Tim Pool Daily Show - Trump "America First" Tariffs Are WORKING, Liberals SPEECHLESS

All Episodes

Dec. 11, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:05:43

Trump "America First" Tariffs Are WORKING, Liberals SPEECHLESS

Participants

Main voices

jaime rogozinski

28:39

tate brown

32:39

Appearances

tim pool

01:09

Clips

al green

00:49

rick santelli

00:43

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		What is going on, everybody?
		Happy Thursday.
		We are on the final day of our week here for the Tim Cast Daily Show.
		This is me, your host, Tate Brown here, holding it down for Timpool, and I am taking you into the afternoon of our Rumble Daily lineup.
		This is really something.
		We are coming down to the finish line here, and I gotta say, as it stands right now, this will be the last Tim Cast Daily Live Show in our current studio compound.
		Next week, we'll be live from Las Vegas.
		It's gonna be really tremendous.
		I was taking a look at the studio setup.
		It's gonna be a pretty cool setup.
		So we'll be hosting live from there.
		We'll have this lame background, this office depot-looking background.
		And we got producer Surge in the house.
		Surge, give the people a word.
unidentified		What's up, guys?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		What is up, guys?
		That's so true.
		He has a way with words.
		English is his second language.
		You know, he's one of these weird international kids, South African.
		I don't know those Afrikaans.
		Is there an intro you could give in Afrikaans?
unidentified		Is that a thing?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
		I couldn't have said it any better myself.
		We have a great show for you guys today.
		We have a lot of news to get into.
		There's a lot of news, and a lot of this is more politico news.
		Really exciting stuff.
		You probably saw from the title.
		The trade deficit numbers came out.
		Obviously, this report was delayed because of the government shutdown.
		It was delayed by about 45 days, but the numbers have finally come out.
		And the free trade sales are down bad.
		They're down really bad.
		Trump's tariffs worked.
		Trust the plan.
		This is why you trust the plan.
		We'll play a video from CNBC.
		Sort of stunned to see the numbers coming in.
		Everyone from around the space couldn't believe it.
		Even people on the right were like, I know they're working.
		I know they're working that well.
		So we got great news on the trade deficit front.
		We also have Congress, as usual.
		Not only are they useless, but in many ways, they are working against the Trump administration.
		This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.
		We had the federal unions.
		Trump was effectively trying to hamstring these federal unions.
		These federal unions, sort of this managerial class that has been blanketed over our government, these are unelected bureaucrats that really, in many ways, run the show.
		Trump's been trying to chip away at their power.
		And one of the avenues he used to chip away at their power is by effectively banning federal unions.
		Now, he can't outright ban federal unions, but what he's done in this case is he passed or he signed into action a executive order to basically take away collective bargaining rights from federal workers.
		And this, in turn, effectively hamstrings these unions.
		There's not much they can do without collective bargaining.
		So Congress now, in a shocking turn of events, Republicans crossed the aisle to screw over Trump.
		I know.
		I know.
		It's probably shocking to everybody in the audience, but it really is something.
		So we're going to dive into that.
		We'll take a look at that.
		And also the Texas redistricting.
		Obviously, we saw the map come through a few weeks ago.
		And most notably, Al Green's going to be updating his resume any day now.
		But before he's officially on LinkedIn with the Open to Work badge on his profile picture, he has tried to, he just passed or he just introduced legislation to, you're not going to believe this, impeach Trump.
unidentified		I know.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I know it's crazy.
		Maybe the walls are finally closing in on the president here.
		Do you think Al Green and his last action before he's applying to Walmart or whatever?
		Do you think his last action is going to be to impeach Donald Trump?
		We'll see.
		We'll see.
		Who knows?
		Maybe this time is different.
		These libs have tried this a million times.
		Maybe they'll get lucky this time.
unidentified		We'll see.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		We'll get into that.
		And we will be joined at the half-hour mark by Jamie Rogosynski.
		He's unbelievable.
		I think I nailed the name.
		He's like, I really have these problems.
		I have trouble with these Polish last names.
		I mean, I barely have my head wrapped around Pesobic.
		I said Pesobiac for the longest time, and he actually judo-chopped me in the throat in the studio.
		It was really something.
		And I called the police.
		They said, sorry, sir, you have no case here.
		You mispronounced a Polish last name.
		You should have known that that was going to happen.
		A judo chop is actually, I didn't know this.
		If you comb through the legal code, the Polish are allowed to judo chop you in the throat if you mispronounce their last name.
		I didn't know that.
		I should have known, but I didn't know that.
		I'm not a legal expert.
		But with that, we have some great news.
		I got to find my mouse.
		We got two.
		There we go.
		I see my mouse.
		So with that, we got some great, we got a great show for you today.
		So let's get into the news.
		But first, we have a word from our fantastic sponsors for today's show.
		First up, I'm going to fake you guys out.
		I'm going to switch it up on you guys.
		We have Boonies first.
		Usually I lead in with Casper.
unidentified		I know.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I'm trying to throw you guys off.
		It's Thursday.
		It's our last day here at our West Virginia compound.
		So I wanted to change things up, keep you guys on your toes like a midget at a urinal.
		So with that, we have some fantastic products here.
		28th Minute Board is sold out.
		Sorry, you had your chance.
		The train has left the station.
		The plane has left the wherever planes bored at.
		We have some great products here.
		We got some boards.
		If you're into skating, if you're not in the skating, it could be a wall ornament.
		Who knows?
		It's up to you to decide.
		Or, I mean, you can do whatever you want with these boards.
		Honestly, once you buy it, there's nothing we can do.
		It's not like Ferrari where we keep tabs on you.
		So you buy the board.
		You can do whatever you want to it.
		I don't know what you freaks want to do with these things.
		You delinquents.
		Who knows?
		Trust me, Serge.
		You do not want to see what I do with my board.
		I'll tell you that much.
		With that, we also have some great products.
		We got bumper stickers.
		We got shirts.
		We got a sticker here.
		I mean, this is really unbelievable.
		Unbelievable stuff.
		So head on over to the shop.boonieshq.com.
		Get you some swag.
		Next up, we got Casper Coffee.
		Oh my gosh.
		I love Casper so much.
		I've drank a lot.
		I'm not on much sleep right now.
		So I've been just chugging this stuff.
		I mean, it is really some next level stuff.
		Serge, you want to give a quick thoughts?
		I know you've been also not sleeping much.
		Do you have any sort of anecdotes you can give about Casper coffee?
unidentified		Alex Stein's is strong.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Definitely stronger.
		Okay, well, there you go.
		You get the surge, surge stamp of approval on the Alex Jones or the Alex Jones, Alex Stein special.
		Unfortunately, it's sold out.
		Fake out.
		You got faked out.
		Nice try.
		Well, you know, it happens.
		But good news is we have other blends available for you.
unidentified		Golden house good, too.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
unidentified		It's true.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		We go to page two.
		We got Ian's Graphene Dream.
		Oh my goodness.
		He's been hyping up the graphene.
		Well, go get a bag and see for yourself.
		See what all the fuss is about.
		We got Mary's Ghost Blend.
		Scary, scary stuff.
		And the pool water is sold out.
		I don't know what's going on.
		I have one behind me, so I already have my pool water.
		I'm hanging on to it.
		I'm waiting for the value to go up.
		I think in a year, the pool water could be approaching Bitcoin prices.
		And we will have Jamie Rogosinski later on to discuss all sorts of things just like that.
		But with that, let's get into the news.
		First of all, we have this huge story coming from Reuters.
		I got ads all over the place.
		I'm not on Brave like Tim.
		That's my fault.
		Just ads left and right.
		I don't know what's going on.
		But you know what?
		You got to do what you got to do.
		From Reuters, U.S. September trade deficit lowest in more than five years as good exports soar.
		Let's take a look here at what the article has to say.
		Let's see what Reuters has to say.
		The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in September, touching the lowest level in more than five years as experts accelerated, as exports accelerated and imports rose marginally, suggesting that the trade likely provided a boost to economic growth in the third quarter.
		Turns out Scott Besson isn't an idiot.
		Unlike much of the press had to say, they were saying this guy didn't know what he was doing.
		They said he was just some sassy gay guy.
		Turns out he's a sassy gay guy that knows how to negotiate a trade deal.
		Go figure.
		The trade gap contracted 10.9% to 52.8 billion, the lowest level since June 2020, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau said on Thursday.
		Economists, polled by Reuters, had forecasted the trade deficit increasing to $63.3 billion.
		The report was delayed because of the 43-day shutdown of the government.
		Exports climbed 3% to 289.3 billion in September.
		Goods exports surged 4.9% to 187.6 billion, with shipments of consumer goods increasing to record highs.
		And we'll get into the imports here.
		I know this is all a lot of numbers to deal with.
		Luckily, we have an economist in the house.
		We do have surge here.
		If I get cornered, if I get put on the ropes, he can bail me out here.
		Imports rose 0.6% to 342.1 billion.
		Goods imports advanced 0.6% to 266.6 billion.
		But imports of automotive vehicles, parts, and engines were the lowest since November 2022.
		And that is the key metric we were looking for.
		When everyone was combing through all the autists, sink their teeth into the numbers right away.
		Everyone had their eyes on the automotive industry.
		That was the question.
		That was the question.
		Okay, you know, maybe everything else could be chalked up to various global market pressures, but the automotive industry and the sort of their adjacent industries, really, that's what we are going to see if these tariffs really were kicking in.
		And looks like it's so.
		You know, in 2016, when Trump ran for president, there were these promises to sort of reindustrialize the Rust Belt, you know, specifically in Michigan.
		This is a large part of why he was so successful election-wise, why he's such an electoral juggernaut in Michigan when the rest of the Republican Party couldn't seem to crack the state.
		And in large part, it was because he tapped into that energy.
		Because I mean, if you know anything about Michigan, you know that the automotive industry there built the state in many ways.
		And in many ways, has now been, their removal has been the largest contributor to the demise of the state.
		Obviously, you go to Detroit, you go to many of the surrounding cities, Dearborn, et cetera, et cetera, and you see a shell of a formerly thriving automotive industry.
		And many people have, you know, emphasized for years that, look, you left these people behind and no party, neither the Democrats or the Republicans were really serious about addressing their concerns.
		Well, Trump came in 2016.
		He said, look, I'm going to do my best to bring these jobs back.
		Obviously, there's a lot of discourse on the right.
		Like, can we even reindustrialize these states?
	Because obviously they're very union heavy.
	Is this even possible for a company like Ford to operate and operate in the black in a state like Michigan?
	We've seen a lot of these automotive jobs coming back to the United States in recent years, especially with the second Trump administration.
	But these jobs aren't, in fact, going in large part to the Midwest, to the Rust Belt, especially not Michigan.
	They are actually going to states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama.
	The reason, South Carolina, South Carolina is a really big recipient.
	And the reason for that is these states, they have a lot of union busting laws on the books.
	And, you know, say what you want.
	I'm not here to sort of break down the right-wing discourse on unions.
	But if you're a company like Ford, if you're a company like Toyota, a company like Mitsubishi, and you want to operate, you want to expand your operations in the United States, the first thing you're looking at is labor costs because America has exorbitantly high labor costs.
	There's no question about that.
	And many states are rushing to crank the minimum wage up as high as they possibly can.
	And it creates a pinch.
	It creates a pinch in the market.
	We got to get the labor from somewhere.
	The band-aid, obviously, that these companies had put on this issue for the longest time was just flood the country with the third world because third worlders will work for pennies on the dime.
	And these companies ultimately were not willing to give American workers the pay that they deserved and the pay that they need to really put food on the table.
	And so their solution for the longest time was offshore jobs and bring in migrants to sort of maintain whatever manufacturing we would need to sort of leave in the United States.
	Trump comes in and he starts negotiating these trade deals.
	He starts setting these trade deals, starts bringing a lot of investment back into the United States.
	And then on top of that, he starts throwing these tariffs on.
	Obviously, Liberation Day, everybody remembers.
	There's a lot of critiques of Liberation Day.
	Some people said that the applications of the tariffs were quite sloppy, where he would put it on.
	They would say something and he would drop it down.
	It seems like the tariffs of China were going from three digits down to one digit up to two.
	It was, I will say, there was a lot of uncertainty.
	The market was reacting.
	The market didn't know what to do.
	They didn't know what was going to go, you know, what was going on.
	One true social post and the tariff from China goes up 60%.
	But the one consistent thing throughout all of the tariffs and this tariff regime is Trump has been targeting these automotive companies who are sort of offshoring their entire operation.
	He wants to bring it back to the United States.
	Say what you will about that.
	Tesla has proven that manufacturing in the United States is a worthwhile endeavor.
	And they're able to produce specifically their Model 3 vehicle at a fairly reasonable price considering the quality of the product.
	They're able to conduct a lot of their manufacturing in the United States.
	Obviously, Trump in the first term renegotiated NAFTA.
	That was a big deal.
	The workaround for a lot of companies that wanted to keep manufacturing local was they would just offshore where they would really just move the manufacturing down to Mexico.
	Volkswagen specifically, even though they're a German outfit, they have extensive American operations.
	America is like their biggest market.
	They moved a lot of their manufacturing down to Mexico.
	And as a part of NAFTA, it made it quite easy for them to do so.
	But obviously, Trump coming in here, you know, ripping up NAFTA, renegotiating NAFTA to be a bit more favorable instead of just a charity program for Mexico and Canada has been had a massive boon.
	And then we're seeing here with the numbers, the numbers are coming in.
	The automotive industry, yeah, we're seeing dividends.
	The dividends are paying.
	So I wanted to play here.
	This is a clip from Eric Daughtry.
	I don't know.
	This guy is like always grinding.
	If you go to his Twitter, Eric Daughtry, he's tweeting like every 30 minutes.
	And it's like this really extensive tweet with a video attached.
	It's very impressive, the volume of tweets he's able to pump out.
	But he got this clip here from CNBC of them reacting to the news.
	I'll read Eric's copy here real quick.
	He said, breaking and a devastating loss for the experts.
	The U.S. trade deficit just came in lower than expected, thanks to President Trump.
	We're negative 52 or minus 52 billion.
	Wow, we're all the way back to June 2020.
	Really is remarkable.
	Tariffs work.
	Trump, Scott Besson, and Howard Lutnick were right.
	And we'll take a look here at the video from CNBC.
rick santelli ▲ ● ▼		Minus 52.8 billion.
		That's a better, lower trade deficit than we expected.
		We were looking for a number closer to 62 billion.
		And that follows a revised minus 59 billion.
		Minus 52 billion would be the lightest going back to, wow, we're really going back.
		Well, my records go back to 1992.
		And to find a smaller number, the minus 52 billion, we're all the way back to June of 2020.
		236,000 is initial jobless claims.
		So the 191 minus 52.8 billion.
		That's a better lower.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		So obviously here, CNBC flabbergasted this analyst here, flabbergasted at the numbers.
		Again, experts all over the Economic, I'm sorry, all over the economics world were calling into question a lot of these Trump tariffs.
		They were saying, Look, you know, the tariff regime, this is a very 20th century way of conducting affairs.
		It won't work in the 21st century.
		Fukuyama has demonstrated that we have sort of cracked the code on the best possible system for human flourishment.
		There's no need, you know, whatever ramifications come with unmedigated free trade, unfettered free trade.
		We each have to take that on the chin.
		Trump said, No, we're going to put America first, we're going to put the American people first, and we're going to use and leverage our power as a United States to bring economic activity back to the United States, to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
		So, this is fantastic stuff.
		Obviously, the CNBC analyst is one of many people in the sphere that are shocked.
		And I'll say, even people that are aligned, even people within the Trump administration, some people that I've spoken to, just a few months ago, were starting to sort of express a little bit of concern over the tariffs.
		They're saying, Well, the jobs numbers aren't looking great, et cetera, et cetera.
		An explanation for the jobs numbers.
		I'm not trying to smooth things over.
		They're not the best.
		I will concede that.
		But there's something that's worth considering.
		Let this sort of ruminate, sort of let this percolate in your minds: is the volume of people that are leaving the country right now.
		I pointed out yesterday on the show, we broke it down extensively, is that we're at net negative migration.
		So, more people are leaving the country than arriving in the country.
		That's going to have an effect.
		That's going to have an effect on the jobs market.
		It's going to sort of vacate a lot of jobs, and it takes a little bit of time to sort of refill those jobs as these companies reassess, as these companies reassess their labor and sort of say, okay, what jobs do we actually need?
		What jobs do we not need?
		Is it worthwhile to keep such an extensive manufacturing arm?
		Maybe we can sort of automate a bit of it and then bring in American workers and we'll make it work.
		So, again, it's neither here nor there.
		I'm not necessarily coping.
		I mean, the jobs numbers aren't the best.
		There's no question about that.
		But on the tariff side, things are looking very good.
		And President Trump, very vindicated once again.
		And like Eric pointed out here, Scott Bessett and Howard Lucknick, take a victory lap, gentlemen.
		This is really some fantastic stuff.
		So, with that, we're going to get into our next story.
		The House, oh my gosh, the House just voted to move forward on overturning a Trump executive order.
		This was from Jack Unheard.
		He's obviously a commentator producer on the I think he's with Unheard, right?
		Yeah, anyway, I digress.
		Go give him a follow.
		You know, I'll follow him right now.
unidentified		Boom.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		There you go.
		So, just so you can't say I don't follow people.
		With this, 13 Republicans sided with Democrats.
		This is absurd.
		This is absurd.
		This is ridiculous.
		We'll take a look at the vote here, and then we can break down specifically what happened.
		What were these Republicans siding with the Democrats on?
		And we'll take a look here at the video.
unidentified		On this vote, the yays are 222 and the nays are 200.
unidentified		The motion is adopted.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		The motion is adopted.
		So, as I opened up with the lead of the show, here is what was taking place here was Congress was attempting, the Democrats, specifically in Congress, congressional Democrats, were attempting to block a Trump executive order that strips collective bargaining rights away from federal workers.
		Because, again, one of the main sort of issuances to the Trump administration, one of the mandates to the Trump administration, was drain the swamp.
		And obviously, what people first jump to when they think drain the swamp is they think arrests.
		They think, okay, let's arrest a lot of these apparatchiks that have terrorized the American people for the longest time.
		And we're starting to see some of these arrests happening.
		You know, Letitia James comes to mind, et cetera, et cetera.
		But part of the swamp is this managerial class that's been squatting in DC for decades on end.
		These are people that are bureaucrats that are unaccountable to the American people.
		No matter what happens, they have job security.
		In a big part, a big component of what protects these people, what insulates them from any sort of impunity, is these federal unions.
		Again, I don't want to get into a union debate right now, as I made very clear in the first segment we had.
		That's neither here nor there.
		But I think everyone could acknowledge that federal unions, there's some, to some degree, some component of it.
		I don't want to fence it here.
		I will say, is a problem.
		There's no question about it.
		If you're watching, maybe you're a beneficiary of these federal unions in some way.
		I'm not saying there's any, you know, there's no personal transgression here, but I am saying that with the Trump administration's goals, with what they're trying to accomplish, they are trying to clean house with this managerial elite that is, again, squatting in D.C. They've been doing this for decades.
		And the big thing, the big impediment that was not allowing us to clear out a lot of these people were these federal unions.
		It's a big issue.
		So Trump, he signed this executive order, which stripped collective bargaining rights away from these unions, effectively nullifying them in many ways, effectively disarming them, taking the teeth away.
		And it would slowly sort of dismantle this federal union apparatus that's built up in Washington, D.C.
		Well, Congress is now blocking this.
		Congress has now officially passed a bill that nullifies this executive order.
		I'll read here, this is from Newsweek.
		The U.S. House of Representatives voted 222 to 200 to advance a bill that would overturn a major executive order issued by Trump in March, which stripped collective bargaining rights from roughly 1 million federal workers.
		Democratic Representative Jared Golden, who led the bill, forced a vote on it by using a mechanism known as a discharge petition.
		The congressional procedure means lawmakers can force a vote on a piece of legislation against the wishes of the leadership on the condition that it has majority support in the House.
		So again, they're squeezing this through.
		The Democrats are squeezing this through.
		This isn't a full-thirded repeal of an executive order, which, again, with this specific bill, my apologies.
		With this specific bill, Trump can veto it quite easily, and it doesn't leave Congress much recourse.
		Again, you need the two-thirds majority to override a veto.
		Same deal.
		If this were an official repeal, if they were to vote on an official repeal of an executive order, again, Trump could veto it, but it could set the stage for a much larger, much larger political battle.
		And so we do expect Trump to veto this bill.
		But the reason it's so scandalous, the reason it's so scandalous is this right here is 13 Republicans voted with Democrats to move the bill forward, defying their party's leadership.
		They were Jeff Van Drew, Nicole Maliotakis, or as my friends in the New York Young Republicans club caller, Nicole Rhinotakis, Lolota, Fitzpatrick, Brestnahan, Bacon Lawyer, Tom Keene, Ryan McKenzie, Zach Nunn, Chris Smith, Peter, Stauber, and Mike Turner.
		Some of these Republicans, the reason they're swinging over, some of them are rhinos, there's no question about it.
		Some of them have cited that they would have specific impacts on their district, saying, oh, my district has a lot of federal workers, and this would negatively impact them.
		But to go back to a point that I've made a million times, that sort of thinking, this is the point I made yesterday with the blue slips, specifically addressing Chuck Grassley's case for why we should keep the blue slip system, is these people do not know what time it is.
		These people do not understand that we are in a fight for survival right now.
		They do not understand that the Democrats want to kill us.
		They do not understand that if Trump fails, things, by all accounts, are pretty much over.
		I don't want to blackpill, but that's just the reality.
		The reason that's not a blackpill is because Trump is in office in his three years.
		So there's no need to blackpill right now.
		But if, for whatever reason, Trump does fail, you know, and Congress would really foot the bill for that failure, it'd be over.
		It would be over.
		The United States would be cooked.
		The Democrats, obviously, I don't have to reiterate this.
		You know what would happen.
		They'd bring in millions of illegals and naturalize them and effectively eliminate the Republican majority in Congress and pretty much eliminate any pathway back to power.
		They could just top off the population in California.
		They could swing Texas and Florida over to the Democrat bracket by naturalizing a lot of illegals.
		There's a lot of legals in these states.
		It would be a complete disaster.
		So the fact that these 13 Republicans, whatever reason they give, again, some of these people, you're looking down the list, you see a few rhinos on here.
		But people on this list that should know better and they're citing these garbage reasons, like, oh, well, you know, it might affect my handful of constituents that are federal workers.
		That's just an excuse.
		That's just an excuse because these people are scared.
		Ultimately, these people are scared of fighting.
		Ultimately, you're seeing here the Republican co-sponsors, Fitzpatrick, Don Bacon, Rob Bressnan, Nick Lalota, and Mike Lawyer.
	Disgusting.
	Very disgusting.
	Very disgusting that they would do such a thing.
	Again, they are impeding on the Trump administration's agenda, which was popular.
	Okay, I mean, Trump won the popular vote.
	That never happens with Republicans.
	That never happens.
	And so the fact that even pulled that off is an indication that, like, hey, the Trump agenda is pretty popular.
	There's a mandate for it.
	And so we should probably get behind that if we know what's good for us.
	So just unbelievably disgusting.
	That's the reason I'm highlighting this.
	Is again, Trump can veto, and he probably will veto this because, again, this is just ridiculous that the executives having to do all the work here, that Congress can't get anything done.
	The only thing they've gotten done is a big beautiful bill.
	And there's a lot of problems with the Big Beautiful Bill.
	I think it's a good piece of legislation.
	It increases ICE funding, et cetera, et cetera.
	But, you know, there's still a lot of critiques.
	The fact that Congress doesn't really have anything to hang their hat on in this environment with a supermajority is absolutely disgusting.
	Absolutely disgusting.
	So shame on these people.
	Let them have it.
	I'm just kidding.
	Well, yeah, you can tweet at them.
	Just email them.
	Email your congressman.
	Like, these people are forced to listen to you.
	You elected them.
	So, yeah, email them.
	With that, let's move on to the Democrat aisle.
	Al Green, he's on the way out.
	He's getting his district drawn out of existence and he's going to be replaced by a Republican.
	Hopefully, a patriot.
	Hopefully, someone that's not going to backstab President Trump.
	I wanted to play this video here.
	This is sort of one of his final forays into the political scene.
	And he's done something very brave, something very bold.
	No Democrat has ever done.
	He's standing up to fascism.
	He's resisting.
	This is going to do numbers on Reddit.
	Take a look at this.
unidentified		The purpose of this gentleman from Texas seek recognition to address the House for one minute to revise and extend my remarks.
unidentified		Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
al green ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to note that tonight I have called for the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
		He is an abuser of presidential power.
		Whoa.
		He has called for the execution of members of the House of Representatives of this very House.
		He has demeaned members of the judiciary.
		He has conducted himself in office such that persons are now threatening members of the judiciary.
unidentified		What?
al green ▲ ● ▼		Members of the House of Representatives.
unidentified		No.
al green ▲ ● ▼		Members of the Senate.
al green ▲ ● ▼		Donald John Trump, by his conduct, merits impeachment, trial, and conviction in the Senate of the United States of America and should never hold any office of public trust ever again.
unidentified		Whoa.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Truth, nuke.
		Holy truth, nuke.
		Oh my gosh.
		Al Green, bringing the heat.
		Standing up to fascism.
		Hashtag resist.
		Yeah, okay.
		Go on.
		Go sit down.
		Oh, the place is empty, first of all.
		That's one thing.
		That's a whole other tangent.
		These guys don't even want to show up to work.
		Didn't this guy get tossed out of the State of the Union for like spurging out in the crowd?
		Can we rewind the clock?
		The guy with the cane, honestly, he thinks he's the penguin or something.
		Got tossed out of the state of the union because he was spurging out.
		This guy is one of the biggest clowns in Congress.
		So, you know, very brave of him to boldly introduce legislation that won't go anywhere that'll die immediately.
		Very brave.
		Maybe the Democrats and Al Green will finally impeach the president.
		I don't even know why they even bother.
		Like, why even waste your staffer's time to draw this and write this up?
		Because, like, he's been impeached twice and no one cares.
		It doesn't even make it into pub quizzes.
		Like, no one's going to remember those.
		I don't know if you remember it.
		He got impeached twice.
		No one cares because it doesn't matter.
		We like, it's like, yeah, we know you hate them.
		We know that this is purely vindictive.
		Every reason he gave is just like, yeah, we heard it a million times.
		You can tune into MS Now and get this on repeat.
		So yeah, Reddit is doing numbers on Reddit.
		Reddit's going crazy over this.
		The Penguin has attempted to impeach Donald Trump.
		Yeah, the reason he's doing this, the reason he's spurging more than usual, is because he's going to be updating his resume any day soon.
		Keep an eye on his LinkedIn.
		You'll probably see the open for work little thing on there.
		He probably doesn't need to work because these congressmen are able to enrich themselves at such dramatic levels that this guy can retire quite comfortably.
		And if that doesn't boil your blood, if you are watching this on your lunch break, I'm aware that if you're on the East Coast, this is the lunch break hour.
		So thank you very much if you're watching on your lunch break.
		Lift your fork high as we celebrate Timcast.
		And I used to, funny enough, I used to watch the Timcast Live on my lunch break.
		Now I don't have a lunch break, unfortunately.
		But I'm very happy.
		It's a great gig.
		But that being said, if you're working hard, you're on your lunch break, you're just trying to put food on the table.
		This should absolutely enrage you.
		These guys are able to operate with impunity because they know that as soon as they retire, they'll have these consulting firms breaking their door down and they'll have millions of dollars to retire with and ride off into the sunset because somehow these guys enter Congress with like not a dollar to their name and then they leave with millions and millions and millions of dollars, even though their congressional salary would not indicate that.
		And they're trading, the trading that they're doing, I mean, it would blow Warren Buffett out of the water.
		It's absolutely unbelievable.
		So Jasmine Crockett, Al Green, you're gone.
		Jasmine Crockett might bounce to another Democrat district.
		That's the rumor, but she is running for Senate.
		So she may just vacate that.
		I believe that's the plan right now is that she'll just vacate the seat, run for Senate, lose, and then probably go work at an Arby's, if I had to guess.
		Al Green, on the other hand, he's really cooked.
		He's in trouble.
		So I wanted to paint the picture of our opponents are idiots to close this diatribe.
		How am I going to tie it?
		How's Tate going to tie all of this together?
		I'm going to lay out something very philosophical, something very esoteric, something very in the weeds.
		This is maybe something you haven't heard before.
	This is some hard-hitting commentary.
	Democrats are retarded, fundamentally.
	They're retarded.
	And I'm not saying that necessarily to be mean.
	I'm saying that to illustrate the point that the Republican Party has very, very dumb opponents.
	Very, very dumb opponents.
	How are we not doing laps around them right now?
	Why do we have Republicans crossing the aisle, voting with the Democrats to block Trump's agenda?
	This should take like a year to mop this entire mess up.
	Al Green is our opponent.
	Jasmine Crockett is our opponent.
	These are some of the dumbest people on planet Earth.
	Not even exaggerating.
	Al Green, maybe, I don't know.
	His verbal IQ might be high.
	But Jasmine Crockett legitimately is not an intelligent woman.
	You know, I'll say, you know, Gavin Newsom's clearly a high IQ individual.
	There's no question about that.
	Josh Shapiro, clearly a smart guy.
	These are, and I'm not going to call them idiot.
	I'll call them idiots because of their actions, but like empirically, they're not dumb people.
	They know what they're doing.
	Jasmine Crockett is legitimately not a smart woman.
	And that is your opposition.
	How are we not doing laps around them?
	So with that, we are going to move into our interview segment.
	I want to open up with this article from NetInfluencer.com.
	We will be bringing Jamie Rogosinski.
	He's the founder of Wall Street Bets.
	This is pretty exciting.
	We're switching it up a little bit.
	We're bringing him in to discuss this.
	This is a current battle taking place.
	Wall Street Bets creator versus Reddit, Supreme Court to decide on who owns user-built brand names.
	This is all drama circulating around Section 230.
	If a content creator spends years building an online community on a social media platform, who ultimately owns that brand?
	The individual who created it or the tech company that provides the digital infrastructure to host it?
	That question now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case with potentially far-reaching implications for the creator economy.
	Jamie Rogozinski launched the subreddit R slash Wall Street Bets on Reddit on January 31st, 2012, establishing an online community for retail investors to discuss stock and option trading.
	He moderated the community for more than eight years, cultivating its personality style and shared jargon.
	By 2020, R slash Wall Street Bets had more than 1 million subscribers.
	In early 2021, the community gained notoriety for sparking the GameStop, short squeeze, and the proliferation of meme stocks.
	Turn back the clock.
	I don't know if you remember GameStop AMC.
	Oh, it's insane.
	And everybody was trying to stifle the sort of charge from the Patriots rolling in with their stock options.
	So we're going to bring him in to discuss everything.
	Everything.
	We're going to bring him in everything.
	I might even ask him like about life.
	I may ask him some life questions.
	So we'll see.
	With that, we have a quick word from our sponsor and then we will get into the interview portion.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We got Bearskin.
		Check out Bearskin Bear.skin slash Tim.
		That's B-A-E-R.
		You guys already know about the Bearskin hoodie, right?
		Well, if you've been waiting to get yourself one, now is the time.
		It's officially hoodie season, cold mornings, windy days, surprise no one.
		Right now, Bearskin is running their biggest deal of the year.
		We're talking 60% off for this Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
		Now, this isn't some old felice.
		This thing is built with 340 GSM Bearskin Felice, 10 pockets, a rugged athletic fit that actually looks good.
		Plus, if it starts pouring, you can zip on the Heavy Storm Rain Jack and instantly level up to full waterproof protection.
		You get free U.S. shipping from their U.S. warehouse, and the gear will last you season after season.
		So, what you got to do to get 60% off, text Tim to 36912.
		Again, that's text Tim to 36912.
		They'll send you a link so you can lock it in, click it whenever you can.
		But you're not just buying a great hoodie, you're also supporting the Fallen Outdoors and Hope for the Warriors veterans program.
		So you're not just buying great gear, you're backing a cause that matters.
		Grab your bearskin while this Black Friday deal is live by texting Tim to 36912.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I'll have to prioritize handle it.
		All righty, guys.
		Well, we are back here and we are heading into our interview portion.
		I'm here with the great Jamie Rogosinski.
		He is the founder of R slash Wall Street Bets.
		Jamie, how's it hanging?
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing well.
		Thank you very much.
		Founder of R/Wall Street Bets.
		That's the first time I've heard that one.
		Not just because it exists everywhere.
		It's like a movement, right?
		It's actually true.
		On social media, it's everywhere.
		It's like a mindset.
		But yeah, yes, indeed, I did find it.
		I am doing well.
		Thank you very much for having me on the show today.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
		Absolutely.
		Well, before we get into the story, obviously, maybe you can just give a quick background.
		I'm sure most people in the audience are very aware of Wall Street Bets, the legend around Wall Street Bets, but maybe you could give people a quick TLDR of the whole Wall Street Bets saga and how you've gotten to this stage.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		I mean, there's been tons of sagas.
		There's one that the one that's probably the one that's best, the most famous one, at least the ones that pushed it into the household name, would be the GameStop.
		But like the background with Wall Street Bets is I started it in 2012.
		This was shortly, well, this was after getting a job after having lost it from the financial crisis.
		And I was in DC walking past like an Occupy satellite movement every day, but I was working in that bank and making a fair amount of money and with enough disposable income, no dependence, no mortgage, no kids, no whatever.
		So like, you know what?
		Like, I'm happy with my job, but I'm also going to make sure being unemployed sucked, right?
		So I'm going to figure out how the stock market works because of the investment banks.
		If Wall Street is allowed to abuse the system, there's no rules against us.
		The media was portraying just the traditional finance world as a casino, right?
		The stock market.
		Like you guys are irresponsible, taking risk with all these big fancy words and mortgage-backed security collateralized debt, whatever.
		Like, cool, I'm sure there's a butt on my thing.
		And so I started originally looking for places with high risk high return, couldn't find any, decided to create one, called it Wall Street Bet specifically to try and like make it very unapologetically clear.
		The reason why we're here is to gamble with the stock market, right?
		That was a statement.
		It was, it was, if, if it's a casino, it shouldn't be an insult.
		It should be a badge of honor.
		And sure enough, it picked up really quickly.
		It turned out that there was a lot of people, like-minded individuals that wanted the same thing that had the same, I guess, demographic and mindset.
		More importantly, and collectively, this thing just doubled in size and continued to grow and grow.
		And to, you know, by 2018 or 19, it were close to like a million users, at which point we now had sophisticated users.
		We had professional traders that were just having fun on there.
		We had amateurs that know nothing.
		We had a huge, a wide variety of people that were collectively putting their intelligence together and exploiting the system.
		GameStop is the famous one.
		There was a movie about it.
		But prior to GameStop, as far as I'm concerned, was when all the real cool stuff happened.
		GameStop was like the amalgamation, like all the exploits that they have practiced and identified, they put them together at the same time.
		from using leverage, from manipulating stock prices, using stock options with fancy.
		Some of it gets complicated.
		It's actually a lot more sophisticated than simply buy and hold by a lot of people.
		So it's just this collective intelligence arbitrage machine whereby they're like, all right, well, we have Goldman Sachs might have inside information or quant computers that are co-located with high frequency, whatever microsecond transactions, but we have a lot of freaking smart people that we can poke holes in your system and find flaws that we can only do it because we're so many and that you can't do it because you're just like a single entity.
		And so Wall Street Bets then became a collective entity, which participated in the market to the point where it could actually have an effect on it, as it was clearly saw.
		And then from then on, I mean, just retail trading is a thing, right?
		Like it's well past Wall Street.
		It's worldwide, especially with crypto encroaching is probably a conservative description, more like invading traditional finance.
		So yeah, that's the back end story as to how when it started and where we got today.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		I mean, it's great.
		I mean, I think a lot of people in the audience are very aware of Wall Street Bets.
		I was obviously active.
		I was active, especially here on the GameStop pinch.
		So people call me a new gen in many ways.
		I wasn't there from the very beginnings.
		But yeah, I remember the activity.
		And above all else, I mean, yeah, there's the, obviously think of the casino side, but it was quite fun.
		It was a fun community.
		It still is a fun community.
		And people on there, it's just like, you know, clowning on each other.
		It was a lot of fun.
		But obviously, Wall Street Bets has built this reputation.
		It's built this, there's some aura around it.
		There's just, it's larger than life in many ways.
		So to get into it, to get into the story, there's been this battle going on, obviously, sort of centering around Section 230, in which these companies, these social media companies, obviously want to operate as a publisher, but without any of the consequences of being a publisher.
		So basically, they're just, correct me if I'm wrong, but they want to basically, you know, sort of take the benefits that you guys have as creators and take the trademark and these sorts of things, have the brand, have the access and whatnot, but not actually sort of take on any of the responsibility of that.
		I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe you could set the stage here for sort of what this battle is all about fundamentally.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, correct.
		And you might have seen me kind of looking around to try and infer what your audience may or may not know because you jumped around and you used fancy words.
		I don't know what your audience has been.
		I think most people, it's not a very safe assumption, but it's a relatively safe assumption that most people have heard of Section 230.
		They may not understand it.
		And even if they have heard it, they might not fully understand what you said.
		So I'm going to do my best.
		Actually, no, maybe you can help me.
		Does your audience, is it safe to assume that they know what Section 230 is?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, maybe you could give just a quick skim through.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure they're aware.
		I'll try to just make it as accessible as possible because it does get tricky.
		And I don't want to make it like, I don't want to lose people.
		So Section 230 is a law that was passed in the 90s when the internet was becoming a thing, a household thing, right?
		It'd been around before, but, like web crawler, GeoCities, Yahoo, whatever, like AOL, it was clear that this network was going to require some type of a framework by which these hosts or these websites that were merely provisioning, like the infrastructure, were not liable for the content.
		Because it was clear benefit to having communication, collaboration, this network thing.
		So they wrote this communication, CDA, Communications and Decency Act, Section 230, said that internet platforms cannot be liable.
		They cannot be held liable for the content that are posted by their users.
		Sure.
		Makes perfect sense.
		If I put up kiddie porn on a website, the person responsible should be the one that uploaded the picture.
		The website can't possibly police it because then it would essentially cripple free speech.
		So the intention was beautiful and it was right.
		And it was one that I think nobody was against because it allowed a lot of what we have today.
		Unfortunately, Section 230, because the definition of internet went from www.aolchatroom.com or whatever, like to basically like Alexa, turn on my lights.
		I mean, we've gone so like everything is internet now.
		And so essentially what today, Section 230 is being interpreted as is complete immunity by platforms to you can't sue them for content that somebody else posts, but they can also now start having editorial rights to some extent, right?
		Like so it can ban, for example, I don't know, the president of the United States from all social media platforms when he uses them in his capacity, in his capacity of governing a country, right?
		Like we all know that on his first term, he used Twitter to do diplomacy, right?
		I mean, just it's funny or not, but it's serious.
		He went from North Korea, but social media that platformed him.
		And this was how he conducted his presidency.
		And he can sue his way back in.
		Why?
		Because Section 230.
		So also Section 230, you know, if people say, okay, well, obviously nobody likes kiddie porn.
		So that one's an obvious one, but you can go into, okay, well, the vaccines or the masks, like more of these politically polarizing concepts.
		Well, there you started seeing censorship to the same extent under the same guise.
		Like, we don't want kitty porn.
		We don't want like anti-vaxxers.
		I'm not taking a side.
		I'm just pointing out that these internet companies now have a active role in the voice, right?
		Of what the message people get.
		And that's where that's where you get a lot of problems.
		So that's where Section 230 is today.
		The AppImmunity.
		Americans have grown to dislike it for the most part, but they've learned to live with it.
		What happened with me?
		Let me explain to you exactly because you skipped a very important part and I didn't share it.
		In 2020, after I had written and published a book, after I, well, the fellow moderators were selling t-shirts and monetizing this thing.
		And this was a the writing was on the wall.
		I was, I quit my job to say, I'm going to create Wall Street Bets into a bigger thing.
		By then, it was everywhere.
		IRC, Discord, YouTube, like TikTok.
		Like, I mean, it was just, it was an omnipresent movement.
		And I wanted to do like an esports style, competitive, live, real money trading competition, like not competition.
		It sounds like stock picking contest, but esports style, right?
		Like, just I had all those ideas.
		And so I went and I and I trademarked the word Wall Street Bets.
		And within a week, I got kicked out for whatever, Section 230.
		Like, I broke the rules of whatever.
		And I got deplatformed, I guess, as you could say, which boohoo, poor me.
		But I took it on the chin.
		I'm like, well, that sucks.
		Whatever.
		Like, I'll, I'll survive.
		And then they came after me.
		They blocked my trademark application and they submitted their own.
		And I was like, wait a second, you can't do that.
		And then there was a fight back and forth.
		And eventually I sued them because I said, hold on.
		In order to own the trademark, the trademark is there to protect consumers as opposed to copyright and patents.
		That's to protect the creators, right?
		Trademark is, you know, who made the thing that you're purchasing or consuming, right?
	Like your Coca-Cola or your iPad was made by Apple or like whatever Coca-Cola.
	You're not getting some knockoff.
	It's because you established the source.
	And so it's, it's with that purpose of trademarks exist.
	I'm like, hold on a second.
	So in order to do that, you need to be able to have full control over the quality of the service, right?
	If you're Coke, you have to own the entire process from the branding to the formula to like the lab to make sure it's not poisoned in your iPad.
	You do have to like do the drop it, see if it breaks, right?
unidentified		Like, sure.
unidentified		Yeah.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		You know, like they can't just say, well, anybody, they can't license any of the, like, the name out to anybody to put the iPad or Apple sticker on their thing because they're losing control over there.
		So like, all right, Reddit, have, have your pick.
		You can section 230 me and kick me out.
		That's your call, which you'll probably want to do it.
		Or you can claim that you are owning and using and controlling the service, like the service which Wall Street bets provide, which is the brand, this community, which exists on and off of Reddit.
		I'm like, good luck controlling that because right now I have a pretty good handle on all of Wall Street Bets entities.
		And the moment that you touch something, then you're now liable.
		And trust me, the types of things that happen on Wall Street Bets isn't always legal, right?
		Like, and if so, to answer your question at this point, and one that I was asking the courts is like, what happens if GameStop?
		Because it was a short squeeze.
		Short squeezes are not legal by definition, but like strict definitions.
		This was a weird one.
		I don't think the world had ever seen this collective short squeeze.
		And I still don't know whether it's deemed legal.
		Obviously, nobody enforced anything, but if it would have been ruled to have been market manipulation illegal, who would the government sue?
		They can't sue Reddit because they have Section 230.
		And so then, but there's still wrongdoing.
		I don't advocate market manipulation.
		Like, that's not a good thing.
		In fact, most of the moderating that takes place is getting rid of the things that never make the light of day, which is outright illegal stuff.
		So, you know, insider information gets posted.
		You have like whatever.
		It's just, you know, you would imagine what happens.
		They would then have to be liable for it.
		So then I sued them to pick.
		And, you know, as I was going through the courts, they were saying, no, no, no, no, I kicked you out.
		And I forced them because I said, I'm suing you because you kicked me out.
		And I'm suing you because it's my trademark.
		So in order to win both, they had to cede one or the other, right?
		Like, and somehow they're like, no, no, no, we can kick you out because of Section 230.
		And we own it because we did the first using commerce.
		The first instance of Wall Street Bets was on our server.
		And therefore, our server provisioned the ability for this thing to work.
		So according to the law, it was our server that provided the service of Wall Street Bets, not your ideas.
		That's just fun.
		Thank you for your ideas.
		They were wonderful, but you put them on our thing.
		And it was crazy because it got to the point, there's a hearing on YouTube on the appeals court where the judge goes, all right, Reddit, let me get this to the lawyer.
		He goes, let me get this straight.
		According to your argument, if Jamie would have gone to Yahoo and created Wall Street Bets there and he got 100 users, it just didn't stick.
		Like nobody using it.
		He goes, well, that sucks.
		I want to use this somewhere else.
		And then he went to Reddit and then he had tremendous success.
		Is it your position that Yahoo would have a claim, a trademark, like an infringement claim on Reddit because they had it on their servers first?
		They won like the who's server, like, where did you register first roulette, right?
		Right.
		And so the lawyer, you can hear him trying to dodge a question.
		He was like, well, that's not alleged in the case, Your Honor.
		He's like, it's a hypothetical answer.
		Well, I'd have to see the facts.
		He goes, no, no, no, no.
		Like, same exact thing.
		Answer the question.
		And he eventually said, yes.
		Yahoo would be the rightful owner of that thing because they were the first user to commerce.
		And I'm like, all right.
unidentified		So you got this technicality.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		And they eventually ruled in favor of Reddit, which is nuts.
		So you have this technicality whereby social media platforms can now be immune from anything that happens on their servers.
		But they can also take retroactively, mind you, because I also have the acronym WSB, which they're going to go after.
		Well, they are going after and they're likely to be able to take it from me because of this technicality of how they're interpreting for.
		So if I had started Wall Street Bets of the magazine first, not online, no problem.
		But I had to start it online, but there is no place to start things online anymore because of this precedent that allows them to be this Schrodinger's super position, Schrodinger's superposition of both The users, the creators, the curators, the quality managers, at the same time, they are none of the above when you sue them.
		It was crazy because, in fact, I sued them for infringement because there's state law you can do that.
		And they, Section 230, their way through infringement is like, nope, we didn't put the words Wall Street bets.
		Somebody else did it.
		I believe it was you, right?
		Like, you can't sue me for infringing on your material.
		I'm like, that's right.
		That's right.
		Okay, so now we're getting somewhere.
		Now give me the trademark.
		They're like, well, no, it doesn't quite work like that.
		Your trademark was on our server.
		And I was like, Jesus, like, it's a crazy loophole and it's dangerous and it sucks.
		And it's not even about me anymore.
		Like, I gave up on it emotionally.
		I had to a long time ago.
		But I'm like, if this thing sticks, you can go after, first of all, you'll like any new brands that emerge now have the green light to basically take anything that was created on their servers.
		But retroactively, Mr. Beast, the Joe Rogan experience, right?
		Like, because the name is a different thing, but like Joe Rogan is different from Joe Rogan experience.
		You have impulsive, like from Logan Paul.
		You have these massive brands that are created and they all have to, by definition, use their own somebody else's platform.
		If I were to create my own Reddit, now I can GPT my way into cloning a Reddit, but now it's going to be GoDaddy that like, or whatever, whoever hosts it, right?
		Like AWS.
		And so there is no way for you to create something online and where it's the birthplace.
		And I'll, and I'll start, I'll close by saying this is a dangerous thing because so many brands, including all the ones that I just mentioned, Joe Rogan experience being the biggest, the most visible example of him just being like screwing around with his buddies, right?
		Like they didn't think they were going to get anywhere.
		Mr. Beast and countless other people, they don't lawyer up before opening an account.
		You know, if it goes viral, they go somewhere with it.
		They're like, wow, this is actually cool.
		And let's make a business out of it.
		That's how they're all done.
		I don't see how this is sustainable, but we'll see.
		I mean, at this point, it is perplexing, it's frustrating.
		But I also do enjoy a good fight.
		So I'm not going to say that it's all suffering.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		Well, I mean, earlier, kind of, when I was sort of asking that, the reason I was using kind of the language like publishers and they're acting like publishers because I think a lot of people in the audience probably remember the section 230 discourse when political people that are either commentators or even politicians were experiencing deplatforming, experiencing censorship, these sorts of things.
		And that's when that sort of conversation around why are they acting like publishers started.
		So I guess my question would be, is that insulation for these companies going to continue?
		And how do creators sort of insulate themselves from this?
		Is there any ways that they, is there any recourse available for these creators?
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		So, yeah, the reason why you're using the word publisher is because that's the those are the terms used in the doctrine itself in the law, right?
		So like, you know, when you hear commentary from a more legal perspective, they're going to use the words that are written in the law.
		And so publisher, speaker, right, platform, like all these different things, I'm, I'm using softer words just to make it more accessible.
		But like, yeah, the idea that the publisher role, the whole idea is saying whether you are a speaker or like or a publisher, right?
		So the publisher decides the content.
		So like New York Times, if they publish Kitty Born, like, yeah, yeah, they're liable for it because they published it, right?
		even if it was like one of their correspondents that did it, whatever.
		But yeah, so those are the terms that they're used to distinguish whether they are merely like intermediary platforms that just allow this communication to take place.
		They're just, they're ATN to your Verizon, right?
		They're not responsible for you coordinating some bank robbery.
		using their phone line.
		They merely provide the ability for this communication to take place and they cannot police it.
		So the second part of your question was, is this sustainable?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		And like what kind of resources or what sort of recourse?
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah, what will somebody do?
		I don't know.
		Like go to RedditCondom.com.
		I created this one.
		It's a satirical explanation because it's a complicated topic.
		I was like, I need to turn this into a meme.
		And it was kind of a joke, but now it's not.
		Right.
		Like, essentially, the joke is like, well, if this ruling stands, this is the way that you can protect yourself.
		You know, double entendre is all over the place.
		But like the idea is like, you know, if you want to, if you want to post on Reddit, like go through here.
		It doesn't actually do it, right?
		But the message is the idea is I could create a service whereby you publish on this third party republishing platform and then that sends it to Reddit.
		Therefore, it hosts it on my servers first.
		And I explicitly renounce all ownership and I time step and I put on the blockchain so it's like forever permanent, like proof that first use was always done through somebody else's server before it reached Reddit's location.
		You know, obviously I'm targeting Reddit.
		So yeah, it's a funny thing, but now it's not so funny anymore.
		Now there could potentially be an opportunity for somebody or some entrepreneur that's tech savvy that can basically plug into all social media platforms and create a literally middleman for the middleman.
		It's like, before you use their platform, post to it through ours so that you can like have your certificate of authenticity, right?
		Like that's one.
		I think another huge one is the blockchain technology is the answer ultimately, because, and it's the answer for more than just brand being stolen, because I think that the examples and the number of people susceptible to that are much fewer than the number of people that are susceptible to just being deplatformed.
		Something that everyone that I know has been to some extent, whether they were like big following or not, like they've been kicked out of these things and there's nothing they can do about it.
		There's a lot of social media 3.0 infrastructure that's coming out, like own app, which is like a TikTok 3.0.
		I know that Dig is being resurrected by Kevin Rose and Alexis O'Hanion.
		If anybody in your audience is old enough to appreciate that juxtaposition of these two individuals, they were once rival, you know, like just mortal enemies.
		One co-founded Reddit and the other one co-founded, well, single-handedly founded the original Reddit, right?
		The first social media platform that had the ability for like content curate community curation through the like button.
		And eventually whatever, like dig turned into MySpace and Facebook turned into Reddit, right?
		Like, but they're bringing it back and it's a www.com, same experience, better, because I'm not going to shill it, but it resides on the blockchains.
		These other ones too.
		What that means is if they kick you out for whatever reason, whether it's legitimate or not, because of the nature of ownership and trust on the blockchain, you then get to leave with your followers, with your content, with all the social currency that you were able to accumulate.
		And you can just take it elsewhere.
		You can create your own.
		Like it is now yours.
		I was on with Trish Regan recently.
		She's like, dude, I'm on YouTube.
		I got millions of followers, but if they de-platform me, like, I don't have their email address.
		I can't.
		You know, like, I lose access.
		The 3.0 fixes all that for everyone from the smallest, you know, from the just like the casual users to the mega content creators.
		But for the time being, I don't know that there is one.
		You simply cannot start a brand online.
		Like there, like I, the way that it's written, there is no workaround.
		They could say, you should trademark it first before you go online.
		Nope, that doesn't work because I did trademark it first and they're taking it anyways.
		And you can't create, and then it's well, fine, you should use it in commerce first before you take it online.
		Now you've just killed anybody that had a cool idea.
		If you wanted to do like, if you wanted to do like a crypto punks or whatever, like if you're like that the board ape yacht club is this great idea.
		You literally would have had to sell a t-shirt with a board ape with the hopes that it's going to actually work, right?
		And you have to register.
		You know, so I don't know the answer to that.
		I hope the answer to that is legislation or mass.
		I guess if you have, you have enough, at the end of the day, it's the people that have the power, just like Wall Street Bets proved it in GameStop.
		The users of social media have the power above the platforms because the platforms, quite literally, like rely on their users for like that's their lifeblood.
		I mean, that's their product.
		They're both their consumers and their deliverables.
		So I think that if enough people realize that there is people already upset about the deep platform thing, but they've given up because they saw Trump got kicked out and didn't make it back.
		So they're like, dude, if he can do it, I'm not even going to try.
		And I don't blame them.
unidentified		Right.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		And so they just start another account, whatever.
		So that one, I don't think we can get that one.
		But I think that if people start realizing that these platforms can now basically do this sharecropping, they can wait until a brand is, and I'm not the only one that they've done this to, by the way.
		Like my favorite, Am I the Asshole?
		Literally, there's a subreddit called Am I the Asshole.
		And they trademarked it.
		And I'm like, dude, that is so funny.
unidentified		Yes.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		As a matter of fact, yes, you are.
		But yeah, I don't know.
		I don't have the answer.
		I hope somebody smarter than me comes up with it.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Well, Jamie, thank you.
		We're running out of time here.
		Thank you very much for hopping on here.
		What sort of projects are you working on and where can people find you?
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		So I've been working for the past few years silently, less and less silently, uniting.
		Wall Street Bets is now World Street Bets, really.
		It is a global movement where everybody wants in.
		Crypto has facilitated the ability for people to participate because it's more than just American stocks at this point.
		So I've been working on creating this coalition, uniting everyone from the India Street Bets, Satoshi Street Bets, this Street Bets, on Reddit, on Discord, and multiple ones on Discord.
		But bringing these all together so that we can truly harness the power, especially now that crypto is superior product.
		And we're going to showcase a lot more power.
		If people thought that GameStop was impressive, what Wall Street Bets Collective is about to pull off is going to make that look like child's play.
		And the debut for that, and also just as an example, that this thing isn't the server-based whatever.
		In the end of January on January 28th through the 30, we're hosting the first ever conference, the Wall Street Bets Live.
		People can go to wsblive.com for information, but we literally have the guys that like the team that made the North American Bitcoin Conference Association, the Wagme, where Vitalik first announced Ethereum.
		They decided to not do their conference this year and do this one instead because I decided to bring in Wall Street Bets to supercharge.
		Like everything good that's ever happened, it happens when you in person, for the first time, you get people to meet each other and fast, we're able to speed up the industry by six months and supercharge it.
		It's a message to the world and it's a message to the community that we are now no longer fragmented.
		We're now like on the same page and can do so much more and so much better and leave the world in a better place continuing our shenanigans.
		You can expect, yeah, you can expect some fireworks coming out of that.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I love that.
		I love that.
		And where can people find you?
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		WSBLive.com, I think.
		Right now I'm using WallStreetBets.net as like my lawsuit one.
		So like don't like WSB Live is probably the best one.
		My personal Twitter account is the one where I'll control.
		I've had some help over the past few weeks because of my busy with the legal stuff, but Twitter handle is at Wall Street Bets, all spelled out.
		The only one that had the star on it.
		Like I said, there's Wall Street Bets instances all over the place on Twitter.
		And I'm cool with it.
		I'm fine with everybody using it.
		It's not mine.
		I'm not a dictator.
		It's people's thing.
		But yeah, my personal one is one with the yellow star on that one.
		And WSB Live would be where all of the updates are going to be regarding this event and all these other stuff.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, good stuff.
		Thank you so much for hopping on, Jamie.
		I really appreciate it.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much for having me.
jaime rogozinski ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate it as well.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		All righty, guys.
		Well, that was the great Jamie of Wall Street Bets, The Legend, The Man, The Myth, The Legend.
		Obviously, very legendary platform.
		So it was cool to chat with him.
		With that, we are running out of time.
		So you can follow me on next Instagram at RealTate Brown.
		Come give me a follow there.
		And we will be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m.
		And again, last show in the compound.
		I think we'll see what happens.
		But see you guys next week from Las Vegas.

▲