The Ben Shapiro Show - Facebook and Twitter Just Ushered In The Most Dangerous Political Moment In Memory | Ep. 1116

00:00:00.000 After the New York Post runs a bombshell story about Hunter Biden brokering a meeting between a Ukrainian oligarch and Joe Biden, Facebook and Twitter crack down on the story.

00:00:09.000 We examine our intrepid journalists who continuously cheer censorship, and Amy Coney Barrett moves one step closer to confirmation.

00:00:14.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:15.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:17.000 Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

00:00:24.000 My savvy fans secure their internet.

00:00:26.000 Join them at expressvpn.com.

00:00:29.000 By the way, one of the reasons you should secure your internet is that social media giants cannot control the information that you see and hear as easily.

00:00:37.000 And that is the topic.

00:00:38.000 Of today's show.

00:00:39.000 I mean, this is unbelievable.

00:00:41.000 Unbelievable.

00:00:42.000 So yesterday, late morning, early afternoon, the New York Post breaks a story about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

00:00:50.000 And essentially the story is this.

00:00:52.000 Hunter Biden, who is in fact a crackhead. 1.00

00:00:55.000 I mean, he is a drug addict. 0.99

00:00:58.000 He's an unsavory character. 0.99

00:00:59.000 He has several, he has had many affairs with various different Women, he's a mess. 0.99

00:01:07.000 Hunter Biden is just a mess. 1.00

00:01:09.000 He's a mess of a human being. 0.99

00:01:10.000 And that's not Joe's fault, per se.

00:01:12.000 I mean, there are lots of good parents who have messes for children.

00:01:15.000 But it is Joe's fault that Joe has allowed Hunter Biden to run across the world picking up sacks of cash by trading on his last name.

00:01:22.000 And that is what Hunter Biden has been doing for years.

00:01:23.000 He picked up sacks of cash in China.

00:01:25.000 He picked up sacks of cash in Ukraine.

00:01:27.000 And for a long time, conservatives have been focused in on Hunter Biden's activities with regard to Burisma.

00:01:33.000 Now, the original narrative with regard to Burisma is Burisma is a natural gas and oil company In Ukraine, Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of that company and picking up checks for $50,000 a month, despite the fact that he didn't know anything about natural gas or oil, despite the fact that he himself was a personal mess.

00:01:50.000 The only reason he was on that board is because he was related to Joe Biden.

00:01:53.000 Joe Biden was then the vice president of the United States and largely in charge of Ukrainian policy.

00:01:58.000 Well, Joe Biden then bragged on tape about getting one of the chief prosecutors over in Ukraine fired.

00:02:04.000 He threatened to withhold $1 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine until they fired this guy.

00:02:08.000 Joe Biden always claimed that it had nothing to do with Hunter.

00:02:10.000 And this prosecutor claims that he was about to investigate Burisma.

00:02:13.000 That was the company Hunter was working for.

00:02:15.000 The chain has never quite been made.

00:02:18.000 So there's a lot of controversy over whether Victor Shokin, who was that prosecutor, was actually going to prosecute Burisma.

00:02:24.000 There was indeed a lot of focus on Viktor Shokin as a possible corrupt figure inside Ukraine.

00:02:29.000 A lot of people in Europe wanted to see Viktor Shokin go as the chief prosecutor in Ukraine.

00:02:33.000 Biden has always claimed that his firing of Viktor Shokin was on the up and up.

00:02:38.000 Shokin has always claimed that it was corrupt.

00:02:40.000 That controversy has been out there for quite a while.

00:02:42.000 What is unchallenged is that Joe Biden's family members, ranging from his brother to his son, use his name in order to make money for themselves.

00:02:51.000 And that does have an element of corruption to it.

00:02:55.000 Now, the best that you can say about it is that Joe Biden turned a blind eye to it, right?

00:02:59.000 And this is sort of what Joe has argued.

00:03:00.000 Joe Biden has said, well, I didn't know about it.

00:03:03.000 Nobody ever did anything.

00:03:04.000 Nobody ever did anything, man.

00:03:05.000 Nobody.

00:03:06.000 Come on, man.

00:03:06.000 Come on.

00:03:07.000 I never knew.

00:03:08.000 No, come on. 0.85

00:03:09.000 OK, so here is the bombshell.

00:03:11.000 Yesterday, the New York Post reports that Hunter Biden actually brokered a meeting between a Ukrainian oligarch who was a Burisma chief member and Joe Biden directly.

00:03:22.000 That's what one of these emails tended to suggest.

00:03:24.000 So here's the story from the New York Post. Hunter Biden introduced his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company according to emails obtained by the Post. The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadim Posharsky, an advisor to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17th, 2015, about a

00:03:53.000 year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to 50 grand a month.

00:03:58.000 The email reads, Dear Hunter, Thank you for inviting me to D.C.

00:04:01.000 and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spend some time together.

00:04:03.000 It's really an honor and a pleasure.

00:04:06.000 An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Posharsky, reportedly Berezman's number three exec, asking Hunter for advice on how you could use your influence on the company's behalf.

00:04:17.000 The blockbuster correspondence, as the New York Post reports, flies in the face of Joe Biden's claim that he has never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.

00:04:23.000 It's contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

00:04:27.000 The computer was dropped off, apparently, at a repair shop in Biden's home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store's owner.

00:04:34.000 Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who's admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

00:04:46.000 The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

00:04:56.000 The shop owner couldn't positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said that the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter's late brother and former Delaware Attorney General.

00:05:05.000 Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to the Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop's owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.

00:05:14.000 Before turning over the gear, according to the shop owner, he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, Barbara Costello.

00:05:22.000 Steve Bannon, the former advisor to President Trump, told the Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September.

00:05:27.000 Giuliani provided the Post with a copy of it on Sunday.

00:05:30.000 If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting money.

00:05:32.000 Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then vice president admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of prosecutor general Victor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

00:05:48.000 Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations, I looked at them and said, I'm leaving in six hours.

00:05:53.000 If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting money. 1.00

00:05:56.000 Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. 0.99

00:05:58.000 And so it is not necessary to actually believe that Joe Biden got Shokin fired to protect his son in order to recognize that Joe Biden taking meetings with people that his son is picking up bags of cash from who have influence in areas over which Joe Biden had influence. 1.00

00:06:14.000 That is not a good look.

00:06:15.000 It may not be illegal, but it is certainly corrupt.

00:06:18.000 Pete Rose didn't have to bet on his own team in order for it to be a bad thing that he was betting on baseball.

00:06:24.000 The Clinton Foundation did not actually have to manifest in Hillary Clinton doing things for the various countries who were sending cash to the Clinton Foundation.

00:06:32.000 The fact that they had access to her was the corruption.

00:06:36.000 Shoken has said that at the time of his firing in March 2016, he'd made specific plans to investigate Burisma that included interrogations and other crime investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.

00:06:48.000 Biden has insisted the U.S.

00:06:49.000 wanted Shoken removed over corruption concerns, which were shared by the European Union.

00:06:54.000 So as early as 2014, the emails show that this top person at Burisma was urging Hunter Biden to use political leverage to help the company.

00:07:05.000 OK, so that was the story.

00:07:07.000 OK, and it's a story.

00:07:09.000 I mean, it's certainly a story that Joe Biden apparently.

00:07:12.000 Met with or was planning to meet with this Burisma executive on behalf of Hunter Biden.

00:07:18.000 So that Hunter could continue to traffic with daddy's name.

00:07:21.000 So the Biden campaign released a statement via Andrew Bates, their spokesman.

00:07:26.000 They said investigations led by the press during impeachment and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as not legitimate and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion that Joe Biden carried out official US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath. The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of the story.

00:07:45.000 They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani, whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported, claimed to have such materials.

00:07:54.000 Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time in no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.

00:08:00.000 Okay, so that is a very carefully worded statement.

00:08:03.000 The reason it's a very carefully worded statement is it says that it's not on the calendar.

00:08:06.000 Okay, well, lots of meetings happen between people that are in fact not on the calendar.

00:08:11.000 Furthermore, I do enjoy it when Democrats start complaining and whining about Russian disinformation, when they literally trafficked in Russian disinformation for three long years, culminating in an impeachment attempt against Donald Trump.

00:08:24.000 Okay, the fact is that the Mueller report was largely predicated on the Steele dossier, which was a piece of Russian disinformation that was not only bought into, it was overtly trafficked by the Hillary Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS to the Intel community.

00:08:36.000 This is unchallenged.

00:08:38.000 So don't lecture us about Russian disinformation when the fact is the Democrats were perfectly willing to accept Russian disinformation and then jabber on about how Trump was on tape asking people to pee on him and such.

00:08:52.000 That just doesn't work.

00:08:53.000 So it's a very carefully worded denial from Joe Biden.

00:08:56.000 And then as it turns out, the denial doesn't actually mean anything.

00:08:58.000 Because a little bit later in the day, Politico reported, quote, So now they're admitting, oh yeah, by the way, the meeting could have happened.

00:09:04.000 former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pazarskii, which wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule.

00:09:09.000 They said any encounter would have been cursory.

00:09:11.000 Pazarskii did not respond to a request for comment.

00:09:14.000 So now they're admitting, oh yeah, by the way, the meeting could have happened.

00:09:17.000 At no point anywhere in here, at no point, is there a denial that the emails are real, that the emails are legit?

00:09:25.000 That they were written by Hunter Biden or by Pujarskii.

00:09:28.000 At no point does the Biden campaign actually deny a material fact of the report other than continuing to deny that Biden got this prosecutor, Victor Shokin, fired in order to protect Hunter and Burisma.

00:09:39.000 That is the only part of the story that they've denied.

00:09:41.000 They've not denied any of the surrounding circumstances.

00:09:43.000 They've not denied that a meeting took place.

00:09:46.000 They've not denied that the emails about the meeting are real.

00:09:49.000 So the story is real.

00:09:52.000 Okay, the story is correct.

00:09:54.000 And Senate Republicans immediately announced that they would launch an investigation into all of this.

00:09:58.000 We'll get into that in one second.

00:09:59.000 It turns out that the big story here is not, in fact, this Hunter Biden story.

00:10:02.000 The big story is how our social media betters have decided there's information you should not see and you should not hear.

00:10:08.000 And they are doing it on a purely political basis.

00:10:10.000 There is no question about this.

00:10:12.000 I've been a big defender of freedom of the internet.

00:10:15.000 I've been a big defender against using legislation to crack down on social media companies.

00:10:20.000 It makes it very difficult for conservatives to defend a laissez-faire view of Facebook and Twitter and various other social media companies when they act as overt organs of the Democratic Party and involve themselves in censorship of mainstream media outlets like the New York Post because they don't like the story.

00:10:36.000 It makes it almost impossible I don't think legislation is the proper answer to this question.

00:10:42.000 I don't think the government overseeing Facebook and Twitter and controlling what they can do is the answer, but I sure as hell don't trust the people who are in charge over there if this is the kind of activity in which they're going to engage.

00:10:52.000 This is egregious, okay?

00:10:53.000 That's the actual story here.

00:10:54.000 So the Hunter Biden story, that's bad, but it's just the predicate to the actual story here, which is the attempt to stop you, the American people, from being able to access information that you want.

00:11:04.000 In an overt attempt to stop you from seeing bad information about Joe Biden in the three weeks running up to the election.

00:11:10.000 That's madness.

00:11:11.000 That's madness.

00:11:12.000 These social media companies who purport to be platforms rather than publishers are now in the business of censoring content they do not like.

00:11:19.000 Not on the basis of any neutral application of rules, but on the basis of absolutely non-neutral application of rules.

00:11:26.000 We'll get to this in one second.

00:11:28.000 First, let's talk about the fact That you're spending way too much on cable.

00:11:32.000 Cable costs a fortune.

00:11:33.000 Why not get all the channels that you want without cable?

00:11:36.000 This is why you need FuboTV.

00:11:37.000 It's how you should be watching TV.

00:11:39.000 In fact, I haven't been paying for cable TV for a long time, and Fubo makes it possible for me to see the channels I want.

00:11:44.000 FuboTV will bring you over 100 channels.

00:11:46.000 Cloud TV are no hidden fees.

00:11:47.000 You can stream your shows on your TV or any other smart device.

00:11:50.000 They've got the major broadcast and cable networks, so you can find all your favorite shows, including live sports, news, and primetime TV.

00:11:56.000 With FuboTV, you get all your favorites like This Is Us and The Bachelor.

00:11:59.000 You get the Premier League and the NBA.

00:12:00.000 Next season, they'll get rid of the politics.

00:12:02.000 All the news channels and so much more.

00:12:04.000 There's no risk to try it out.

00:12:05.000 Get full access to FuboTV for seven days for free.

00:12:07.000 Yes, it does include Fox News for my listeners who love Fox News.

00:12:10.000 Right now, FuboTV is offering my listeners the seven-day free trial.

00:12:14.000 and 15% off your first month by going to fubotv.com slash ben. There are no contracts, you can cancel anytime. Go to fubotv.com slash ben for 15% off your first month and a free trial.

00:12:26.000 Again, that's fubotv.com slash ben, f-u-b-o-t-v.com slash ben. I've been using FuboTV, it's fantastic. And again, it's going to cost you way less than cable. So just cut that cord and get involved over at fubotv.com slash ben to get 15% off your first month. Okay, so the Senate committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee is now announcing an investigation of According to the Censorsquare, U.S.

00:12:49.000 Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the committee will now be investigating newly released emails published by the New York Post that purport to reveal that Hunter Biden introduced his dad, Joe Biden, while he was VP of the United States, to an executive at Ukrainian gas firm Burisma.

00:13:03.000 The emails contradict claims Joe has repeatedly made to the media.

00:13:08.000 Johnson told Fox News the committee was in contact with the source of the emails, quote, although we consider those communications to be confidential because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint, have been in contact with the whistleblower and are in the process of validating the information he provided.

00:13:25.000 About two weeks ago, the Senate Committee announced the findings of a year-long investigation into Hunter Biden after Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa raised concerns about alleged corruption linking Hunter Biden to millions of dollars in transactions taking place between Burisma Holding, Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina, and Chinese businessmen with ties to Beijing's communist government.

00:13:42.000 Joe Biden has repeatedly said he knew nothing about any of this.

00:13:45.000 It is all brand new to him.

00:13:48.000 He did not know anything about any of this.

00:13:49.000 And then as it turns out, well, not so much.

00:13:53.000 Okay, so the underlying issue is again an issue of corruption.

00:13:58.000 The appearance of corruption is certainly there when the Vice President of the United States with power over Ukraine policy is meeting with Ukrainian oligarchs in charge of natural oil and gas companies at the behest of his son who is picking up bags of cash in Ukraine from that company.

00:14:11.000 That does not look good.

00:14:12.000 Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana, he pointed this out last night on Fox News.

00:14:17.000 President Obama put Vice President Biden in charge of America's foreign affairs with two countries, Ukraine and China.

00:14:27.000 And in both cases, his son, Mr. Hunter Biden, walked away with millions of dollars of contracts.

00:14:37.000 I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I'm telling you this.

00:14:42.000 This is the message it sent to the rest of the world.

00:14:46.000 The foreign policy of the United States of America can be bought like a sack of potatoes.

00:14:54.000 Okay, that is the impression that is put out there in the same way that the Clinton Foundation, which was receiving bags and bags and bags of cash from foreign sources during the years when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, and then all the funding magically dried up the minute she was no longer Secretary of State.

00:15:09.000 Gives that same appearance of generalized corruption.

00:15:11.000 Okay, but that's not the real story here.

00:15:12.000 It isn't.

00:15:13.000 The real story here is the social media reaction to this.

00:15:15.000 I have never seen anything remotely like this.

00:15:18.000 I've been highly critical of Twitter in particular for censoring material, for booting people, for using fake fact checks in order to target particular stories and particular tweets, particularly from Trump.

00:15:29.000 I've been extremely critical of Facebook and their use of outside fact checkers.

00:15:33.000 I did an entire episode on this just a couple of weeks ago, when Facebook used outside fact checkers to take down two separate ads that were both true.

00:15:41.000 One claiming that Joe Biden was going to raise your taxes, and the other claiming that the Equality Act would make it impossible for there to be separate male and female sports, if taken literally.

00:15:51.000 OK, the Facebook took both of those down based on garbage fact checks from a garbage leftist fact checking site called PolitiFact.

00:15:57.000 So Facebook has been attempting to remove itself from the business of determining what material should be up or down.

00:16:02.000 Instead, they outsourced it to a bunch of outside fact checkers who all Virtually all of whom happen to be left-wing fact-checkers who have no interest in actually checking facts.

00:16:11.000 Instead, what they do is they will take a statement that is perfectly true from a conservative, and they will fact-check the implications, quote-unquote implications, things that nobody said, and then they will declare that a perfectly true statement is false.

00:16:23.000 And then Facebook will censor the material based on the outside fact checkers.

00:16:27.000 Facebook has also set up a group, it's supposed to be a panel, like an appeals board on this sort of stuff, but that appeals board has not gone into place yet, so we have no idea how that appeals board will rule on particular cases.

00:16:38.000 So Facebook has been deliberately attempting to take itself out of the business of being directly responsible for censorship by trying to outsource it to various fact-checking groups.

00:16:46.000 Yesterday, the mask came completely off, completely off for Facebook, and Twitter never had a mask.

00:16:52.000 And so Twitter basically just decided, okay, well, you know what?

00:16:55.000 We don't like this story about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

00:16:58.000 It doesn't matter that we have yet to find an element of the story that is overtly not true.

00:17:03.000 The only thing that matters is that this story cannot go out.

00:17:03.000 None of that matters.

00:17:06.000 It cannot go out.

00:17:08.000 So Twitter decided that they were going to censor the story.

00:17:11.000 So did Facebook.

00:17:12.000 They both made it impossible to distribute the link.

00:17:15.000 You literally, on Twitter, you literally could not link the New York Post story.

00:17:19.000 If you tried to tweet out a link of the New York Post story, a warning would come up.

00:17:22.000 If you did tweet out the New York Post story, they suspended your account.

00:17:26.000 The New York Post main Twitter account was suspended.

00:17:29.000 It was suspended.

00:17:30.000 You couldn't tweet from the New York Post Twitter account because of this story.

00:17:34.000 Kayleigh McEnany, the White House Press Secretary, had her Twitter account suspended for tweeting out information from the New York Post story.

00:17:41.000 I mean, this is crazy talent.

00:17:44.000 This is a mainstream media.

00:17:47.000 But New York Post is a very mainstream publication.

00:17:49.000 It is.

00:17:50.000 Nothing in the story is less well-sourced than a bevy of other stories the mainstream media have run with that are anti-Trump.

00:17:57.000 Does not matter.

00:17:58.000 Both Facebook and Twitter cracked down on it and made it impossible to distribute the story.

00:18:03.000 That's an unbelievable breach of whatever Twitter and Facebook were supposed to be.

00:18:08.000 If again, the idea is that these are platforms and that their job is to provide an open forum for people to disseminate information, particularly if the information is not overtly false.

00:18:16.000 I mean, again, this is prior to any fact check.

00:18:19.000 The emails are real.

00:18:21.000 The allegations in that Hunter Biden story, whether you think they're serious or not, is of secondary concern.

00:18:25.000 The bottom line is this.

00:18:27.000 It appears that Facebook and Twitter were so concerned with the ramifications of a bad story going out about Hunter and Joe Biden based on leaked emails, That they shut down the entire story.

00:18:37.000 And there's only one reason for that.

00:18:39.000 The only reason for that is because the leftists at Facebook and the leftists at Twitter and the leftists in the journalistic establishment have decided that it is time to shut down the dissemination of information they do not like.

00:18:50.000 Okay, this is a threat to the Republic.

00:18:52.000 I don't think Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are a threat to the Republic.

00:18:54.000 I do think that social media becoming a tool of one side to the extent that they are now openly censoring what material can be disseminated.

00:19:02.000 Informational journalism.

00:19:03.000 They're shutting it down.

00:19:05.000 You want to talk to me about Trump being a threat to the press?

00:19:07.000 Trump isn't one iota the threat to the press that social media are when they decide that you cannot publish a story that reflects negatively on Joe Biden.

00:19:15.000 That's insanity.

00:19:16.000 Perfect insanity.

00:19:19.000 People should be leaving these services in droves if these are the standards that are going to be put forth by these social media companies.

00:19:26.000 Again, I've been very hesitant to talk about Big Tech as sort of a monolithic leftist entity.

00:19:30.000 Well, yesterday they acted as a monolithic leftist entity without any attempt to pretend that they were enforcing anything remotely resembling a neutral rule.

00:19:40.000 That's madness.

00:19:42.000 We'll get to more of this in one second.

00:19:44.000 I'm enraged by this, and you should be enraged by this too.

00:19:47.000 Honestly, left, right, or center, you should be enraged by the idea that these social media companies will literally stop the dissemination of a story because they don't like the story.

00:19:54.000 Not because of any underlying reason.

00:19:56.000 Because they don't like the story, therefore you cannot disseminate the story.

00:20:00.000 And they particularly don't like the story because they are afraid that if Joe Biden were to see that story disseminated on Facebook, that maybe Joe Biden and his Democratic friends might regulate Facebook.

00:20:11.000 This is exactly the accusation that the left has been making about Trump and companies like Facebook.

00:20:16.000 Because Trump has had conversations with Mark Zuckerberg.

00:20:20.000 That Zuckerberg was somehow biasing the algorithm at Facebook to benefit Trump.

00:20:24.000 This is all part of the leftist bullcrap narrative that they pushed in 2016 after Hillary Clinton, a horrible candidate, lost to maybe the most unpopular candidate of all time, Donald Trump.

00:20:33.000 They pushed a narrative that it was because Facebook, taken over by Russian bots, had somehow changed the outcome of the election.

00:20:39.000 And then they decided to pressure Facebook into changing its policies.

00:20:43.000 So basically, these social media companies are so afraid of Democrats that they will voluntarily do what Democrats want so Democrats don't come after them.

00:20:50.000 This is a blackmail routine by Democrats against social media.

00:20:53.000 It's an inside-outside job because so many members of the media love Facebook-censoring material.

00:20:59.000 And is Facebook an inside job and Twitter of an inside job when top Democrats at these places decide that it is time to shut down material?

00:21:07.000 There's a baseline agreement between Democrats, the social media bros, and the journalists, all of whom are lying to you about their true agenda.

00:21:15.000 None of them apparently care about freedom of the press, particularly the journalists.

00:21:17.000 It's astonishing.

00:21:18.000 It's astonishing how little journalists care about freedom of the press.

00:21:21.000 I mean, they really don't care about it.

00:21:23.000 They would love to see, many of them, free speech cracked down upon by social media in the name of their actual principles, which are of the left.

00:21:23.000 They hate it, in fact.

00:21:32.000 I'll bring you the details on this in just one second, because it's horrifying.

00:21:35.000 First, let us talk about the fact that you are spending too much money on your cell phone bill.

00:21:39.000 You really are.

00:21:40.000 If your cellular plan is with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, you are paying way too much for the exact same coverage you would be getting right now with Pure Talk.

00:21:47.000 Look at your cell phone bill where it shows data usage.

00:21:49.000 The average person who switches to Pure Talk is using less than 4 gigs of data a month, but the big carriers are charging you for unlimited data.

00:21:55.000 Which is like paying for an entire row on an airplane, but only needing one seat.

00:21:59.000 Well, that's how Pure Talk saves the average person over $400 a year on their wireless service.

00:22:03.000 They give you unlimited talk, text, and 2 gigs of data, all for just $20 a month.

00:22:06.000 What happens if you go over on data usage?

00:22:07.000 Well, they still don't charge you for it.

00:22:09.000 Folks, switching to Pure Talk, it's the easiest decision you will make today.

00:22:12.000 Grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro.

00:22:16.000 When you do, you'll save 50% off your first month.

00:22:18.000 Dial pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.

00:22:21.000 Pure Talk.

00:22:22.000 It's simply smarter wireless.

00:22:23.000 Go check them out right now.

00:22:24.000 Dial pound 250.

00:22:26.000 Say keyword Ben Shapiro.

00:22:27.000 Pound 250.

00:22:28.000 Say keyword Ben Shapiro.

00:22:29.000 There is no reason at all for you to be spending too much on your cell phone, Bill, unless you're addicted to spending too much money or something.

00:22:35.000 Go check out Pure Talk USA today.

00:22:36.000 Dial pound 250.

00:22:37.000 Say Ben Shapiro.

00:22:38.000 Save 50% off your first month.

00:22:41.000 Okay, so here is what happened in detail.

00:22:44.000 So, Twitter.

00:22:46.000 Okay, they said that in line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links of, or images to, the material in question on Twitter, is what a Twitter spokesperson told National Review.

00:23:01.000 Twitter's Hacked Materials Policy states it does not permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in physical harm or danger, or contains trade secrets.

00:23:12.000 Okay, so let's just be straight.

00:23:13.000 The New York Post reports that there is a laptop, Hunter Biden, who is a dope addict, okay?

00:23:15.000 WikiLeaks to be shared.

00:23:17.000 The platform said the policy applied in this case due to concerns about the lack of authoritative reporting in regards to the origins of the material.

00:23:23.000 OK, so let's just be straight.

00:23:24.000 The New York Post reports that there is a laptop, Hunter Biden, who is a who is a dope addict. 0.61

00:23:29.000 OK, Hunter Biden, who is a drug addict and a and a derelict, left his computer at this computer repair store, according to the New York Post.

00:23:36.000 He never picked it up. 0.94

00:23:37.000 It was filled with all sorts of stuff.

00:23:38.000 The guy opened up the computer.

00:23:39.000 He saw all this foreign material.

00:23:41.000 Apparently he called it into the FBI.

00:23:42.000 He made a copy of it because he seems to be something of a conspiracy theorist.

00:23:46.000 And then he handed it over to Rudy Giuliani.

00:23:49.000 That seems to be the way that this got to the New York Post.

00:23:49.000 Right?

00:23:52.000 But according to Twitter, they suspect that this is actually Russian disinformation, that it was hacked material by the Russians handed over.

00:23:58.000 So a couple of things.

00:23:59.000 One, since when has Russian disinformation been banned?

00:24:03.000 Seriously, from Twitter, Russian disinformation is not banned from Twitter.

00:24:07.000 The entire Russian collusion scandal was essentially Russian.

00:24:10.000 The Christopher Steele dossier was all Russian disinformation.

00:24:13.000 Did Twitter take down a single story on it?

00:24:16.000 How about the idea that Twitter takes down hacked material?

00:24:19.000 Really, how much hacked material did they take down from like Edward Snowden or WikiLeaks?

00:24:24.000 The answer is none.

00:24:25.000 They didn't take down any of that stuff. 0.99

00:24:28.000 So this is just crap. 0.93

00:24:30.000 By the way, Twitter's policy is even broader than that. 0.98

00:24:33.000 First of all, when they say there's a lack of authoritative reporting, based on what?

00:24:36.000 Based on what lack of authoritative reporting?

00:24:38.000 Again, the thing had not been fact checked yet.

00:24:41.000 It's not as though there was a fact check of the story and people said, OK, well, this story is falling apart.

00:24:45.000 And so Twitter took it down.

00:24:46.000 Instead, preemptively, Twitter took it down and banned you from disseminating the article.

00:24:50.000 So let's just be straight about this.

00:24:51.000 A month and a half ago, there was a story from the Atlantic claiming that Donald Trump routinely went around to military cemeteries and said bad things about dead soldiers.

00:24:58.000 It turns out that every element of that story fell apart.

00:25:00.000 There were people on the record denying the story.

00:25:02.000 Every source in that story was unnamed.

00:25:05.000 Every element of that story, so far as I'm aware, has now been debunked by people who are on site.

00:25:09.000 Okay, there is yet to be a single main source in that story.

00:25:12.000 Not one link from the Atlantic was removed on that basis.

00:25:16.000 You know how many stories we've seen like that?

00:25:18.000 How many links went out there about how the Russians were paying Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers and Trump was ignoring it?

00:25:23.000 And then it turned out that that story kind of fell apart.

00:25:24.000 Did any of those links come down?

00:25:26.000 No, not one of those links came down.

00:25:29.000 Okay, so there's no neutral standard here. 0.99

00:25:30.000 This is just a bunch of crap. 1.00

00:25:31.000 It's just a bunch of crap. 1.00

00:25:34.000 Twitter originally suggested, not kidding, that their rationale here was hacking. 0.97

00:25:39.000 There is no evidence that the thing was hacked in the first place.

00:25:42.000 Again, the story in the New York Post suggests it was not about hacking.

00:25:45.000 The story in the New York Post suggests that it was a laptop that was physically turned over to Rudy Giuliani and to the FBI.

00:25:50.000 Okay, so then, later in the day, Twitter tried to release a second explanation.

00:25:55.000 Here was their second explanation.

00:25:58.000 We want to provide much needed clarity around the actions we've taken with respect to two New York Post articles that were first tweeted this morning.

00:26:04.000 The images contained in the articles include personal and private information, like email addresses and phone numbers, which violate our rules.

00:26:11.000 Okay, no, this is not correct.

00:26:13.000 People disseminated those images all day yesterday on Twitter.

00:26:16.000 Their accounts were not taken down.

00:26:17.000 The link was blocked.

00:26:19.000 And here's where it gets good.

00:26:20.000 As noted this morning, we also currently view materials included in the articles as violation of our hacked materials policies.

00:26:26.000 Commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them, but do not include or link to the materials themselves, aren't a violation of this policy.

00:26:34.000 Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked materials themselves.

00:26:37.000 Again, there is no evidence at this point that this is hacked material. 0.99

00:26:41.000 Hunter Biden is an idiot, so he left a laptop at a computer repair store. 1.00

00:26:45.000 Beyond that, Okay, so then it gets even worse. 1.00

00:26:49.000 Okay, you ready?

00:26:50.000 Here's where it gets wild.

00:26:52.000 Twitter says, The policy, established in 2018, prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization.

00:26:59.000 We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials.

00:27:05.000 Okay, here's where we are off the rails now.

00:27:07.000 Okay, hacking is a very specific charge, which is that somebody illegally violated the law, they hacked into your computer, they took materials, Twitter doesn't want that distributed.

00:27:16.000 Forget about the fact they have not evenly applied this policy, obviously.

00:27:19.000 They literally say that their policy prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization.

00:27:25.000 Hmm, let's see.

00:27:26.000 Can we think of a story in which content was obtained and distributed without authorization?

00:27:32.000 Can we think of Twitter in the past having distributed those sorts of stories and played them up?

00:27:37.000 What if I told you that like a week and a half ago, Twitter went buck naked crazy on the Trump tax returns?

00:27:44.000 How do you think those came out?

00:27:46.000 Do you think Trump just decided to release those?

00:27:48.000 Do you think an authorized person decided to release those?

00:27:50.000 How exactly did those materials come out?

00:27:52.000 I mean, I'm told by Twitter that they prohibit the use of their service to distribute content obtained without authorization.

00:27:57.000 Who authorized the release of those materials?

00:27:59.000 Anybody?

00:28:00.000 Anybody?

00:28:00.000 Bueller?

00:28:01.000 Bueller?

00:28:02.000 Okay, I can name a half dozen stories off the top of my head in which Twitter allowed distribution and not only allowed the distribution, pushed the distribution.

00:28:11.000 Right?

00:28:11.000 Propped it up on their Twitter trends.

00:28:14.000 I'm old enough to remember when there was this tape of Mitt Romney talking about 47% of Americans who wouldn't vote for him.

00:28:19.000 That was tape that was not authorized.

00:28:21.000 It was Jimmy Carter's grandson who took a tape of it.

00:28:24.000 Was that authorized material?

00:28:25.000 Had Mitt Romney authorized the release of that material?

00:28:28.000 How about pictures that are not authorized of people who have not given their permission?

00:28:31.000 That's every public photo in a public place.

00:28:35.000 This is insane.

00:28:36.000 This has nothing to do with a neutral policy.

00:28:39.000 Nothing to do. 0.95

00:28:40.000 I mean, it's a clown show. 1.00

00:28:41.000 A total ridiculous clown show. 0.99

00:28:43.000 So Trump's tax returns, apparently, that's authorized. 0.99

00:28:46.000 That's all authorization.

00:28:48.000 But, you know, but this was completely unauthorized.

00:28:52.000 Crazy.

00:28:54.000 Crazy. 0.99

00:28:55.000 Okay, so how does Jack, Jack Dorsey, dumbass head of Twitter, guy who donated $10 million to Ibram Kendi so that he could feel not racist while getting bit by mosquitoes in Malaysia or something, how does Jack Dorsey respond to this? 0.96

00:29:07.000 Quote, And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we're blocking is unacceptable. 0.72

00:29:16.000 The problem is not your communication strategy.

00:29:18.000 The problem is that you blocked the material without any actual rationale as to why you would block this material as opposed to any other leaked material.

00:29:27.000 Virtually every major story is an unauthorized leak of information.

00:29:31.000 Every bombshell story is an unauthorized leak.

00:29:33.000 How many authorized leaks have there been from the federal government in the recent past?

00:29:37.000 Every story involving Andrew McCabe leaking to the Wall Street Journal, which, as it turns out, got his pension canceled, I believe.

00:29:45.000 Those stories were not taken down by Twitter.

00:29:47.000 Every unauthorized leak from the Mueller probe, were any of those taken down by Twitter?

00:29:52.000 Of course not.

00:29:53.000 There's only one story that has been overtly banned by Twitter, and that is a story involving Hunter and Joe Biden.

00:29:58.000 Hmm.

00:30:00.000 I wonder why it could be that.

00:30:01.000 Why is it that Trump's tax returns, perfectly, they were authorized.

00:30:05.000 Now I'm to believe that they were authorized. 0.99

00:30:07.000 Okay, Twitter is a leftist garbage heap. 0.97

00:30:12.000 You should go check out Parler today. 0.97

00:30:13.000 Parler is a good alternative to Twitter.

00:30:15.000 It is not going to ban people or informational dissemination based on pure political content.

00:30:20.000 Go check out Parler today.

00:30:21.000 It's run by a bunch of my friends and colleagues.

00:30:26.000 Worth establishing an account.

00:30:28.000 It wasn't just Twitter.

00:30:30.000 It was also Facebook.

00:30:31.000 And Facebook's standard is even more insane.

00:30:34.000 Even crazier.

00:30:35.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:30:37.000 First, let us talk about the fact that you don't have time to go down to the post office right now.

00:30:41.000 You don't want to be waiting in line at the post office.

00:30:43.000 Post Office offers a lot of great services, but if you can make a routine task easier in business, you ought to do it.

00:30:48.000 It'll save you time and it'll save you money.

00:30:49.000 Well, Stamps.com can make that happen for you.

00:30:52.000 With Stamps.com, you can print postage on demand.

00:30:54.000 You can avoid going to the post office.

00:30:55.000 You'll save money with discounted rates you can't even get at the post office.

00:30:58.000 Stamps.com also offers UPS services with discounts up to 62%, no residential surcharges.

00:31:04.000 Here at Dailyware, we've used Stamps.com since 2017, no more wasting our time.

00:31:08.000 Stamps.com brings all the mailing and chipping services you need directly to your computer in the comfort of your home or office.

00:31:14.000 Whether you're a small business sending invoices, or an online seller shipping out products, or you're just working from home and you need to mail stuff, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.

00:31:21.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.

00:31:23.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.

00:31:28.000 Once your mail is ready, just leave it for your mail carrier, schedule a pickup, or drop it off in the mailbox.

00:31:32.000 It is indeed that simple.

00:31:33.000 And again, you get those great discounts.

00:31:35.000 You get five cents off every stamp, up to 62% off USPS and UPS shipping rates.

00:31:40.000 Right now, my listeners get a special offer.

00:31:42.000 It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale, no long-term commitment.

00:31:46.000 Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.

00:31:50.000 That is stamps.com, enter code Shapiro.

00:31:52.000 Okay, so it's not just Twitter.

00:31:54.000 Facebook also did this.

00:31:55.000 Facebook censored this and downgraded it.

00:31:58.000 Before a fact check, before a fact check, they didn't wait for their vaunted outside fact checkers to fact check the story.

00:32:05.000 They preemptively prevented you from disseminating the story.

00:32:10.000 Andy Stone, who is a former Democratic operative, he now works in a high level over at Facebook, he tweeted this out yesterday, very early yesterday morning, quote, while I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want to be clear that this story is eligible to be fact-checked by Facebook's third-party fact-checking partners.

00:32:29.000 In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

00:32:33.000 That's insane.

00:32:35.000 That's crazy!

00:32:38.000 Okay, so go back to that first tweet for a second, because we've got to break this down.

00:32:47.000 So their new standard is, if Andy Stone doesn't like it at Facebook, they will preemptively ban the distribution of the information, waiting for a fact checker to do their dirty work and call the thing false.

00:32:59.000 That's nuts.

00:33:00.000 It has not been fact-checked yet.

00:33:02.000 The story came out that morning.

00:33:04.000 He literally says that the story is eligible to be fact-checked.

00:33:07.000 Every story is eligible to be fact-checked on Facebook.

00:33:09.000 Every one of the Daily Wire stories is fact-checked basically by PolitiFact, and half of them are lied about overtly by PolitiFact.

00:33:15.000 Again, it is a sin for Facebook to outsource its fact-checking to overtly political sites like PolitiFact.

00:33:20.000 They purport to be Non leftists.

00:33:23.000 They are leftists in the extreme.

00:33:24.000 But that's not even that's not even what this is.

00:33:26.000 This isn't that they outsourced a fact check of a true statement to a leftist source who declared it false.

00:33:31.000 This is we didn't even bother to wait for the fact checkers.

00:33:34.000 We are banning the story before it is fact checked.

00:33:37.000 Why?

00:33:38.000 Because Andy Stone and the Democrats are suspicious of a story that makes Joe Biden look bad.

00:33:42.000 He refers to the Facebook policy there, right?

00:33:44.000 He says, well, you know, this is in line with our normal Facebook policy, which is that we will reduce distribution of a story pending a fact check.

00:33:50.000 Here's the actual Facebook policy.

00:33:51.000 Quote, we're working to take faster action to prevent misinformation from going viral, especially given that quality reporting and fact checking takes time.

00:33:59.000 In many countries, including in the US, if we have signals that a piece of content is false, we temporarily reduce its distribution pending review by a third party fact checker.

00:34:07.000 What were the signals that this piece of content is false?

00:34:11.000 Any?

00:34:12.000 Really, what?

00:34:14.000 I have yet to hear a single aspect of the core story debunked.

00:34:18.000 The Washington Post hilariously tried to debunk something that actually is not the core element of the story.

00:34:25.000 They say, well, you know, there's no evidence that Joe Biden actually got Victor Shokin fired in order to protect Hunter.

00:34:29.000 That is not the core element of the story.

00:34:31.000 The core element of the story is the emails in the meeting.

00:34:34.000 None of that was debunked.

00:34:35.000 Not a word of it.

00:34:36.000 So what was Facebook's preliminary information signaling that the piece of content was false?

00:34:41.000 What, that Biden denied it?

00:34:42.000 Because Trump has denied a thousand stories that Facebook has not preliminarily taken down.

00:34:48.000 This happens all the time.

00:34:50.000 Every single day, there's a story in which the New York Times reports something that the Trump administration says is false.

00:34:56.000 Has Facebook ever once preemptively removed the link or downgraded the distribution?

00:35:02.000 Of course not.

00:35:03.000 Of course not.

00:35:04.000 It's perfectly obvious what happened here.

00:35:06.000 Democrats decided they didn't like the story.

00:35:09.000 Democrats in social media decided that they didn't like the story.

00:35:12.000 And journalists cheered.

00:35:13.000 This is the part that's maybe the most sickening of all, is that our journalistic establishment is very much in favor of censorship.

00:35:19.000 They love it.

00:35:20.000 They love it.

00:35:21.000 They think that Trump is a threat to the Republic.

00:35:23.000 They think Trump is a threat to the press.

00:35:24.000 The press is a threat to the press.

00:35:26.000 Our journalistic betters are a threat to the press. 0.98

00:35:29.000 It's jackasses and morons like Kara Swisher at the New York Times, or Kevin Roos at the New York Times, or Charlie Warzel at the New York Times, who spend each and every day trying to not-so-subtly urge social media to crack down on dissemination of any information that they personally do not like. 0.96

00:35:46.000 There is a reason that Ben Rhodes, a man who overtly acknowledges that he created a journalistic echo chamber to promote falsehoods about his Iran deal, He tweeted out, I have a question. 0.99

00:35:58.000 What says that this is disinformation?

00:35:59.000 There's no information here.

00:35:59.000 What?

00:36:00.000 unchecked demonstrates why you should not be able to spread this information unchecked. They know they have no political viability without the capacity to spread lies. I have a question. What says that this is disinformation? What?

00:36:11.000 There's no information here. What Ben Rhodes means is information I don't like is disinformation and it should not spread unchecked and therefore I want all of this shut down. And it was not just Ben Rhodes.

00:36:21.000 It was a bunch of journalists.

00:36:22.000 It was Charlie Warzel at the New York Times yesterday.

00:36:25.000 Well, you know, just because there's a freedom of the press to print doesn't mean there should be freedom of distribution.

00:36:30.000 Doesn't mean we should let the social media do all this stuff.

00:36:33.000 There are a couple of underlying factors here.

00:36:35.000 One, members of the press are generally of the left.

00:36:37.000 They do not want people Who are of the right to have the ability to distribute their material.

00:36:42.000 There have been 1,000 stories about how my outlet, The Daily Wire, is successful on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook.

00:36:48.000 And the implication is, of course, that we are doing something deeply corrupt with Facebook.

00:36:51.000 We're currently being downgraded by Facebook on a bullcrap fact check, okay?

00:36:54.000 So that's not true.

00:36:56.000 Beyond that, the basic notion, which is that the right wing is being specifically pulled out and chosen by Facebook, that is a lie.

00:37:05.000 They know it is a lie.

00:37:06.000 They continue to promote the lie anyway.

00:37:08.000 The media keeps saying over and over and over that engagement on the right is really high.

00:37:13.000 And it's true, engagement on the right is really high.

00:37:16.000 So for example, in August, News Whip announced that the Daily Wire, my outlet, had for the second month in a row taken the top spot for total engagements, amassing 104.9 million engagements over the course of the month.

00:37:26.000 Two other explicitly conservative sites, The Blaze and Breitbart, made it into the top 10.

00:37:31.000 So this was supposed to be big news.

00:37:33.000 Okay, but here's the thing.

00:37:34.000 If you add up all of the engagements of the three conservative sites, you find that they collectively racked up 187.8 million engagements over the course of the month.

00:37:42.000 That is just under a third of the 587.8 million total engagements among the top 10.

00:37:48.000 If you expand the list to the top 25 news publishers for August, you'll find just three more self-styled conservative sites, Western Journal, CNS News, and Conservative Opinion.

00:37:56.000 The total engagements represented by that group of six, 257.4 million engagements.

00:38:02.000 That gives explicitly conservative sites just 27% of total engagements in the top 25.

00:38:07.000 If you include Fox News, Daily Mail, and the New York Post, you'll find right-leaning sites account for less than half of engagements produced by Facebook's top 25 sites.

00:38:17.000 And if you look at the data from previous months, you will see that it completely falls apart.

00:38:22.000 That in previous months, our reach has not been quite as great as that.

00:38:26.000 And it's not just which sites get the most engagement, it's which sites have the most reach.

00:38:30.000 In other words, which sites' posts are seen by the most users.

00:38:33.000 There too, left-leaning and mainstream media outlets outperformed conservative sites, a point highlighted by Facebook's head of news feed, John Hageman, in July.

00:38:41.000 In response to the New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roos' steady stream of Facebook-themed tweets trying to suggest that conservatives should be shut down on social media, Hageman suggested that Roos and others are missing the proper metric.

00:38:53.000 According to Hegeman, a more accurate metric for understanding what news people see on Facebook is reach, or the number of people who saw a link in their news feed.

00:39:01.000 Hegeman shared a list of links that had the widest reach on Facebook, compared with the posts with the highest engagement on the same day.

00:39:07.000 On July 5th, for example, the posts with the highest engagement came from Franklin Graham, me, Breitbart, For America, and CNN.

00:39:13.000 By contrast, the links with the widest reach that day came from the LA Times, MSNBC, Ranker, BuzzFeed, and ABC News.

00:39:20.000 So they're just lying about the idea that conservatives have this outsized advantage on Facebook.

00:39:24.000 It is just not true.

00:39:25.000 But this is all part of the generalized journalistic rage that the right-wing even exists.

00:39:30.000 There's an attempt by mainstream media and left-wing outlets to shut down dissemination on the right.

00:39:34.000 This does not exist on the right.

00:39:35.000 It does not exist on the right.

00:39:36.000 There is no one on the right who believes that social media should shut down NBC, The New York Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, or any other leftist outlet.

00:39:45.000 There's no one on the right who said that the New York Times should not have the right to post that Trump tax return stuff on Facebook.

00:39:53.000 We may have objected to the story.

00:39:54.000 We may have asked whether it was criminally obtained.

00:39:57.000 But nobody suggested that Facebook should take it down.

00:40:00.000 Only the left and our journalistic betters are saying this.

00:40:02.000 Our journalists do not care about the First Amendment.

00:40:05.000 They object to the First Amendment.

00:40:07.000 The First Amendment allows people to disseminate information they don't like.

00:40:11.000 And so what they are attempting to do is use non-governmental mechanisms in order to reduce distribution for material they don't like.

00:40:18.000 That is what you are seeing in action right now.

00:40:20.000 Social media being used as an informal mechanism of creating a bottleneck in the informational dissemination system.

00:40:27.000 One of the beauties of the internet is that it broke the mainstream media domination.

00:40:30.000 That was one of the beauties of the internet.

00:40:32.000 And now, mainstream media are pissed.

00:40:34.000 And what they would like to do is reduce distribution for everybody else via the social media networks, where everybody gathers, and make it so that you are back to only having access to stories that the left-wing approves of, and only outlets that the mainstream media like.

00:40:49.000 They're trying to re-establish a monopoly via Facebook, via Twitter, via the social media sites.

00:40:54.000 The predictable effect of this should be that people should be rushing away from those sites en masse to sites that are actually going to allow you to see the things that you want to see.

00:41:03.000 As I say, this is purely political.

00:41:05.000 It is obviously political.

00:41:07.000 As Sourabh Amari, the editor of the New York Post op-ed page writes, this is what totalitarianism looks like in our century.

00:41:15.000 Not men in darkened cells driving screws under fingernails, but Silicon Valley dweebs removing from vast swaths of the internet a damaging expose on their preferred presidential candidate.

00:41:24.000 He says, you know, the standards that they're using, they've never been applied to any of these other stories.

00:41:29.000 Remember when four CNN reporters claimed in June 2017 James Comey was about to dispute in congressional testimony Trump's claim the FBI director had reassured the president he wasn't under investigation?

00:41:38.000 Comey didn't do it. 0.97

00:41:39.000 Did Twitter and Facebook censor the story?

00:41:40.000 Nope.

00:41:41.000 Remember when The Guardian concocted a story about Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and Julian Assange meeting at Ecuador's embassy in London?

00:41:48.000 The meeting didn't happen.

00:41:49.000 Did Facebook or Twitter block the story?

00:41:50.000 You can still post it.

00:41:50.000 Nope.

00:41:52.000 Remember when The Atlantic published a several thousand word story suggesting that Jeff Sessions had lied when he said he didn't meet the Russian ambassador as a Team Trump surrogate, but as a routine member?

00:42:01.000 But as a routine matter?

00:42:02.000 The Mueller report debunked The Atlantic decisively.

00:42:05.000 Is that Atlantic story blocked as misinformation?

00:42:07.000 Nope.

00:42:09.000 Okay, it's perfectly obvious what happened here.

00:42:11.000 And the disgusting and stomach-churning part of this is that it is not only approved by Democrats, which you would expect, but by the social media companies themselves and the Democrats within, and it is approved by the journalistic institutions who supposedly stand squarely in favor of free speech and the First Amendment.

00:42:25.000 Nonsense.

00:42:26.000 They do not.

00:42:27.000 They simply do not.

00:42:29.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second, because this is the scandal of the campaign.

00:42:32.000 Whatever else was happening in the campaign, the thing that's going to affect you beyond the campaign is this.

00:42:37.000 Okay, because we all engage with these social media sites.

00:42:41.000 We're gonna get some more of this in just one second.

00:42:43.000 First, let us talk about the fact that with all of these scary things happening this year, Policy Genius would like to mark Halloween by making something less scary, life insurance.

00:42:52.000 Shopping for life insurance can seem like a daunting task.

00:42:54.000 Policy Genius makes it easy.

00:42:56.000 They combine a cutting-edge insurance marketplace with help from licensed experts to save you time and save you money.

00:43:00.000 Right now, you could save 50% or more by using Policy Genius to compare life insurance.

00:43:05.000 When you're shopping for a policy that could last for more than a decade, those savings really start to add up.

00:43:09.000 Here's how it works.

00:43:09.000 First, head on over to policygenius.com.

00:43:12.000 In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need, and you can compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price.

00:43:16.000 PolicyGenius will compare policies starting at as little as $1 a day.

00:43:20.000 You might even be eligible to skip that in-person medical exam.

00:43:23.000 Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.

00:43:26.000 The best part?

00:43:26.000 They work for you, not the insurance company.

00:43:28.000 So, if you hit any speed bumps during the application process, they'll go ahead and take care of everything.

00:43:33.000 That kind of service has earned PolicyGenius a five-star rating across over 1,600 reviews on Trustpilot and Google as well.

00:43:39.000 So, if you need life insurance, head on over to PolicyGenius.com right now to get started.

00:43:43.000 You could save 50% or more by comparing quotes. 0.97

00:43:45.000 If you're a responsible person, if you have dependents, you do in fact need life insurance, and you are a fool not to obtain it via PolicyGenius.com.

00:43:53.000 Head on over to PolicyGenius.com, get a competitive quote, and then get the life insurance you and your family require.

00:43:57.000 When it comes to insurance, it's nice and important to get it right.

00:44:01.000 Okay, we'll get to more of the media cheering on the crackdown on free dissemination of information.

00:44:08.000 And by the way, it's not just Twitter and Facebook, it is now Amazon as well.

00:44:11.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:44:13.000 First, if you have not already heard, DailyWire's Old Glory DailyWire Baseball Bat.

00:44:17.000 It's back!

00:44:17.000 The Clue Bat!

00:44:19.000 This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom painted baseball bat emblazoned with that magical Daily Wire logo.

00:44:24.000 So every hit you make will be a home run.

00:44:27.000 Since we relaunched on Monday, they're almost all sold out.

00:44:29.000 Today is the last day they'll be available.

00:44:30.000 You can still get yours if you hurry.

00:44:32.000 Text the keyword baseball to 83400.

00:44:34.000 Purchase your bat today.

00:44:35.000 If you haven't already, head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.

00:44:39.000 Members get our articles ad free, access to all of our live broadcast and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show exclusive readers pass content available only to Daily Wire members.

00:44:49.000 I cannot even begin to describe the magic that shall befall you when you become a member at dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:44:53.000 Go check it out right now.

00:44:54.000 not one, but two, leftist-terrorist tumblers with your membership, as well as early, sometimes exclusive access to new Daily Wire products.

00:45:00.000 Let me tell you, in this coming year, we're gonna have so much amazing content for our subscribers, I cannot even begin to describe the magic that shall befall you when you become a member at dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:45:09.000 Go check it out right now.

00:45:10.000 You're listening to the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:45:14.000 ♪♪ There's a reason Republicans are fighting mad.

00:45:21.000 Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who's been calling for regulation of Facebook and Twitter and social media in general, he is now demanding answers as to why Facebook and Twitter limited the ability to read that New York Post piece.

00:45:31.000 And he has now asked the Federal Election Commission to express his concern regarding what he described as unprecedented suppression from Big Tech.

00:45:38.000 Tech said the post reporting has understandably attracted substantial public discussions.

00:45:42.000 Countless Americans have sought to discuss and debate that article, but two social media platforms have engaged in unprecedented suppression of public discussion of that article.

00:45:50.000 The conduct does not merely censor the core political speech of ordinary Americans, though it definitely does that.

00:45:54.000 Twitter and Facebook's conduct also appears to constitute a clear violation of federal campaign finance law.

00:46:00.000 Federal law prohibits any corporation from making a contribution to a federal candidate for office.

00:46:04.000 He's saying this is basically an in-kind contribution by the media.

00:46:07.000 I mean, by that standard, frankly, that is the democratic-slash-mainstream media every single day.

00:46:13.000 Donald Trump commented on this in a rally in Iowa last night, going hard after the social media companies as well he should.

00:46:18.000 Here he was yesterday.

00:46:20.000 False and libelous stories every day.

00:46:24.000 False and libelous stories.

00:46:27.000 And they knew they were false, too.

00:46:29.000 They knew they were false.

00:46:30.000 They were never taken down by Twitter or Facebook or the mainstream media.

00:46:36.000 Never once.

00:46:37.000 Yet with Biden today, they take negative posts down almost before they even go up.

00:46:44.000 They're trying to protect him.

00:46:46.000 They're trying to protect Biden.

00:46:48.000 He is not wrong about this, and he is right to call it out, and he should continue to call all of this out.

00:46:52.000 By the way, there's a follow-up story today from the New York Post on those Hunter Biden emails.

00:46:56.000 It turns out that Hunter Biden was also picking up bags of cash over in China, which is exciting stuff.

00:47:03.000 Apparently, he had been offered something like $10 million annually.

00:47:08.000 Hunter Biden.

00:47:09.000 How?

00:47:10.000 By a vanished chairman of a company called CEFC, Yi Jianming.

00:47:16.000 Biden was supposed to be paid $10 million a year for quote, introductions alone.

00:47:19.000 Yeah, don't worry.

00:47:20.000 He wasn't trafficking on daddy's name.

00:47:21.000 Meanwhile, by the way, it's not just Facebook and Twitter cracking down on dissemination of material that they don't like.

00:47:25.000 Amazon has now canceled Shelby Steele.

00:47:28.000 Shelby Steele, who is an incredible thinker, the author of just an incredibly insightful book about race relations in America called White Guilt, among other things.

00:47:34.000 He has a new documentary out.

00:47:35.000 It's called What Killed Michael Brown?

00:47:37.000 Amazon has turned down distribution of the documentary.

00:47:39.000 Why?

00:47:40.000 Because Shelby Steele takes the perspective that, correctly, Michael Brown was not, in fact, murdered in cold blood by a police officer.

00:47:46.000 That, in fact, there are deep and abiding problems with regard to black crime rates, for example.

00:47:51.000 The subject, racial relations, is a major fault line in the presidential election.

00:47:55.000 There's a reason why the Steeles scheduled their film for release on October 16th.

00:48:00.000 The movie, however, does not fit the dominant Black Lives Matter narrative.

00:48:03.000 And so Amazon rejected it for its streaming service.

00:48:05.000 You can't even obtain it there.

00:48:07.000 So Amazon will give you basically softcore pornography if you would like to buy it.

00:48:10.000 But if you want to pay a couple of bucks to watch Shelby Steele's movie on Amazon, you cannot.

00:48:16.000 Amazon informed the Steele's their film is, quote, not eligible for publishing because it doesn't meet Prime Video's content quality expectations.

00:48:23.000 The movie's well-made.

00:48:24.000 I've seen it.

00:48:25.000 It ain't about that.

00:48:27.000 It's about the fact that Shelby Steele does not abide by the Black Lives Matter narrative that America is systemically racist and that all problems in the black community spring from the evils of the United States.

00:48:38.000 I mean, that is, so that's an amazing story.

00:48:40.000 It's amazing.

00:48:41.000 Now, I want to discuss at a little bit of length, again, how the media have reacted to all of these giant crackdowns by these social media companies and by our major corporations.

00:48:52.000 And the answer is that they are fine with it.

00:48:55.000 They love it.

00:48:56.000 I have yet to see a lot of mainstream media reporters or journalists or even opinion columnists saying that it is bad that the social media companies are cracking down on information they do not like.

00:49:08.000 In fact, today, over at New York Times Magazine, there is a piece by Emily Bazelon suggesting that free speech is bad, that the First Amendment needs to stop This is literally the piece in the New York Times Magazine this weekend.

00:49:25.000 It's all about how free speech is a threat to our democracy.

00:49:29.000 The basic idea here is that because free speech allows for the possibility of misinformation, free speech is bad.

00:49:36.000 According to Emily Bazelon, she says, the conspiracy theories, the lies, the distortions, the overwhelming amounts of information, the anger encoded in it, these all serve to create chaos and confusion and make people, even non-partisans, exhausted, skeptical, cynical about politics.

00:49:49.000 The spewing of falsehoods isn't meant to win any battle of ideas.

00:49:52.000 Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought by causing us to simply give up.

00:49:56.000 The problem isn't just the internet.

00:49:57.000 A working paper from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard released early this month found that effective disinformation campaigns are often an elite-driven, mass-media-led process in which social media played only a secondary and supportive role.

00:50:10.000 Trump's election put him in position to operate directly through Fox News and other conservative media outlets like Rush Limbaugh's talk radio show, which have come to function in effect as a party press, the Harvard researchers found.

00:50:21.000 A false story about Democrats plotting a coup spread through a typical feedback loop.

00:50:25.000 Links from Fox News hosts and other right-wing figures aligned with Trump, like Dan Bongino, often dominate the top links in Facebook's news feed for likes, comments, and shares in the United States.

00:50:35.000 Though Fox News is far smaller than Facebook, the social media platform has helped Fox attain the highest weekly reach offline and online combined of any single news source in the United States, according to a 2020 report by Reuters Institute.

00:50:45.000 Again, this is all tied into the New York Times' attempt to prevent social media from disseminating information they do not like.

00:50:52.000 Better to force social media to shut off those spigots?

00:50:56.000 Better to cut against the First Amendment directly?

00:50:59.000 Emily Bazelon just goes right for it. 0.91

00:51:00.000 So points for honesty to Emily Bazelon in New York Times Magazine.

00:51:03.000 She's not just ripping on social media and saying social media should crack down on free speech.

00:51:07.000 She's saying we should all crack down on free speech.

00:51:09.000 The government should rewrite its own doctrines on free speech, according to Emily Bazelon.

00:51:14.000 Quote, it's an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that government should regulate it as little as possible.

00:51:20.000 But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

00:51:29.000 They think our formulations are simplistic and especially inadequate for our era.

00:51:33.000 Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes, but in the United States and other democracies, there's a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news, and science.

00:51:44.000 It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.

00:51:51.000 Do you understand the insane danger that Emily Bazelon is proposing as policy here?

00:51:56.000 She is saying that because you get to speak freely, you might say something Emily Bazelon doesn't like, and therefore that Emily Bazelon categorizes as speech from an extremist that smears and distracts.

00:52:08.000 She's saying there is a bigger threat from you speaking freely than there is from the government controlling speech.

00:52:15.000 That is a patently absurd, absurd, disgusting perspective on your rights as an individual American citizen. 0.97

00:52:22.000 It's disgusting, it really is. 0.99

00:52:24.000 It is top-down fascism.

00:52:26.000 It is a suggestion that you cannot be trusted with your own liberty, therefore the government will stop you from speaking freely, or should stop you from speaking freely, or should prevent the dissemination of information that Ben Rhodes and Emily Bazelon and your betters at the New York Times don't like.

00:52:40.000 This concern spans the ideological spectrum.

00:52:42.000 Along with disinformation campaigns, there's a separate problem of troll armies, a flood of commenters, often propelled by bots, that aim to discredit or to destroy the reputation of disfavored speakers and to discourage them from speaking again, says Jack Goldsmith, a conservative law professor at Harvard.

00:52:55.000 This tactic may be directed by those in power.

00:52:58.000 Either way, it's often grimly effective at muting critical voices.

00:53:02.000 And yet, as Tim Wu, a progressive law professor at Columbia, points out in the same book, the use of speech as a tool to suppress speech is, by its nature, something very challenging for the First Amendment to deal with.

00:53:12.000 These scholars argue something that may seem unsettling to Americans, that perhaps our way of thinking about free speech is not the best way.

00:53:18.000 At the very least, we should understand it isn't the only way.

00:53:20.000 Other democracies in Europe and elsewhere have taken a different approach.

00:53:23.000 Despite more regulations on speech, these countries remain democratic.

00:53:26.000 In fact, they've created better conditions for their citizenry to sort what's true from what's not and to make informed decisions about what they want their societies to be.

00:53:33.000 Here in the United States, meanwhile, we are drowning in laws.

00:53:37.000 So presumably, she would like the sort of hate speech regulation you see in Scotland, where if you're a religious person, you could be thrown in jail, depending on what you have to say about LGBT issues.

00:53:44.000 Presumably, she would like the sort of hate speech regulations you see across Europe, where if you say something quote-unquote Islamophobic, you could theoretically be prosecuted.

00:53:53.000 Your outlet could be shut down.

00:53:54.000 Okay, this is what the left in the United States would like.

00:53:58.000 Now, the ACLU used to say that they would fight to the death for your right to say something with which they disagreed.

00:54:03.000 Now, the ACLU and the entire leftist infrastructure say precisely the opposite.

00:54:07.000 They want the government to crack down on speech they do not like.

00:54:09.000 They're becoming clear and open about this.

00:54:13.000 Emily Bazelon's piece here, it's just the tip of the spear.

00:54:16.000 This has been going around in leftist circles for a while.

00:54:19.000 There was a New York Times piece maybe a year ago, year and a half ago, by an Obama administration official arguing the exact same thing.

00:54:25.000 We should pursue hate speech regulations in the United States that prevent the dissemination of information and perspectives that members of the left do not like.

00:54:33.000 Emily Bazelon says facts and transparency are the intended pillars of the modern First Amendment.

00:54:38.000 Since the nation's founding, the Constitution has guaranteed the government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.

00:54:43.000 For more than a century, however, these limits on the state's power were worth little.

00:54:47.000 From 1798 to 1801, more than two dozen people, including several newspaper editors, were prosecuted by the administration of John Adams under the Alien and Sedition Act.

00:54:55.000 Prosecutors were also jailed for criticizing the government during World War I.

00:55:00.000 Okay, this is hilarious.

00:55:01.000 She's now defending some of the darkest periods for free speech in America's history.

00:55:04.000 Most people who study the Constitution think the Alien Sedition Act were bad.

00:55:08.000 Most people who study the Constitution think that Woodrow Wilson cracking down on the dissemination of ideas during World War I was bad.

00:55:14.000 Emily Bazelon says, well, maybe it's good.

00:55:16.000 Maybe it's good.

00:55:19.000 So, again, this is what happens when you believe that you have a sheer majority and through the power of compulsion you can get people to shut up.

00:55:27.000 This is the attitude of many in media.

00:55:29.000 Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because there are people in media who purport to believe in free speech, that that is the dominant ideology inside the media.

00:55:37.000 It is not.

00:55:38.000 And there are many pieces of evidence for this that are happening in real time, not just the Emily Bazelon article.

00:55:43.000 So yesterday, Maggie Haberman tweeted out that New York Post piece.

00:55:48.000 Apparently that was evil.

00:55:49.000 Okay, and everybody on the left went nuts. 0.65

00:55:51.000 Journalists went nuts.

00:55:52.000 How could Maggie Haberman tweet out a link from a major American newspaper alleging a thing about Joe Biden?

00:55:55.000 he alerted the feds to their existence. Okay, and everybody on the left went nuts. Journalists went nuts. How could Maggie Haberman tweet out a link from a major American newspaper alleging a thing about Joe Biden? How could that happen? Kimberly Johnson, who is some sort of left-wing author, She writes for Huffington Post, for example.

00:56:16.000 She tweeted out, what is wrong with you?

00:56:17.000 You know they're calling you Maggie Haberman, right?

00:56:19.000 And you deserve it.

00:56:20.000 Shame on you.

00:56:23.000 We saw other outlets complaining about how it was terrible that Maggie Haberman had had the temerity to tweet out a link.

00:56:33.000 How dare Maggie Haberman. 1.00

00:56:35.000 How dare Maggie Haberman. 1.00

00:56:39.000 Kevin Cruz, who is just another one of these joke commentators.

00:56:45.000 He wrote a really kind of crappy piece for the 1619 Project. 0.93

00:56:49.000 So Kevin Cruz, he put out a tweet about Maggie Hamer that said, Why are you amplifying this pathetic hit? 0.91

00:56:54.000 How dare you tweet out a link? 0.64

00:56:57.000 She literally just tweeted out a link.

00:56:58.000 And then later she followed up on it by trying to walk it back. 1.00

00:57:02.000 She said things that are sketchy in the New York Post story on Hunter Biden.

00:57:05.000 Why wasn't this in Ron Johnson report if it's been in possession for a while?

00:57:08.000 When did Giuliani acquire it?

00:57:09.000 Giuliani has been everywhere on this, but this has been kicking around since late last year and unreleased until now.

00:57:15.000 Okay, David Corn, meanwhile, suggested that this was disinformation.

00:57:23.000 Again, members of the media, very angry at Maggie Haberman, because again, in the end, all that matters is that the information disseminated is something that members of the left don't like.

00:57:33.000 So Maggie Haberman is bad. 1.00

00:57:34.000 you Kevin Cruz, my goodness.

00:57:37.000 Okay, another example of this.

00:57:39.000 NBC staffers are fighting mad because NBC scheduled a Trump town hall tonight.

00:57:44.000 So there was supposed to be a debate tonight.

00:57:46.000 The Commission on Presidential Debate, which apparently is just another organ of the left, and there's no other way for me to interpret their cancellation of a debate a week in advance because Trump had COVID.

00:57:55.000 I don't get it.

00:57:56.000 They literally did not consult with a single member of the medical community, apparently.

00:57:59.000 They just decided we can't have an in-person debate. 1.00

00:58:01.000 How stupid was this policy? 0.99

00:58:03.000 Tonight, Trump is going to be doing open rallies with the advice of his doctors that he is no longer capable of transmitting COVID-19. 1.00

00:58:11.000 So Joe Biden is going to do a town hall on ABC.

00:58:15.000 NBC is scheduling a counter town hall with Donald Trump.

00:58:20.000 And NBC staffers are mad.

00:58:22.000 Instead of NBC being like, oh, you know what?

00:58:23.000 It's kind of newsworthy.

00:58:25.000 The president of the United States doing a town hall.

00:58:27.000 And on the other network, they have the candidate for president doing a town hall.

00:58:29.000 So why the hell not?

00:58:30.000 Instead, NBC staffers are angry.

00:58:33.000 They're dismayed.

00:58:34.000 Over a dozen staffers from NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC have now expressed anger over this decision.

00:58:39.000 That report comes just several hours after NBC announced the town hall and ABC indicated the network will not move its scheduled event with Biden.

00:58:48.000 Why are they angry?

00:58:49.000 Like, what is the idea of them being angry?

00:58:51.000 They're angry because they don't want people to remove attention from Joe Biden.

00:58:55.000 That's really what this is about.

00:58:57.000 So they're angry at their own network for doing a newsworthy thing, broadcasting a town hall with Trump.

00:59:01.000 They're angry at their own network.

00:59:03.000 These are news people, supposedly.

00:59:06.000 And you see this again across the left.

00:59:07.000 So Wolf Blitzer, we played you yesterday, this amazing exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi, in which Pelosi absolutely loses whatever is left of her mind and starts yelling at Wolf Blitzer, suggesting, we feed poor people, you're mean, all because Wolf Blitzer asked her a very simple question, namely, why don't you just sign off on a $1.8 trillion relief package in the middle of COVID?

00:59:25.000 Pelosi couldn't answer it for 14 minutes.

00:59:27.000 So instead, she decided to berate Wolf Blitzer.

00:59:30.000 Here's what that sounded like yesterday.

00:59:32.000 We know them.

00:59:33.000 We represent them and we know them.

00:59:36.000 Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say here in Washington.

00:59:43.000 Madam Speaker. 0.99

00:59:44.000 It's always the case, but we're not even close to the good.

00:59:47.000 All right, let's see what happens because every day is critically, critically important.

00:59:51.000 Thanks so much for joining us.

00:59:52.000 Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents' needs.

00:59:55.000 I am sensitive to them because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.

01:00:00.000 Madam Speaker, thank you so much.

01:00:01.000 Have you fed them?

01:00:01.000 We feed them.

01:00:02.000 We feed them.

01:00:05.000 She was awful, right? 0.79

01:00:06.000 She was awful.

01:00:07.000 So how did members of the left respond to Nancy Pelosi being off on Wolf Blitzer?

01:00:10.000 They got angry at Wolf Blitzer!

01:00:11.000 Here was Joy Behar yesterday on The View yelling at Wolf Blitzer for having the temerity to ask Nancy Pelosi a simple question. 0.77

01:00:18.000 Wolf, I love Wolf.

01:00:19.000 Who doesn't love Wolf?

01:00:21.000 We all love Wolf, but he was out of line.

01:00:22.000 He doesn't know what's going on behind closed doors.

01:00:25.000 He's not in on the deal.

01:00:27.000 You know?

01:00:28.000 See if you're in front of the camera, Don.

01:00:30.000 The Democrats have a real long-term deal going on, and we all know we're going to be in this for another year.

01:00:35.000 We all know that.

01:00:36.000 Where's the money for a year?

01:00:37.000 That's the question.

01:00:39.000 So, Trump, so Wolfie, calm down and let Nancy do her job. 1.00

01:00:44.000 Okay, absolutely. 0.86

01:00:46.000 Absolutely crazy.

01:00:46.000 But this is the attitude of many members of your traditional left.

01:00:50.000 Nancy Pelosi has to do her job. 0.97

01:00:51.000 Stop asking her tough questions.

01:00:53.000 We like Joe Biden.

01:00:54.000 Don't print any stories about Joe Biden.

01:00:56.000 Social media should stop conservatives from being able to disseminate information or they should be downgraded as bad sites because partisan fact-checkers have downgraded them.

01:01:04.000 We are in a war of information, of the ability to even disseminate the information.

01:01:09.000 And that war just got hot.

01:01:10.000 It was cold.

01:01:11.000 It has now gotten extremely, extremely hot.

01:01:13.000 These social media platforms, they better get right with the First Amendment.

01:01:17.000 They better get right with principles of free speech and dissemination of information, or both the government is gonna come after them from both sides, and other outlets are gonna come after them, and they absolutely should.

01:01:27.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.

01:01:30.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

01:01:31.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:01:31.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:01:37.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

01:01:39.000 Our technical director is Austin Stephens.

01:01:41.000 Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:01:43.000 Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

01:01:46.000 Assistant director, Paweł Wajdowski.

01:01:48.000 Our associate producer is Nick Sheehan.

01:01:50.000 The show is edited by Adam Sajewicz.

01:01:52.000 Audio mix by Mike Karomina.

01:01:53.000 Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.

01:01:55.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:01:57.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

01:02:00.000 Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.

01:02:03.000 You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.

01:02:09.000 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

The Ben Shapiro Show - October 15, 2020

Facebook and Twitter Just Ushered In The Most Dangerous Political Moment In Memory | Ep. 1116

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript