning signs about Yoel Roth.
Considering his Twitter history, why was he hired?
His history and his PhD specialize on sex, not trust and safety.
They probably hired him on purpose, in my opinion, knowing that he would espouse views and enforce the rules in ways that shaped things to benefit groomers.
Surprise, surprise!
Groomers started becoming a popularized term, thanks in part to James Lindsay.
Mostly to James Lindsay.
I made a few tweets calling out groomers, and Twitter locked my account because of it.
One of them was a picture of an adult male wearing revealing clothing showing sexual images to children.
I'm like, that outright is grooming.
They locked my account and said delete it or else.
Okay, well, you know, I don't care about Twitter that much.
You know, a lot of people are like, no, I won't take the tweet down.
I was like, I'll just tweet something similar.
And I'll tweet about it.
So I took it down.
Yeah, it's stupid that you had to.
But why is Twitter enforcing these rules?
Why did Yoel Roth's team decide that calling out pedophiles was a bannable offense?
I never said anything bad about the LGBT community.
I said, groomers are bad.
They're grooming kids.
And he went, don't insult the people that way.
Makes me wonder about Yoel Roth's predilections and what he's interested in when he asks about if children can meaningfully consent with their teachers.
Libs of TikTok says, the more we learn about Yoel Roth, the more I'm understanding why he despised my account so much and wanted to personally be the one to suspend my account all those times.
Well, that's interesting.
Based on what you see here from Yoel Roth, the actions he's taken, the things he censored, I feel like the average person might make the ghastly accusation that Yoel Roth's a pedophile.
Or they might accuse Roald Roth of having pedophilic intentions or desires.
That's what I believe the average person might accuse of this man based on the things he said.
They might levy those charges against him.
What do you think?
I mean, I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not a mind reader.
I'm not a mind reader.
But this guy's got a series of tweets.
So much so that we've got a bunch of individuals, several individuals, documenting this.
Leftism4u says, well now we know why we weren't allowed to say groomer without getting banned or suspended.
Can high school students meaningfully consent to you all, Rod asks?
He says I'm looking to start a project.
Teen targeted gay social networking.
Grad student I'm staying with.
You're not that innocent.
I know about your secret dirty Twitter account.
Guilty as charged.
Let me show you the one that everyone's bringing up.
It was quote tweeted from a guy, Adam Griffiths.
Otterrific is the secret account of Yoel Roth.
He admits as such.
He wrote, muscle bear with beard, hot, muscle bear with beard holding a child, inexplicably hotter.
Muscle- I'm sorry, Muscle Bear.
Well, that's interesting.
I believe they show... Someone has a bunch of posts.
Uh, Muscle Bear is some kind of porn magazine, I guess?
I don't know.
I don't know what it is.
You get the point.
Oh, here it is, right.
Muscle Bear.
Euro Bear.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's not Euro- It's- It's- It's a Euro- It's called Euro Bear, huh?
What is this?
It's not not safe for work when you're work involved looking at a ton of bear porn.
That's right.
Yep.
Euro bear.
He's talking about porn with children involved.
I'm being careful in the language that I use.
You understand.
But now do you understand why they aren't taking down child exploitation?
But they were banning people for saying groomer.
James Lindsay was banned for calling out pedophiles.
I received two suspensions and they instructed me I had to delete my tweets.
In order to take action against an account with more than 10,000 followers, the Twitter files revealed they needed to reach up to the highest levels.
I got 1.4 million followers.
High profile.
Requires an escalation.
That means when I called out groomers, they personally intervened knowing that I was not talking about LGBT people.
It was specifically individuals who were showing sex, sexualized images to kids.
They personally intervened.
That's the Twitter files.
How disgusting and insane.
Well, Elon Musk is certainly a different kind of person.
Prosecute and Fauci.
Elon Musk teases Twitter files on COVID.
He says these are his pronouns.
His pronouns are prosecute and Fauci.
I want to make sure you understand this, my friends.
The highest echelon of Twitter.
I had tweeted Learn to Code.
No action taken against me.
At the time, I had a few, maybe a couple hundred thousand followers.
I now have 1.4 million!
That's crazy.
Appreciate everybody who follows me.
They personally flagged my tweet, sent it to the top.
So Elon, I'm interested in all of the communications.
I want to see what they were saying about James Lindsay when they were debating taking his Twitter account down for calling out groomers.
I want to know what they were saying about me when they personally intervened to suspend my account for me calling out groomers.
Media Matters tries oh so hard.
And so did the Daily Dot.
But I'll say it again.
My opinion is that if you are actively protecting and defending pedophiles, it must be, or may be, because you are one.
There's no reason to protect these people.
They can go to jail.
They can keep their mouth shut.
They can mind their own business.
They want to start trying to influence society to normalize their disgusting, Whatever you want to call it.
Predilections.
Then we can go in, we can call them out, we can take the stuff down.
They will not normalize this.
We will not allow it.
There is a line.
The line is way before we get to this point.
But somehow we got close.
So I want to know what they're saying behind the scenes.
When they're actively defending.
Why did Media Matters get angry that I said in a long video that, I believe it was Media Matters and the Daily Dot, when I said, Groomer does not refer to LGBTQ people.
Groomer refers to groomer.
And there are groomers who are straight.
There are groomers who are white.
And there are groomers who are male.
There are groomers who are straight white men.
trying to groom children to be trafficked and exploited and some of them are gay and some of them are are are lesbians and some of them are bi or trans because people are capable of all of these things in fact i'd be willing to bet willing to bet how much you want to bet most groomers straight dudes targeting young girls and you might be you might be saying haha well look It's going to be mostly straight white men.
