The economy continues to boom, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 1969. But is it time to call in the cavalry? or are we heading toward a "Wage-slave economy"? Today's show is all about how the U.S. economy is booming, and why it's a good time to be a worker. Ben Shapiro breaks down the latest jobs numbers, and argues that we don't need a $15 minimum wage to get a good night's rest, and that we should focus on raising the average wage to $27.77 an hour, which is more than $12 higher than the current average wage in the United States. Plus, we take a look at how much more Americans are getting paid than they were a year ago, and how much better off they are than they used to be in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And we answer the question: Is this a "wage slave economy" or a "paycheck slave economy?" Welcome to the Ben Shapiro Show, your new favorite political show! Featuring Ben Shapiro, John Rocha, Alex Blumberg, David Axelrod, and Michael Bloomberg. Subscribe to our new podcast, The Weekly Standard, wherever you get your news and financial information. Thanks for listening and share the podcast with your fellow Podulters! Subscribe, rate, review, and subscribe to our other social media accounts! and share this podcast on Apple Podcasts! If you like what you're listening to this podcast, leave us a review and share it on iTunes, and help us spread the word out to your friends and family and family about our podcast listening to other podcasting friends everywhere else! Thank you for listening to our podcast! - Ben Shapiro and I'm listening to Ben Shapiro on The Daily Wire. - Thank you Ben Shapiro and I hope you're having a wonderful week! Timestamps: 5 Starred by: 6:00 - 7:00 8:15 - What's your favorite podcast? 9:30 - What do you think of Ben Shapiro? 11:00 | 7: What's a Wage Slave or Wage Slave Economy? 12:30 13: What is a Wage Slaving? 15:30 | Wage Slavery? 16:40 - Wage Revolution? 17:10 - Wage Slaves? 19:40
00:00:00.000Facebook, Bars, Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, and Milo Yiannopoulos, Democrats continue to smear Attorney General William Barr, and we check the mailbag.
00:00:33.000With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
00:00:40.000As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
00:00:45.000ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
00:00:52.000And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywires.
00:01:06.000We use ZipRecruiter right here at the DailyWire offices whenever we are looking to upgrade our hires, and it is a fantastic way for you to save time and money in the hiring process.
00:01:14.000Go to ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire and try it out for free.
00:01:17.000ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
00:01:43.000For all the talk about President Trump and his volatility and President Trump and President Trump and President Trump, the fact is President Trump's policies have made businesses feel comfortable.
00:01:52.000His regulatory policies have made them feel as though they are not going to be targeted.
00:01:55.000The fact that Republicans still control the Senate provides a check on Democratic excesses.
00:01:59.000So businesses are looking at all of this and they are saying, OK, well, for the foreseeable future, let's keep pumping money into the system.
00:02:11.000The economy generated a stronger-than-expected 263,000 new jobs in April, helping to drive down the unemployment rate to a 49-year low of 3.6%.
00:02:18.000The increase in new jobs easily topped the 217,000 market watch forecast.
00:02:25.000The jobless rate slid from 3.8% in March to hit the lowest level since December of 1969.
00:02:29.000Economists consider Anything below a 4% unemployment rate in the United States to effectively be full employment.
00:02:36.000The average wage paid to American workers rose 6 cents, or 0.2%, to $27.77 an hour.
00:02:42.000Now, I want to, again, emphasize that wage.
00:02:47.000We keep hearing from the left that a $15 minimum wage is necessary.
00:02:50.000The average wage in the United States is more than $12 more than that.
00:02:54.000The number of people who are surviving on minimum wage is extraordinarily low overall.
00:02:59.000The 12-month rate of hourly wage gains was unchanged at 3.2 percent.
00:03:03.000Hours worked each week fell 0.1 hour in April to 34.4.
00:03:08.000So, for all the talk about how Americans are being deeply overworked, if people are working less than 35 hours a week on average, it is hard to make the case that they are being desperately overworked.
00:03:19.000Less than 35 hours a week, on average, and wages are increasing, means that people aren't being worked harder for less pay, it means they are making more pay for working fewer hours.
00:03:30.000Okay, some simple math will tell you this.
00:03:32.000This does not mean that people are slaving away in a wage-slave economy, the way the Democrats seem to be suggesting.
00:03:40.000The government revised the increase in new jobs in March to $189,000 from a preliminary $196,000.
00:03:43.000February's gain was raised to $56,000 from $33,000, which means that the past months have also seen higher increases in jobs than normal.
00:03:47.000was raised to 56,000 from 33,000, which means that the past months have also seen higher increases in jobs than normal.
00:03:56.000The economy is still going great guns.
00:03:58.000President Trump's economy, he doesn't get full credit for the economy Obama didn't.
00:04:02.000But, he does get credit for not quashing the economy.
00:04:06.000President Obama got blame for the slowest recovery in American history, and the economy continues to boom.
00:04:11.000So, this is very good news for President Trump.
00:04:13.000As I've said, if the economy continues to be good, and if President Trump keeps his mouth shut, then he will have a significant shot of being able to win a general election, re-election bid.
00:04:24.000And if you look at the polls right now, it's fascinating.
00:04:26.000If you look at the polls right now, what you are seeing is that the various Democrats running against President Trump are not running in the mid-50s.
00:04:32.000You would expect, given President Trump's approval rating, that all of these polls would have Trump at 42%, the same as his approval rating.
00:04:39.000But his approval rating does not match up with the number of people who say they will vote for him.
00:04:44.000His approval rating hangs around in the low 40s.
00:04:46.000The number of people who say that they will vote for him is always hanging about 45 to 47%.
00:04:52.000In fact, the only candidate in this new CNN poll, this is amazing, this new CNN poll, the only candidate who drives Trump down to his approval rating in terms of his public support for voting is Beto.
00:05:04.000Really, this new poll from CNN has Beto at 52 and Trump at 42.
00:05:12.000So it has Bernie at 50 and Trump at 44, which I think would not be the final result of that election cycle.
00:05:20.000It has Biden at 51 and Trump at 45, which is the reason that Biden right now is doing so well in the primaries, because Democrats are effectively suggesting that he is the most electable candidate.
00:05:29.000Pete Buttigieg only at 47% to Trump's 44%.
00:05:33.000Kamala Harris at 49% to Trump's 45% so they're not winning a majority against the guys unpopular as President Trump.
00:05:39.000Elizabeth Warren loses to Trump in this poll.
00:06:05.000Some of the people who are termed far-right extremists are not, in fact, of the right.
00:06:08.000Okay, so they labeled Louis Farrakhan a far-right leader.
00:06:13.000The New York Times talked about what happened here, and then we'll get to the media coverage of the actual issue.
00:06:19.000So, the New York Times originally said that far-right extremists were being banned, and they used that description for Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam and a virulent anti-Semite who's been pictured with virtually everybody in prominent circles on the left.
00:06:35.000An article for The Atlantic was originally titled, Instagram and Facebook ban far-right extremists.
00:06:40.000The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and the Atlantic all describe Louis Farrakhan as a far-right extremist.
00:06:45.000Now the reason that this matters I will get to in just one second.
00:06:50.000According to the New York Times, after years of wavering about how to handle the extreme voices populating its platform, Facebook on Thursday evicted seven of its most controversial users, many of whom are conservatives, immediately inflaming the debate about the power and accountability of large technology companies.
00:07:04.000Now, I think it is worthwhile noting here that the New York Times description, it's funny, As soon as they start describing people who are fringe, like Alex Jones, they start calling them conservatives.
00:07:15.000That's because, for the press, there is no difference between conservatives and, quote, far-right extremists.
00:07:21.000According to The Economist, I was alt-right, and then when they corrected it, I was a radical conservative.
00:07:26.000There's no difference, for the media, between a normal mainstream conservative and Alex Jones.
00:07:31.000They just don't see any distinction there.
00:07:32.000And not only that, they also see if somebody is extreme, that person must be far-right.
00:07:38.000I've never seen any of these newspapers describe anybody, as far as I can recall, as a far-left extremist.
00:07:44.000Bernie Sanders is an open socialist who used to defend the Soviet Union and talk about the glories of bread lines, and he is the secondary contender in the Democratic primaries right now.
00:07:53.000The press conflate conservatism with alt-right, and then they conflate not being a wild leftist with being a conservative, and they lump all of that together, and then they say, okay, conservatives are bad.
00:08:08.000The social network said it had barred Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of InfoWars, from its platform, along with a handful of other extremists.
00:08:15.000Louis Farrakhan, the outspoken black nationalist minister who has frequently been criticized for his anti-Semitic remarks, was also banned.
00:08:21.000The Silicon Valley company said these users were disallowed from using Facebook and Instagram under its policies against dangerous individuals and organizations.
00:08:30.000Now, their statements here is so impermissibly vague.
00:08:36.000If you're going to ban somebody from your platform, you should have a pretty good reason.
00:08:40.000You're talking about Facebook, which is the biggest social media platform on planet Earth with billions of users.
00:08:46.000If you are a platform, you really should have to release a specific statement explaining what this person did wrong, not only so that the person has a right to defend themselves against the charge, which could very well be a smear, but also so that everybody else knows what the rules are.
00:09:02.000But Facebook is acting like an arbitrary centralized government here, banning people without even... We don't need to give you an excuse why you were banned, you're just banned.
00:09:11.000Well, because we call you a hateful extremist.
00:09:13.000Well, what makes somebody a hateful extremist?
00:09:14.000Facebook has no hard definition, because it's an innately malleable term.
00:09:18.000A Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement, quote, we've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
00:09:26.000The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive, and it is what led us to our decision to remove those accounts today.
00:10:29.000Does that mean that he is engaged in supporting violence?
00:10:32.000I mean, you're gonna have to make some distinctions here, I would assume.
00:10:35.000And then, they conflate violence and hate.
00:10:38.000Organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, because Alex Jones, so far as I'm aware, has not engaged in violence.
00:10:45.000Now, if you can show me evidence that he has, like, I do not, I've seen no evidence that Paul Joseph Watson, another person who was banned, mainly because he's the top reporter at InfoWars, I've seen no evidence, at all, that Paul Joseph Watson has engaged in violence.
00:11:00.000Now, we have to make a distinction between violence and speech.
00:11:13.000They take two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preference to the perfect mattress for you.
00:11:19.000Whether you're a side sleeper or a hot sleeper, whether you like a plush or a firm bed with Helix, there's no more confusion, no more compromising.
00:11:24.000Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine CNN calls it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on.
00:12:12.000Go check it out at HelixSleep.com slash Ben and get 125 bucks off your mattress order.
00:12:18.000That's HelixSleep.com slash Ben for the most comfortable mattress on planet Earth.
00:12:23.000HelixSleep.com slash Ben also won't cost you.
00:12:25.000Okay, so, back to this statement from Facebook.
00:12:28.000So, people saying bad things is not the same thing as people issuing calls for, say, murder.
00:12:31.000organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate so as i say the violence standard is vague and then they're conflating violence and hate so people saying bad things is not the same thing as people issuing calls for say murder i should know this because as news have reported there's a person who was arrested this week for for making violent death threats against jared kushner and donald trump jr and who has made violent death threats against me and against my employees.
00:13:01.000Okay, this person was engaged in a level of criticism that is not the norm.
00:13:06.000That's why this person has been arrested right now.
00:13:09.000And thank you to law enforcement for doing their job.
00:13:10.000There's a vast difference between that and people who just say bad things about me, who say hateful things about me.
00:13:16.000And there are plenty of people who say hateful things about me on a regular basis.
00:13:20.000There is a vast difference between people utilizing their free speech in ways that I don't like.
00:13:25.000I get hit by more of it than... Listen, I was the number one target of anti-Semitic bile in 2016 according to the Anti-Defamation League.
00:14:00.000Now it's, okay, well, basically what it feels like is that Facebook came up with a list of people that they wanted to ban who were anti-left.
00:14:07.000I don't want to say they're on the right because, again, I think that the right is a somewhat confusing term sometimes.
00:14:12.000When I say the right, generally, I'm talking about conservatives.
00:14:15.000When the press uses the right, they mean people who are anti-left.
00:14:17.000I don't think that those are the same category of people.
00:14:19.000There are a lot of people who are anti-left who also happen to be not conservative and anti-conservative.
00:14:24.000One group of people who seem to be anti-left but also are not conservative in any way are white supremacists, for example.
00:14:30.000They are anti-left because they don't like multiculturalism and because they are racial supremacists and all of that.
00:14:37.000But they're not conservative because they don't believe in limited government.
00:14:40.000They don't believe in the values of Western civilization.
00:14:59.000Okay, but they kind of threw Louis Farrakhan in there so that they could say, listen, we're not biased here.
00:15:03.000We're throwing in Louis Farrakhan too.
00:15:05.000But the fact is, that again, none of these people said anything new that got them banned.
00:15:10.000Facebook is simply deciding that they want to ask people that they consider hateful.
00:15:13.000Now, I may even agree with some of the people who they consider hateful.
00:15:17.000Again, I've been personally targeted by several of the people on this list.
00:15:20.000But that does not mean that my definition of hate is the definition of hate that is legally applicable.
00:15:27.000It doesn't mean that my definition of hate should trump everybody else's definition of hate.
00:15:31.000There really is too much play in the joints here.
00:15:34.000Now I think that if Facebook wanted to issue rules that say you're not allowed to call people certain names, for example, like you can't call somebody the N-word, like, how about a clear definition of rules?
00:15:57.000Okay, so Facebook suggests that they have this constant standard.
00:16:00.000They say that the process for evaluating potential violators is extensive.
00:16:04.000It's what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.
00:16:06.000Facebook's move, says the New York Times, is one of the tech industry's broadest actions to punish high-profile extremists at a time when social media companies are under fire for allowing hateful content and misinformation to spread on their services.
00:16:18.000It's a politically delicate moment, they say.
00:16:21.000And then, the only suggestion that we have seen thus far with regard to why many of these people were banned is because many of these people featured shows hosting, for example, Gavin McGinnis.
00:16:34.000So Facebook found instances of extremism by Alex Jones and others that pushed the company to take action against them, according to the New York Times.
00:16:42.000For example, Jones last year hosted an Infowars show featuring Gavin McGuinness, a far-right political commentator whom Facebook had designated as a hate figure.
00:16:49.000Okay, you know who used to host Gavin McGuinness was CRTV.
00:16:52.000CRTV used to have a show with Gavin McGuinness, now The Blaze TV.
00:16:57.000Gavin McGuinness has appeared on a wide variety of shows, including Fox News.
00:17:00.000Does this mean Fox News will now be banned?
00:17:03.000Yiannopoulos had signaled praise for Gavin McGinnis earlier this year.
00:17:06.000By the way, on the spectrum of people who suck, Gavin McGinnis is actually not as crappy as Milo Yiannopoulos, in my personal opinion.
00:17:16.000But if the idea is anybody who's ever talked to Gavin McGinnis gets thrown out, well then, this is going to create quite a problem for Facebook as well.
00:17:24.000Now, the reason it's going to create quite a problem for Facebook and for Instagram, for example, is because one of the people they banned was Louis Farrakhan.
00:17:31.000Louis Farrakhan is as evil in his views as anybody on the list.
00:17:35.000I would say more evil in his views than pretty much everyone on the list.
00:17:39.000He's probably the most evil of the people who are on this list.
00:17:41.000Louis Farrakhan, for years, he's been an open, brutal, blatant anti-Semite who uses genocidal language about Jews.
00:17:47.000And Lewis Farrakhan is being pushed today by Snoop Dogg.
00:17:52.000So, is Instagram and Facebook, are they going to ban Snoop Dogg?
00:17:55.000Because the fact is that, according to the New York Times, people like Alex Jones are being banned not for stuff that they did, but for featuring Gavin McGinnis.
00:18:02.000And Milo Yiannopoulos is being banned.
00:18:08.000As a human being, who during the 2016 election, he said that I was insufficiently committed to the cause of preserving whiteness in the United States effectively, and he called me a cuck for this.
00:18:18.000And on the day that my son was born, he sent me a picture of a black baby on Twitter because obviously I wanted my wife to have sex with a black man to produce a black child because I was in favor of what?
00:18:27.000The racial mixing of the United States or something?
00:18:29.000I mean, it's just, it was an insane thing.
00:18:31.000So Gavin, so, so, Yiannopoulos is bad, on his, on his own merits, but Yiannopoulos is being banned because he signaled praise for Gavin McInnes?
00:18:41.000Okay, fine, if that's the standard, why is Snoop Dogg still on Facebook and Instagram?
00:18:44.000Yesterday, he put out an Instagram video in which he actively encouraged people to post videos of Louis Farrakhan on Facebook and on Instagram.
00:20:16.000Joan Donovan, the director of Harvard's Technology and Social Change Research Project, who studies online extremism, says, I'm sure they're going to make a slippery slope argument here.
00:20:24.000No, I'm not making a slippery slope argument.
00:20:25.000I am making an argument that you do not have clear standards by any stretch of the imagination.
00:20:29.000I'm not saying you're going after Alex Jones, therefore you'll go after Paul Joseph Watson, therefore you will go after me.
00:20:34.000That is not the case that I am making.
00:20:36.000The case I am making is that you have not articulated any standard at all.
00:20:40.000And so, having not articulated a standard, it's not that I suspect there will be a slippery slope.
00:20:46.000I am suggesting there is no absolute principle that is being applied here.
00:20:52.000I have proof that there is no absolute principle being applied here.
00:20:55.000This proof comes courtesy of Jewish Insider today.
00:20:59.000Quote, In a letter, Facebook Vice President Joel Kaplan makes clear the site will not remove lies or content that is inaccurate, and that includes denying the Holocaust.
00:21:08.000So if you are an open Holocaust denier, you will not be removed from Facebook.
00:21:12.000But, if you once had a conversation with Gavin McGinnis, or said something nice about Gavin McGinnis, not on Facebook, you will be removed from Facebook.
00:21:22.000Who's the vice president for global public policy at Facebook.
00:21:25.000He said that Facebook intends to allow Holocaust denial on the platform so long as it doesn't advocate violence against Jewish people in any way.
00:21:31.000By the way, this is the actual correct perspective.
00:21:33.000What Kaplan is articulating here should be the perspective.
00:21:36.000You should be allowed to say whatever you want on places like Facebook so long as you're not advocating for violence.
00:21:41.000Because there is a stark difference between violence and speech that is unpalatable and gross and terrible.
00:21:48.000Kaplan says, I want to underscore that Facebook rejects hate.
00:21:50.000We take down any content that celebrates, defends, or attempts to justify the Holocaust.
00:22:19.000Okay, so the same goes for any content that mocks Holocaust victims, accuses victims of lying about atrocities, spews hate, or advocates for violence against Jewish people in any way.
00:22:27.000So now he's broadening the standard again.
00:22:29.000But the standard is so inconsistent that, like, my sister has been targeted on Facebook by anti-Semites.
00:23:21.000And I'll talk about the legality of it in a second, because there are people calling for regulation of Facebook.
00:23:25.000I'll talk about what that would look like, whether that should be done in a second, but first I want to talk about what the media are doing here, and why I don't trust the media to set a standard for hate, and a standard for what should be banned first.
00:23:39.000You guys have heard me talk about Framebridge before.
00:23:41.000You know they make it super easy and affordable to custom frame your favorite things, from print and posters to the photos on your phone.
00:23:52.000Just upload your photo and order by Sunday, May 5th for guaranteed free delivery in time for Mother's Day.
00:23:57.000Just go to framebridge.com and upload your photo, or they'll send you packaging to safely mail in your physical pieces.
00:24:03.000Preview that item online in any frame style, choose your favorite, or get free recommendations from their talented designers.
00:24:08.000The expert team at Framebridge will custom frame your item, deliver your finished piece directly to you, or they can deliver to mom in time for Mother's Day when you place your order by Sunday, May 5th.
00:24:17.000Instead of the hundreds you would pay at a traditional framing store, Their prices start at $39.
00:25:05.000I keep repeating that because I do not have a stake in these people staying online other than that I like free speech, which seems like a pretty heavy stake.
00:25:14.000The reason I don't trust the media on this stuff is because the media lie and then they conflate.
00:25:18.000To the media, as I mentioned earlier, as they labeled Louis Farrakhan, a far-right extremist, there is no such thing as a far-left extremist and everyone on the right is an extremist who ought to be banned.
00:25:29.000As evidence, I point to the Poynter Institute, a journalism non-profit organization.
00:25:33.000They put up a list of 515 news websites it identified as unreliable They raised eyebrows this week when it posted that index of what it identified as unreliable news sites.
00:25:44.000The index came from merging various lists identifying websites purportedly spreading misinformation.
00:25:51.000The list was compiled by the group's international fact-checking network.
00:25:54.000It initially included the Washington Examiner.
00:25:58.000The language on the website called for full boycotts by advertisers of all of these blacklisted sites.
00:26:07.000It included Daily Wire, it included Drudge Report, it included Breitbart, it included Daily Signal from Heritage Foundation, it included the Washington Examiner, it included just an enormous, enormous list of pretty much every site that was to the right of center.
00:26:22.000Like, all of them were considered unreliable by Poynter.
00:26:26.000And finally, after blowback, and they were calling for boycotts of these folks, right?
00:26:35.000They try to generate the idea that if you are anywhere to the right of center or anti-left in any way, that you ought to be banned, that you are unreliable, and that you ought to be shut down.
00:26:44.000You ought to be deplatformed, is the way that they put it.
00:26:48.000And Poynter actually had to pull the list But I promise you, if Poynter had not pulled the list, it would be cited by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
00:26:55.000Every time they mentioned the Daily Wire in any of their stories, they would say, an organization that Poynter has declared unreliable.
00:27:02.000They do that with media matters all the time.
00:27:04.000For years, they were using the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hack-left organization, to smear all right-wing sources.
00:27:10.000Every time they mentioned PragerU, or Daily Wire, or anybody else, they would say, an organization deemed hateful by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
00:27:19.000So the media create this echo chamber where everybody who disagrees with them is evil and everybody who agrees with them is good.
00:27:25.000And you can tell who's evil and who's good by who disagrees with you.
00:27:29.000Well, on Thursday night, Poynter actually had to pull the list.
00:27:31.000Their managing editor, Barbara Allen, posted a letter to the editor explaining the decision.
00:27:36.000Allen wrote that the initial aim of the project was to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming.
00:27:43.000However, she wrote, Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites and the exclusion of others.
00:27:52.000We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology.
00:28:01.000We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.
00:28:09.000As a result, she wrote that Poynter was removing this unreliable sites list until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria.
00:28:19.000Well, there is no consistent and rigorous set of criteria here.
00:28:22.000One of the things that I always find amusing is that they put together these lists, members of the left do, in which they say that sites are unreliable.
00:28:50.000That means that at this point we have posted tens of thousands of stories.
00:28:54.000It should not be hard to find four or five stories that are unreliable.
00:28:57.000But that is also true for all these other outlets.
00:28:59.000What this really comes down to is a subjective method of measuring these sites you don't like and then finding some sort of covering excuse to ban them.
00:29:07.000It's almost impossible not to read this stuff in this way.
00:29:45.000That is a very, very good thing and you are the beneficiary of it.
00:29:49.000But what's happening in Europe right now is that the Europeans have set these standards for hate speech and then they are looking at suing or taking down Facebook over quote-unquote hate speech appearing on the platform.
00:30:00.000So Facebook is now looking for similar regulation from the United States so that they don't have to be eaten alive by the market in the United States.
00:30:07.000They can blame it on the government of the United States.
00:30:11.000Now, there's been a lot of talk about whether they should be regulated because they're effectively a monopoly.
00:30:17.000I don't think they're effectively a monopoly because I think that there can be competitors to Facebook.
00:30:21.000I'm not a fan of antitrust law as a general area of law.
00:30:24.000The only monopolies that I really see are government-guaranteed monopolies.
00:30:28.000If you are just a company that is very successful in your space and you are not gouging the customer, I don't think that you have a technical monopoly.
00:30:36.000I tend to be a consumer side advocate when it comes to deciding whether a company's a monopoly.
00:30:40.000There's sort of two theories of monopoly.
00:30:42.000One is that if you are the only company in your space, so the supply side, then you are monopoly.
00:30:47.000The consumer side says, well, who cares if you're the only company in your space, so long as you're not gouging the consumer.
00:30:52.000If the consumer is getting a better product, that is the purpose of the market.
00:30:55.000It is the possibility of competition that allows for cheap products to continue being in the marketplace.
00:32:27.000Go check them out right now and make your finances simpler and easier and cheaper, frankly.
00:32:32.000Alright, in a second we're going to get to the legal status of Facebook.
00:32:35.000First, you're going to have to go and subscribe.
00:32:37.000$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to dailywire.com.
00:32:39.000One of the reasons we want you to subscribe, folks, is because it does protect us, and it protects you, from being deplatformed.
00:32:44.000Meaning that, if in the future YouTube or Facebook decide that they want to crack down on everyone right of center, Well, then you still get the show.
00:32:52.000It's one of the things that allows us to keep bringing you the show, is the fact that we have subscribers.
00:34:37.000We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in America.
00:34:41.000All righty, so let's talk for a second about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher.
00:34:52.000So, to illustrate the difference between a platform and a publisher, think about the difference between your phone line and dailywire.com, the website that I run.
00:34:59.000So your phone line, if you are talking on your phone line and you say something terrible, AT&T, Verizon, they are not responsible for what happens on your phone line.
00:35:09.000None of them are responsible for what happens on your phone line because it's an open platform.
00:35:16.000My publisher, if I print something that is libelous, we can be sued.
00:35:19.000If we violate copyright, we can be sued.
00:35:24.000230, which is a provision of the Communications Decency Act, which creates an enormous amount of freedom on the Internet.
00:35:28.000It's a very good provision as a general rule.
00:35:30.000Section 230, was designed to protect providers or to protect publishers effectively, well, platforms effectively.
00:35:39.000Section 230 says, quote, no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
00:35:48.000So in other words, YouTube is not really responsible for you posting a copyright violative video.
00:36:27.000All of that should change, logically speaking, if there is no clearly articulated standard by which comments are being removed or by which videos are being removed.
00:36:36.000In other words, let's say that YouTube decides that they are only going to release videos provided by users that are That are on one topic.
00:36:47.000And then they just decide that they are going to remove all other topics.
00:36:51.000But now let's say that YouTube is doing what people suspect they are doing, which is demonetizing specific sides of the aisle.
00:36:56.000That they are taking down videos that violate certain things and not taking down other videos.
00:37:00.000Let's say that Facebook decides to do that.
00:37:01.000The question now is do they look more like how I run my website, Daily Wire, where all of my independent contractors, right for me, were responsible for them?
00:37:22.000Or does Facebook look more like an open forum where they're, like, back-policing things on a consistent basis?
00:37:30.000If there are no standards articulated, there's a good case to be made that Section 230 of the Communications Act should actually, of the Communications Decency Act, should be changed to require that if you are a platform, you should have to have at least a clearly articulated standard for what is removed and what is not.
00:37:46.000Because otherwise, you're really not acting like a platform.
00:37:48.000Really, you're acting more like a publisher.
00:37:49.000Like, I decide on an editorial level what we wish to publish.
00:37:52.000Well, Facebook, if they have decided that politically motivated concerns are the issue, well, then they look more like us.
00:38:00.000So, that is what is going on with these sort of vague hate standards.
00:38:04.000If you have a vague hate standard that is only being applied to one side of the aisle, that would suggest that you are acting more like a publisher than like a platform.
00:38:13.000And that means that there should be some serious consideration to revising Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
00:38:18.000Now, the case against that, just to give the other side, is that you don't want government getting involved with regulating websites generally.
00:38:26.000You don't want the government... Now, I don't think that's what would be happening here.
00:38:29.000I think that instead what would be happening here is that you are opening up to liability websites that act like publishers.
00:38:39.000They're not quashing my free speech, the fact that we can be sued for libel or for copyright violation.
00:38:44.000Well, the same case could be made with regard to Facebook.
00:38:46.000If you're responsible for your material, you're responsible for your material.
00:38:50.000There's a better thing that could happen here.
00:38:53.000Facebook is asking for wider regulation than that, by the way.
00:38:55.000They want the government to actually regulate the speech that can be put on Facebook.
00:38:59.000But there's a better stance than this, which is, how about a clearly articulated standard that says what you can put up and what you cannot put up on Facebook?
00:39:09.000How about like terms of service that aren't impermissibly vague?
00:39:11.000How about you have to offer an excuse when you ban somebody from your service and so we can all see it and learn from the case study?
00:39:18.000But these social media companies don't want to do that, and that's why people are so suspicious of what exactly is going on here.
00:39:23.000And they should be suspicious of what is going on here.
00:39:26.000Again, if you are a person who has once said a nice thing about Paul Joseph Watson, and you're gonna be banned, or if you're Paul Joseph Watson yourself, right?
00:39:36.000Paul Joseph Watson, by the way, is not nearly as extreme, just as a human, from what I have seen.
00:39:40.000He's not nearly as extreme as even Alex Jones, a guy for whom he works.
00:39:44.000But if Paul Joseph Watson The idea is that Paul Joseph Watson was nice to Gavin McGinnis, Milo Yiannopoulos was nice to Gavin McGinnis, and they can be banned.
00:39:52.000Again, you're going to have to ask, why is Snoop Dogg still there?
00:39:55.000Why are half the people in Congress who took pictures with Louis Farrakhan still there?
00:39:59.000These standards are not being evenly applied because they can't even be articulated.
00:40:02.000They are not even trying to articulate them, frankly, because they know that they're going to get help from the mainstream media that agrees with them.
00:41:53.000How sad it is for us to see the top law enforcement officer in our country misrepresenting, withholding the truth from the Congress of the United States.
00:42:05.000The Attorney General of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States.
00:42:22.000In a second, we'll get to more on the Democrats attacking William Barr.
00:42:25.000Okay, so it's not just Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who is openly suggesting without any evidence at all that William Barr committed perjury, which he did not.
00:42:32.000It is also Ted Lieu, who is just a terrible congressperson, suggesting that William Barr, the Attorney General, is one of the most dangerous men in the country.
00:42:57.000First, he intentionally mischaracterized the Mueller report.
00:43:01.000He was then told by Robert Mueller that he mischaracterized the Mueller report, and instead of apologizing, he doubles down and continues to mislead the American people.
00:43:10.000Second, today he ignored the will of Congress, oversight responsibilities of Congress, and lawfully issued subpoenas.
00:43:17.000And third, right now he is suing to eliminate your healthcare coverage.
00:43:22.000Let's not forget, right now he is suing in court to eliminate pre-existing conditions healthcare coverage.
00:43:30.000Democrats are not going to do anything about William Barr.
00:43:31.000This is all sound and fury signifying nothing.
00:43:33.000This is them whining and whining and bitching and moaning because they didn't get what they wanted from Robert Mueller and they can't blame Robert Mueller because they spent several years building him up As the deus ex machina who's going to save us all from President Trump, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York let the cat out of the bag.
00:43:49.000He said, yeah, we're not jailing Barr.
00:43:51.000So like all this talk about how we're going to hold him in contempt and then throw him in jail.
00:43:58.000Do you suggest maybe even, as some have said, jail time for the Attorney General of the United States?
00:44:04.000Well, jail time is not something that I believe is being seriously contemplated, and look, we're going to continue along the track of trying to find common ground on behalf of the issues that would improve the lives of everyday Americans, while at the same time understanding that there's another lane which is going to require for Congress to hold the administration accountable when it steps over the line, and we're not going to shirk that responsibility either.
00:44:30.000Okay, well, you know, they're not going to shirk that responsibility, except that there is no responsibility here because they're not going to do anything.
00:44:36.000They're not interested in doing anything.
00:44:40.000Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee is trying to get Robert Mueller there in the wild hope that Robert Mueller will come in and then say, listen, I decided that I couldn't indict because the president's the president, but secretly you guys should impeach him.
00:44:51.000That's what they want from Robert Mueller.
00:44:52.000I don't think Robert Mueller is going to give that to them, apparently.
00:44:56.000NBC News and ABC News are reporting that the committee is now speaking with Mueller's team.
00:45:00.000When it was previously dealing with the Justice Department, NBC reports that a hearing has not been finalized, a date was not set, but they're apparently negotiating with Mueller to come testify.
00:45:09.000Well, I mean, the networks, I'm sure, will be happy with the ratings because that's exciting stuff, but we have Mueller's thoughts.
00:45:16.000In 450 pages, he had things longer than a Tolstoy novel.
00:45:32.000Now the reason I think that Democrats are truly upset about a lot of this stuff is because there are news stories that are coming out pretty much every day now about the lengths to which the Hillary Clinton campaign was interfering with other countries in the election of 2016, the extent to which the intelligence community was intervening with regard to election 2016.
00:45:51.000There's a story that I've mentioned over the last couple days from the New York Times.
00:45:57.000In which the New York Times reports that the FBI sent yet another quote-unquote spy, another investigator, posing as an assistant to meet with George Papadopoulos.
00:46:06.000According to the New York Times, there was a woman who posed as a research assistant.
00:46:12.000She was actually a government investigator.
00:46:14.000She went to spy on George Papadopoulos.
00:46:18.000And this would be a spy being deployed to go talk with a member of the Trump campaign.
00:46:23.000Trump was never told about any of this.
00:46:25.000There will be investigations into the extent to which the intelligence community targeted members of the Trump campaign, whether Trump himself should have been told, and whether there was enough of a supportive evidentiary basis to suggest the use of informants and surveillance against people like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
00:46:41.000That Inspector General report is set to come out, I believe, in June.
00:46:45.000I think Democrats are fearful of that.
00:46:47.000I think Democrats are also fearful of new reports like this one that is coming out.
00:46:52.000According to Fox News, Ukraine's embassy wrote that a Democratic National Committee insider reached out in 2016 seeking dirt on President Trump's team, according to a bombshell new report on Thursday that further fueled Republican allegations that Democrats were the ones improperly colluding with foreign agents during the campaign.
00:47:09.000Ambassador Valerie Chaley said DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa pushed for Ukraine's then-president Petro Poroshenko to mention Paul Manafort's ties to Ukraine publicly during a visit to the United States and sought detailed financial information on his dealings in the country, according to The Hill.
00:47:24.000At the time, Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman.
00:47:28.000Chaley said in a statement, quote, the embassy got to know Miss Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington, D.C., and not in her DNC capacity.
00:47:36.000We learned about her DNC involvement later.
00:47:38.000We were surprised to see Alexandra's interest in Paul Manafort's case.
00:47:43.000The embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter.
00:47:49.000In other words, it looks like a DNC contractor slash operative was trying to get information for the 2016 campaign on Paul Manafort.
00:48:14.000I mean, it is trying to get information from a foreign source about a domestic political adversary.
00:48:19.000So, Democrats are in for a rough ride here, I think, and I think that they know it.
00:48:23.000So, that is probably why they are attempting to misdirect to William Barr.
00:48:27.000I don't think the next couple of months go real well on the intelligence community.
00:48:30.000I don't think that they do a lot of wonders for the credibility of the Democratic Party and the intelligence community on any of this stuff.
00:48:39.000So, that may be why they are trying to misdirect to William Barr or Robert Mueller and all the rest of this stuff.
00:48:43.000Okay, time for a little bit of mailbag, because it is indeed a Friday.
00:48:49.000leah says hey ben a few friends and i are planning a month-long trip for october and at the end of our trip we are planning to visit turkey and lebanon i've traveled all over the world with the exception to the middle east so when they said they wanted to visit i said i'd be on board however i heard you can't enter lebanon if you've been traveling to israel marked on your passport while i've never been there i was curious of the reason for this and what your thoughts are on traveling there and turkey when i'm a strong supporter of israel thanks and love the show so i am not sure what the actual rules are in lebanon i'm not sure what the actual rules are in I know that those rules do apply in places like Saudi Arabia.
00:49:18.000There are certain countries that refuse to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel.
00:49:21.000Don't worry, it's not anti-Semitism to fail to acknowledge a Jewish state that exists.
00:49:25.000It is merely a form of anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism at all.
00:49:30.000Those rules obviously are targeted toward Jews.
00:49:35.000Israel does not have similar rules with any country on planet Earth.
00:49:38.000It's pretty amazing that all of that is tolerated, but it's soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to radical Muslim leadership in that part of the world.
00:49:46.000Kyle says, What is your argument to people that say the economy will crash after Trump because of his Reaganomics-type policies, tax cuts, trade regulations, etc.?
00:49:56.000Well, number one, there are very few economists who have been consistent in being able to predict economic crashes.
00:50:01.000This is just a reality of the situation.
00:50:03.000I think people suspect there will be one in the sometime near future, simply because every eight to ten years in the United States, there is some sort of economic downturn.
00:50:13.000So that means that we're probably due, but that's more of like in the earthquakes are coming, feeling that you get sitting on the porch, right?
00:50:21.000That is not based on any economic criteria.
00:50:24.000I have no idea why you would say that Reaganomics type policies create recessions when Reaganomics type policies created the greatest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States.
00:50:33.000The greatest peacetime economics expansion in the history of the United States.
00:50:38.000Even short-term downturns like Black Monday back in October of, what was it, 1987, Even that was quickly rectified and the economy kept on growing.
00:50:47.000Even the short-term downturn in 1991 was reversed by the end of 1991.
00:50:51.000By the time 1992 election came about, the economy was already moving forward again.
00:50:55.000So, the idea that Reaganomics-type policies is what quashes economic growth.
00:50:59.000No, what quashes economic growth, downturns are unpredictable.
00:51:02.000Economic growth, however, is predictably tied to a business climate that is friendly toward business as opposed to a heavy regulatory and tax-based climate That tends to quash growth.
00:51:11.000That's what we found out from Barack Obama.
00:51:22.000Number one, you have to read and read and read.
00:51:24.000You really do need to know the issues about which you speak.
00:51:27.000Second of all, seek commonality and common definition before you start a conversation.
00:51:31.000The way to have a bad political conversation is for somebody to say something like, you're mean, you're cruel, and then you say, no, I'm not mean and cruel.
00:51:38.000That's not a conversation, that's an argument.
00:51:40.000What you have to do is say, I need you to define meanness and cruelty so that we can have a definition of what exactly we are talking about, because I don't believe your definition.
00:51:49.000If your definition is you just don't like me, well, you know, then we can't have a conversation.
00:51:53.000If we want to have a conversation, we have to get to commonality of terms.
00:51:57.000It's funny, I have conversations with folks all the time on a variety of issues, particularly on the other side of the aisle.
00:52:02.000And to use an example, I just did an interview with, I believe it was Salon, I think?
00:52:08.000And the reporter over at Salon was extremely antagonistic.
00:52:15.000The entire interview was basically this person trying to make an argument over... It was not an interview.
00:52:28.000And then I had a similar conversation about my book with Sean Illing at Vox, who happens to be an honest reporter who's read my book and who disagrees with my book.
00:52:36.000But because we were having a conversation that was productive, he would ask my opinion on something.
00:52:41.000I would ask him for a clarification of definition.
00:52:57.000Specificity and clarity is what you should be seeking in conversation if you wish to have a conversation.
00:53:02.000broad-based terminology about which there is no common understanding, that's how you have an argument.
00:53:08.000Sarah says, "Ben, what books do you recommend "to learn more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Well, there's a great book that I've recommended on the show by David Bragg called "Reclaiming Israel's History." It's very short, it's about 200 pages, and that gives you a pretty good background on what you need to know.
00:53:21.000There's also a book by Eli Bard called "Myths and Facts" that I always recommend, mainly 'cause it's bite-sized.
00:53:25.000It has a myth and then it will have the fact, and that's like a page long, and it answers most of your questions about it.
00:53:32.000And then if you want sort of longer form histories, there's a book by Howard Sachar called The History of Zionism that is worth reading.
00:53:38.000Benjamin Netanyahu actually wrote a great book called The Durable Peace back in the 1990s that talks about the kind of long-term history of Israel and the Palestinians, and more than Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and the Arab world around it, because the Palestinians as a cohesive entity really did not exist as a cohesive entity until the creation of the state of Israel.
00:53:59.000Palestinian actually referred to Jew, right?
00:54:00.000The Palestine Post was referring to the Jerusalem Post was referring to Jews.
00:54:05.000Palestinians as a specific political entity were not created really until 1948 and everybody was considered Syrian.
00:54:11.000Not to say that they weren't indigenous to the area.
00:54:13.000There were Palestinians indigenous to the area, but they considered themselves Syrian or Egyptian or Jordanian or Saudi.
00:54:20.000So it is worth reading all of those books.
00:54:22.000I can give you more if you're interested.
00:54:24.000Anthony says, Hey Ben, Is there ever an argument from a conservative side for any implementation of a Keynesian-style economic policy?
00:54:30.000Also, do you believe we are in a late-stage capitalist system currently?
00:54:34.000The phrase late-stage capitalist is very irritating because there is either capitalist or there is non-capitalist.
00:54:39.000The idea that capitalism is moving toward an endgame where it falls apart?
00:54:43.000That is a Marxist construct that I just don't believe.
00:54:46.000Marxism suggests that eventually history will end with the seizure of the means of production by the workers.
00:54:53.000And that has not happened historically.
00:54:55.000Instead, what has happened historically is a forcible Seizure of the means of production by governments and then the collapse of that system repeatedly because that system sucks and is terrible for human beings.
00:55:06.000So I don't really believe in the phrase late-stage capitalist.
00:55:09.000I believe in economic that there is such a thing as top-down economic fascism or corporatism.
00:55:16.000That exists, but I don't think that's capitalism.
00:55:18.000I think people tend to conflate a lot of this terminology.
00:55:20.000As far as the argument for implementation of a Keynesian style economic policy, which I assume would mean seizure of money from people who are more wealthy, giving it to people who are poorer, So they can start spending that money, that spending is better than saving?
00:57:00.000I said if you're a Marvel fan, and you're really into it, and you liked the, I guess it was 21 movies leading up to Avengers Endgame, and you're looking for the Easter eggs, and it's all nostalgia for you and fan service, totally fine with that.
00:57:39.000The battle at the very end of Avengers Endgame should not have taken place, meaning that it is obvious that Thanos is facing off against them.
00:57:47.000And, so, as I mentioned in my review of Avengers Endgame yesterday on my show, on the podcast, the biggest problem with Avengers Endgame, one of the big problems, my business partner Jeremy Boring pointed this out, is that the relative powers of the various characters make no sense.
00:58:03.000So, in the first Avengers Infinity War, Thanos is barely able to hold off just Thor, and he's got the Infinity Gauntlet while he's doing that.
00:58:11.000And the Infinity Gauntlet is super duper powerful.
00:58:14.000Well, at the end of Avengers Endgame, spoilers here, okay guys?
01:00:01.000I know, I live in Los Angeles, it makes no sense.
01:00:03.000I'm a Celtics fan because I picked up all of my father's sports allegiances because, like religion, fandom for sports teams is picked up from your parents.
01:00:11.000This is why my kids will be White Sox fans, even though they are two generations removed from Chicago.
01:00:14.000So, the NBA, I'm a Celtics fan because my parents went to school in Boston, and the Chicago Bulls really were not a thing when my dad was growing up, so he was a Celtics fan.
01:00:26.000He's partially a Celtics fan because Red Arbok was the owner of, was the owner slash general manager of the Boston Celtics and was an early integrator of the NBA, for example, was Jewish, etc.
01:00:36.000The NFL, I'm a Chicago Bears fan, so I picked up all the Chicago allegiances.
01:00:40.000I know, it's a terrible fate to be a Chicago Bears fan.
01:01:04.000You can go check that out at Amazon.com.
01:01:06.000Yeah, Adil says, hey Ben, question, how would you respond to the argument regarding abortion that in a life and death situation, the life of the mother takes precedence over the unborn baby?
01:01:14.000Admitting to a certain extent that the two lives are not the equal at that point, unborn versus born, while I myself have a bunch of issues with what is extrapolated from this point, I'm having a hard time discrediting the logic.
01:01:23.000Well, the logic makes sense that you prefer the life of the mother so long as the baby is not born yet because there is a difference between unborn and born with regard to choice of life.
01:01:35.000But that does not mean that in a vacuum you can just kill the unborn.
01:01:37.000This is what people seem to get wrong.
01:01:39.000You don't actually have to make the argument that an embryo is of the exact same value.
01:01:44.000You can make the argument, you don't have to make the argument that an embryo is of the exact same value as a 30-year-old person in order to make the argument that an embryo must be preserved.
01:01:54.000You don't have to make that argument because it is not a choice.
01:01:58.000The choice is between your inconvenience and the embryo or your wishes and the embryo's existence.
01:02:19.000I don't think you have to accept even the, you don't even have to accept the premise that all life is innately of equal value to, especially, you know, in early stages of, you don't have to accept, you can accept it.
01:02:32.000Again, you can say an embryo is exactly the same as a fully grown human being, but you don't have to in order to make the argument for the preservation of the embryo.
01:02:39.000That's historically been the Jewish argument, for example.
01:02:41.000Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then we'll do a quick thing I hate, and then we'll get out of here.
01:02:49.000I talked at length about Holocaust Remembrance Day, and there's a great video I saw yesterday from El Al, the Israeli national airline.
01:02:59.000The plane, which is full of Jews who were going to Israel on Yom Hashoah, they were flying over Germany, and a guy, one of the flight attendants, got on the intercom, and he starts telling everybody about how all of his grandparents were slaughtered in the camps.
01:03:18.000He gets on the intercom and he says, and if they could see now that there is an airplane with a Jewish star flying over Germany.
01:03:26.000Imagine, I mean, imagine the miracle of that.
01:03:28.000It really is a miraculous, miraculous thing.
01:03:31.000The Holocaust was so horrible in terms of human populations that there are still fewer Jews on earth 80 years after the Holocaust than there were before the Holocaust.
01:03:53.000One of the ones that I mentioned that has been wildly underrated, there was a movie, a TV movie that was done about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which is one of the great inspiring stories of Jewish history.
01:04:02.000A small band of barely armed Jews have been cut off by the outside world, holding up for a month against the mechanization of the German military forces.
01:04:13.000It is a strong argument, by the way, that people should be armed because armed Jews held off the Nazis for a month.
01:04:20.000In the middle of complete privation, without proper ammunition, without proper firearms.
01:04:25.000There's a very good movie called Uprising, as I say.
01:05:14.000So here is Burger King's weird commercial, which, I mean, I guess capitalism for the win, but here is Burger King trying to, I guess, push depression eating?
01:05:44.000Okay, so it's just a bunch of little poetic statements about feelings, and then the chorus is, I just want you to let me feel my way.
01:05:56.000You can feel your way, okay, but what you really should do if you're depressed and you're down and you're having a problem is you should go see somebody and do something about it.
01:06:03.000Burger King's eventual solution to all of this is that if we just let you feel however you want to feel, without trying to intervene, And then we give you a bunch of meals that you're gonna eat, so we're gonna let you harden your arteries.
01:06:13.000That's the proper solution, is for you to feed.
01:06:20.000By the way, for folks who are depressed, one of the greatest methods of trying to fight depression is something called cognitive behavioral therapy, in which the goal is not to let you feel your way, the goal is to try to explain to you how you can intervene in the chain of your own feelings and stop yourself from feeling a way you don't want to feel.
01:06:38.000Burger King making money off depression eating, and then virtue signaling about it.
01:06:42.000Welcome to... If there is such a thing as late-stage capitalism, this would be what it would look like.
01:07:37.000Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, Facebook has stepped up its censorship efforts.
01:07:43.000So we'll discuss the great purge of supposedly dangerous People who all reside, coincidentally I'm sure, on one side of the political spectrum.
01:07:53.000And we'll also talk about the ethical and legal implications of what they're doing.
01:07:58.000Also, we're now being told that it is white supremacist to try to be objective.