The Culture War - Tim Pool - The Culture War #82 MASS CENSORSHIP, The Suit To END Big Tech & Section 230 w⧸ Jason Fyk & Libby Emmons

00:00:00.000 Get ready for Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

00:00:05.880 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous for

00:00:11.120 when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

00:00:17.940 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games,

00:00:22.900 and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you

00:00:29.320 than with BetMGM Casino. Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

00:00:34.960 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

00:00:39.400 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

00:00:42.700 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

00:00:45.800 please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:00:53.860 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:00:57.060 It seems to have fallen off a bit, but several years ago, Section 230 was one of the biggest

00:01:03.980 topics of conversation, particularly around censorship and how these companies operate

00:01:09.280 online in terms of what is a publisher, what is a, you know, like if you're a private platform,

00:01:15.380 if you're broadcasting individuals, if you're publishing what they say, or if you're just a

00:01:18.640 platform. And I think everybody gets this one wrong and there's an interesting conversation

00:01:23.480 to be had about it. However, we could be looking at with a new lawsuit, the end of Section 230.

00:01:28.540 And I do kind of feel like many people on the right have sort of abandoned the cause. They

00:01:32.200 don't really focus on it all that much. But the conversation here is about more than just

00:01:35.940 censorship. It's about big tech. It's about artificial intelligence. It's about how algorithms

00:01:40.640 are shaping our culture inadvertently and what the machine state is trying to do to re-control

00:01:47.360 everything that's happening. And it seems like they're having their successes. There's a lot to talk

00:01:51.340 about. We can go back to the early days of file sharing, Napster, what that meant. We can talk

00:01:56.480 about mega upload and ultimately how the machine regained control of this environment and what

00:02:01.840 they're trying to do. Before we get started, my friends, we got a new song coming out. So head over

00:02:05.780 to buycominghome.com. Check this out. Buycominghome.com featuring Phil Labonte. We've got this here on

00:02:13.280 Timcast Music on YouTube. I think it's a great song. I'm very excited for it. You can check out the

00:02:18.660 preview on YouTube. But if you want to support our work, you can pre-order the song now. It will be

00:02:23.120 up in one week. Buycominghome.com. Smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show

00:02:29.600 with your friends. Of course, you can follow me on X. Joining us tonight, not tonight, this morning.

00:02:34.680 Man, you see, I'm so used to doing IRL. Joining us this morning to talk about what exactly is going

00:02:39.440 on is Jason Fick. Thank you for having me, Tim. Who are you? What do you do? Well, I'm the guy that's

00:02:45.360 going after Section 230. I used to be in social media on a pretty big scale, you know, way back

00:02:51.460 in the day. I think it was like 2010 I got in and I was mainly focused, you know, because Facebook was

00:02:57.260 a big thing back then. And I got, you know, focused in Facebook and I built an audience that was

00:03:02.160 gigantic. I mean, at one point, I think we had estimates around 38 million fans on Facebook.

00:03:08.460 And, you know, somewhere along the way, you know, we became a nuisance to Facebook. And before this real,

00:03:14.860 you know, political or medical or whatever censorship, they, they first, you know, started

00:03:21.000 censoring people that were competing with them. And that that was me. So they hit me a long time

00:03:26.400 ago. You know, and we went to war, you know, we decided to sue them. I caught them red handed in

00:03:33.240 2016. And 2018, we sued and we've been to the Supreme Court now twice. We were asking the correct

00:03:41.980 questions. Supreme Court didn't take our petition. Had they taken it, a lot of this censorship

00:03:48.620 nonsense wouldn't have happened, you know. So it's been it's been a grind, you know, these

00:03:53.880 past couple of years, I founded a 501c3, the Social Media Freedom Foundation, because I'm

00:03:59.080 a big proponent for the First Amendment. You know, you know, no matter what we do, no matter

00:04:03.560 what all the problems we face and and all the things that we talk about on all these shows,

00:04:07.380 all of them stem back to we got to be able to talk about them. That's absolutely true.

00:04:11.740 And there's and your story is is very crazy, too. So we'll get into all this. And we also

00:04:16.680 have Libby hanging out. I'm hanging out this morning. Glad to be here. I'm fascinated to

00:04:20.360 hear your story and how you're going to get this all sorted out. Yeah. So tell us what exactly

00:04:25.160 is going on. I mean, does this start with you getting arrested and charged? Or were you

00:04:29.080 an activist online with a big following beforehand? What happened? Yeah. So a lot of people don't

00:04:33.300 know this because it's actually something I don't really talk about on too many shows.

00:04:36.080 But, you know, since we got a long form, I can I can really go into the what how this

00:04:41.400 all started for me. So it goes back to the 28 2008 real estate reception. I got, you know,

00:04:47.780 my butt handed to me and I had to reinvent myself. So I started a magazine called WTF magazine,

00:04:53.220 which was called Where's the Fun magazine. Now, everybody, of course, you know, thought it

00:04:57.820 was a bad, you know, bad content. No, it was just doing social funny stuff.

00:05:03.940 And of course, you know, you know how most businesses start fake it till you make it.

00:05:07.440 I had no idea what I was doing. Never worked in media in any kind of capacity. And I got

00:05:14.320 an offer to do an interview of the adrenaline crew. They were a motorcycle stunt group that

00:05:20.080 was big on YouTube back in the day. Right. And they said, Hey, you know, you want to come

00:05:24.620 down to Baltimore and do an interview? And I thought, wow, this is the closest I had seen

00:05:29.340 to a celebrity, you know, like they were well known. So I said, sure. And, you know,

00:05:34.880 I live in Pennsylvania. It was like an hour and a half drive down to Baltimore. So I drove

00:05:39.220 down there and I met up with a guy by the name of, what was his name? Steve Pullman. That

00:05:46.780 was his name. And, you know, I show up at Power Plant Live in Baltimore and he greets me and

00:05:53.440 he's got this big mohawk, crazy, crazy looking thing. Right. And, uh, I mean, these guys do

00:05:57.880 some crazy stunts. I mean, they're not bad, you know, worst case scenario. They, they break

00:06:01.980 traffic laws, but I'd start doing this interview with them and the music comes on interviews

00:06:08.440 cut short, but I'm like, okay. So I took pictures the whole night, but I was working, you know,

00:06:13.080 like to me, that was a job. And, uh, at the end of the night they, they said, uh, Hey,

00:06:18.140 you know, do you want to crash at our place and drive us home? Of course I hadn't been

00:06:22.600 drinking. So I said, sure. Why not? You know, I thought it might be fun. Figure out, you

00:06:26.980 know, like a personal life of these guys and so forth. So we go to my car, which is

00:06:30.640 in the parking garage. And as we're coming up the ramp now, I thought it was just going

00:06:34.940 to be Steve, but it turned out it was Steve, two other guys and another girl. And we're

00:06:38.940 fitting in this little M3 BMW that I had. As we're coming up the ramp, some other people

00:06:43.900 come out of the stairwell and, uh, it was two girls and a guy, a boy, they had been

00:06:49.640 at the same club. And of course, everybody's been drinking and you know how that goes. And

00:06:54.560 here it is to something in the morning. They start arguing with one another. Well, what

00:06:57.360 do I do? Hold out my cell phone. I, you know, what do you do now that to anybody understands

00:07:05.240 that's a first amendment protected, right? Right. It's just like speaking. It's, you're

00:07:08.900 allowed to take video and it doesn't mean anything. Well, this fight ensues.

00:07:13.900 Couple fists thrown here and there. It's a little scuffle. It's like two minutes long

00:07:19.580 and then everybody gets up and goes on their own way. I wasn't even in the fight. I had

00:07:25.280 nothing to do with it. I, the only, I mean, you can hear me on my own camera sitting there

00:07:29.580 saying that the girl says, I don't want to get involved. And I said, neither do I. I

00:07:33.700 don't have time for that. I'm too old for that. Right. Well, little did we know that

00:07:38.660 the people that in the other side of the fight, the two girls and the guy, they all had

00:07:41.700 found they were cops, Baltimore cops. I kind of know how Baltimore goes. So next thing

00:07:47.280 I know, I've got cops showing up at my house, uh, seizing the vehicle as evidence in a crime.

00:07:53.920 And I'm like, okay, this is getting ridiculous. I would have given you the car or whatever.

00:07:57.160 And, uh, a couple of months goes by and I was actually at, um, wing bowl, um, standing

00:08:04.780 there with Ron Jeremy of all people. And I got a call from my wife, the police are at

00:08:08.880 our house, raiding our house. And I'm like, what the hell? So I race home and the Baltimore

00:08:15.160 cops had come over and got the Pennsylvania state police and they took all our stuff, all

00:08:19.840 my electronics. So they basically shut my business down right there on the, you know, on the

00:08:23.280 stop. I mean, a lot of, a lot of people in the right are now having this, like where feds

00:08:26.160 are showing up and, and destroying our lives. Well, they did. And I thought to myself, okay.

00:08:31.640 I mean, like guys, I would have helped you. I mean, all I was was a witness. Now, see the

00:08:36.900 family being cops meant that they went after me. Next thing I know, I get a call from the,

00:08:42.920 from the cop down in Baltimore. And he says, uh, we, we got papers for you to sign. You got

00:08:47.060 to come down to Baltimore. I'm like, what do you mean papers? This is how they get you.

00:08:51.680 I'm like, what do you mean papers? I'm like, I'm not driving to Baltimore, sign a paper,

00:08:55.280 email it to me. And it was like, no, no, you need to come down here. Finally, he admits

00:08:58.380 we've got a warrant for your arrest. I'm like, what? So we go through this whole, you know,

00:09:07.560 crazy rigmarole. Cause I'm like, I can't leave right that fast. Cause I mean, my, my entire

00:09:11.360 life's going to get blown up. And I said to him, I said, I like, look, I'm not coming to

00:09:15.700 Baltimore unless you tell me what the charges are. You know what the charges were? Now remember,

00:09:19.640 I took a cell phone video, wasn't involved in the fight. No one was seriously hurt.

00:09:24.240 Nobody even went to the hospital that night, right? Conspiracy to commit first degree attempted

00:09:28.900 murder. They tacked on all sorts of felony assault charges. I mean, they, they brought a war at me.

00:09:37.100 I mean, it was two life sentences in 275 years. I was looking at for taking a cell phone video,

00:09:41.420 which is protected. Sounds like the government's weaponized, right? Well, I got a taste of it very,

00:09:47.040 very early on. And my, my first amendment, you know, was trampled on. So a couple of days later,

00:09:53.100 I surrendered myself and BCDC, if anybody knows anything about BCDC, which is a Baltimore city

00:09:59.200 detention center. It was rated the second worst jail in the nation. I mean, it was horrible. Like

00:10:05.460 there was a scandal in, in there were like five or 10 of the, the female police officers were pregnant

00:10:12.480 by the same inmate. I mean, it was just insane stuff that was going on in that place. I could buy

00:10:16.960 a gun in jail, not in kidding you. And here I am, I'm privately school educated, never had,

00:10:21.840 you know, anything happen in my entire life. And I've gone straight to attempted murder and I'm in

00:10:28.040 like hardcore jail, right? It's funny. They used to call me a J money in jail. And the funny thing is

00:10:36.660 the way I survived in, in that jail is because I was educated and because, you know, I sort of

00:10:43.120 understood what was going on. I acted as the liaison between their attorney because most of them

00:10:47.700 couldn't read. So I was actually helping them figure out these, these legal issues, which, you

00:10:53.580 know, to get them out. So of course, all the gang members that wanted to get out, they didn't let

00:10:57.160 anybody touch me. Right. So I ultimately, I spent like two months in jail, finally get a bail.

00:11:03.860 Like they denied me bail because I was in jail. And then, then I got a bail hearing because one of the

00:11:08.940 other guys had finally gotten out that was actually in the fight. And, uh, I got out on

00:11:15.320 bail, which changed the entire dynamic. I would have taken a charge in jail. I was terrified.

00:11:20.100 Like I, I like legitimately, I watched people get stabbed. I watched guy had his head beat

00:11:26.300 against the toilet. Like it was horrible in there, like as bad as it gets. But as soon as I got out,

00:11:32.600 I realized I could take a stance against this thing. And I, and I, it put me on this path to like

00:11:37.620 take down corrupt cops and corrupt government and fight for free speech. I mean, it just,

00:11:43.680 it changed who I was, you know? So, so why did they charge you with attempted murder for filming?

00:11:51.640 Because they were family members of the cops. It's malicious prosecution that they just used.

00:11:57.540 So the people in the video were family members of the cops?

00:11:58.560 But I mean, what beef do they have with you? What? You're just some guy who filmed,

00:12:02.220 they'd be like, who are you? We don't care. Because they were family members of the cops,

00:12:06.420 they said that I was a kingpin. I mean, imagine yourself, right? As, as high profile as you are,

00:12:10.860 imagine you take out a cell phone video. It's not because you do anything wrong. It's just because

00:12:15.120 of who you are. They're going to go after you. I, I, I don't know. And some doesn't seem to make,

00:12:19.680 I, I, I, I don't understand the motive. Well, if you think about it, the, the two girls and the guy,

00:12:24.740 the other side of this fight, their family members are cops, Baltimore cops. Those cops were involved

00:12:30.220 in the, um, what do you call it? The, the deposition thing that they, they take. And we,

00:12:35.920 we noticed their names are like, whoa. So what they did was they basically said, go after them.

00:12:40.640 They, they did it. Like I was a kingpin. Like I set this up like a bum fight.

00:12:43.980 But what is, what do you think their motive is? What are they trying to gain from this?

00:12:48.040 Just smash me, I guess. I don't know.

00:12:51.220 But just they're bored. So they're going after some random guy who happened to be nearby.

00:12:54.000 Well, no, no, because I was taking them home. So I was there with them.

00:12:58.600 Get ready for a Las Vegas style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

00:13:03.900 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas strip excitement MGM is famous for

00:13:09.140 when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

00:13:15.940 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games,

00:13:20.760 and signature BetMGM service. There's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you

00:13:27.320 than with BetMGM Casino. Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

00:13:32.980 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

00:13:37.400 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

00:13:40.700 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

00:13:43.600 please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor.

00:13:50.760 Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:13:56.320 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

00:14:01.000 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level

00:14:05.200 to tell our clients that we really care about you.

00:14:10.060 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

00:14:13.540 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

00:14:16.280 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

00:14:22.100 Did I mention that we care?

00:14:25.760 With the people who were in the fight.

00:14:26.860 With the people that were in the fight, but they wanted to take them all down for murder, which was insane.

00:14:31.460 Nobody murdered.

00:14:32.240 No, nobody was like the worst injury that was actually listed was a, quote, possible broken nose.

00:14:39.200 Possible.

00:14:39.840 So they're saying anybody who was there in that group, they're going to go after.

00:14:42.660 Correct.

00:14:43.480 Correct.

00:14:43.940 And they took me for something that is constitutionally protective.

00:14:47.640 Which is just filming what happened in public.

00:14:50.700 Yeah.

00:14:51.200 I had no involvement.

00:14:52.160 But, you know, you get blamed for things that are just ridiculous because people get a vendetta.

00:14:56.720 And, you know, we're seeing that these days, that they're weaponizing the whole government, everything, the cops, the, you know, it's getting crazy.

00:15:07.220 And a lot of people, you know, they sit at home and they don't think about this and they go, you know, because they're not affected until they come for you.

00:15:14.420 Then what?

00:15:15.780 And that's just it is somebody's got to fight back because if we don't, we're just, we're going to get, like, there's so many of us now that have basically poked the beehive, you know, so to speak.

00:15:27.140 And, like, gotten in trouble just for social media stuff.

00:15:30.320 Yeah.

00:15:30.720 And they're going to come.

00:15:32.160 I mean, if they get too much power, they're going to come for us.

00:15:34.740 That's how it's going to go down.

00:15:36.060 So we, it is a do or die fight at this point.

00:15:38.400 It's obviously progressed from, you know, what happened in Baltimore.

00:15:41.880 That's just started me on the road.

00:15:44.080 It's, you know, just changed who I was.

00:15:47.260 But then, you know, I started growing in social media to tell this whole story, to tell this whole what happened to me because it was so wrong.

00:15:55.860 Like, why am I going to, I mean, worst case, maybe an accessory to a misdemeanor assault, which is really not even a charge.

00:16:03.840 But is it still ongoing?

00:16:05.100 No, that, no, in fact, actually what happened, about eight or nine months later, I finally get to court, first court hearing.

00:16:11.560 The one guy has pled out.

00:16:13.900 He pled to a misdemeanor, right?

00:16:16.160 I can't even be an accessory to a misdemeanor.

00:16:18.300 It has to be a felony.

00:16:19.460 The other guy was still dealing with it, but he goes in.

00:16:22.440 His attorneys were there.

00:16:23.340 My attorneys couldn't be there because they were in a capital murder trial.

00:16:26.060 And so I was just going to get continuous because my counsel couldn't be there.

00:16:31.000 But I had to be there.

00:16:32.180 So I show up, and the other guy's attorneys stand up there, and they're doing their thing and so forth.

00:16:36.980 And then the judge says, Mr. Fick.

00:16:39.100 And I stand up, and I'm like, I'm here.

00:16:41.780 He said, it was a woman.

00:16:45.440 She goes, Mr. Fick.

00:16:47.380 She turns to the prosecutors, and he says, okay, so what did he do wrong?

00:16:52.800 That sticks in my head to this day.

00:16:55.920 You got a judge literally looking at this going, so what did he do wrong?

00:17:00.480 She knew it.

00:17:01.140 She knew it was a First Amendment protected activity.

00:17:03.860 And I stood there, and she turned, you know, and then she brought him up to the podium and so forth.

00:17:09.820 And the other one said, my attorney's not there.

00:17:11.240 And they said, you're going to null process.

00:17:12.980 I could hear her.

00:17:13.560 You're going to null process, right, which means to drop it.

00:17:16.700 And the prosecutors, because it actually was a state prosecutor.

00:17:19.260 They had gone up.

00:17:20.140 It wasn't even the city anymore.

00:17:21.820 I don't know.

00:17:22.520 I mean, they threw everything at us, and right there on the spot, they dropped it with a court apology.

00:17:28.000 The procedure is the punishment.

00:17:30.360 Yeah.

00:17:30.900 You lose no matter what.

00:17:31.980 Well, you got two months in jail.

00:17:33.600 I had two months in jail.

00:17:34.440 Yeah, that's a lot of time in jail for not doing anything.

00:17:36.300 $60,000 in lawyer's fees, which you don't recover.

00:17:40.180 So, you know, I, of course, tried to sue because of malicious prosecution.

00:17:43.720 But see, they've insulated it there, too, because you go to a law firm, Murphy's the biggest one that goes after the city, and they basically said, if anything has probable cause, anything.

00:17:57.540 Like, if you get jaywalking and they add on attempted murder, they can do that.

00:18:02.640 Because if the jaywalking has probable cause, everything else gets dumped.

00:18:05.940 If you were black, you'd have made a million dollars.

00:18:08.700 Right.

00:18:09.500 Black Lives Matter would have rallied in two seconds.

00:18:12.080 False imprisonment.

00:18:13.320 Ben Crump would have come out and said, here's the video of what he did.

00:18:17.400 Why is this happening?

00:18:19.200 You know, but here we are.

00:18:20.540 You know, it's a shame because, you know, the racism thing, it exists in a way, but it's not the way that everybody expects.

00:18:28.040 And you're right in that.

00:18:29.040 I'll tell you a funny story with that.

00:18:30.560 With my bail hearing, you know, here I am in a freaking jumpsuit.

00:18:34.960 I am the only white guy in the room, except for, you know, the prosecutor and judge and everybody else.

00:18:40.620 But all of these people were chained all around me, probably 30 plus, all black.

00:18:47.320 And they get to my case, and the judge says, oh, I remember this case.

00:18:52.080 What do you mean you remember this case?

00:18:55.040 And next thing I know, I get denied bail.

00:18:57.760 I have surrendered myself.

00:18:59.360 I have no criminal history.

00:19:00.900 I got nothing going on that's wrong.

00:19:03.140 And I got denied bail.

00:19:04.600 The next guy that stood up, black guy, right?

00:19:07.800 He was there on his eighth felony assault.

00:19:09.980 He hit a guy in the head with a baseball bat, and he got a quarter million dollar bail.

00:19:14.700 I'm a bigger threat.

00:19:15.800 You got no bail, and the judge said they remembered the case without you ever having stood before the judge before.

00:19:21.260 You got it.

00:19:23.480 Yeah, that's a problem.

00:19:24.340 Yeah, they'd never, they hadn't seen your case in person before, and they remember it for some reason.

00:19:29.360 Yeah, I think she was involved with the other people, and she just lumped me in with the whole situation.

00:19:36.060 And what it means is that there's a bias.

00:19:39.380 There's clearly something that she's got going on in her head no matter how you slice it.

00:19:44.600 No matter what it is, there's something there.

00:19:46.940 She was remembering something.

00:19:47.820 I think our society is collapsing, and the ability of individuals to recognize things greater than themselves is dramatically diminished.

00:19:58.160 So you end up with politicians who just say, I don't care.

00:20:01.900 I need to win.

00:20:02.580 I want my money.

00:20:03.760 And they will burn this country down.

00:20:05.660 They'll open up the borders.

00:20:06.720 They'll sacrifice the economy so long as they get their paycheck.

00:20:09.800 You know, the way I describe it is the Titanic has hit the iceberg, and they're stealing the China and rushing to the life raft before anybody else can.

00:20:15.580 And so in this regard, I bring that up because this judge doesn't know, doesn't care.

00:20:19.820 Literally, it's all meaningless.

00:20:21.080 And this is what we see so often in the courts today.

00:20:23.620 I mean, despite the fact that we still have a pretty good system, it really is all about your jurisdiction.

00:20:27.400 So in issues of, say, civil matters especially, which you're also familiar with, it's all about your judge.

00:20:33.740 And you're going to go to your lawyer, and you're going to say, this person did this thing wrong civilly.

00:20:39.280 They've damaged me, and I want money.

00:20:40.860 And the first thing the lawyer is going to say is, where can we file this?

00:20:44.720 Where do we have standing?

00:20:45.600 Where do we have proper jurisdiction?

00:20:47.840 And unfortunately for you, this happened in a place where, oh, you know what?

00:20:51.900 It's an Obama appointee.

00:20:53.700 Yeah, you're going to lose in two seconds.

00:20:54.980 He's going to take one look at you, and he's going to be like, nope.

00:20:57.700 Or it's going to be, ah, it's a Trump appointee.

00:20:59.760 You know, this Trump appointee is going to feel this way or that way about it.

00:21:02.680 And it doesn't even matter the merits of the case.

00:21:04.940 It matters the political leanings.

00:21:07.100 And sometimes not even that.

00:21:08.360 I mean, you try to sue Baltimore police in Baltimore, and that judge is going to be like, you know, we get paid from the same coffers.

00:21:17.100 So you suing them is taking for my paycheck, too.

00:21:19.500 Get out of my courtroom.

00:21:20.220 Unless there's civil unrest, powerful media interests, and then what they do is the cost-benefit analysis.

00:21:28.540 Am I going to lose more money paying him out or dealing with the negative press and riots that affect this city?

00:21:35.040 Once again, all from the same coffers.

00:21:36.860 So when you see the BLM riots, the city's cave, not just, you know, Baltimore, but they cave, they pay out, because they're thinking the riots are going to cost the city $15, $20 million in damages.

00:21:49.340 Then we're going to have to deal with the legal issues, the PR issues, the staffing, special prosecutor, all that stuff.

00:21:54.320 Pay them their settlement, give them the $10 million, and it goes away.

00:21:56.340 That happened in New York City, where protesters, agitators who had torched police cars, they got a settlement.

00:22:05.200 Oh, yeah, yeah.

00:22:06.560 It caused millions in damage.

00:22:08.540 Unreal.

00:22:08.660 January 20th, 2017, hundreds of far-left extremists, actually thousands, but hundreds were arrested, were firebombing various parts.

00:22:15.860 They were setting things on fire, starting fires in the streets, smashing windows.

00:22:18.160 And when the police arrested a group of hundreds of individuals, primarily wearing black hoodies and masks, they said conspiracy to riot, et cetera, things of this nature.

00:22:27.680 It all got dismissed because the lawyers argued, you can't prove this individual because they were wearing a hoodie was involved in any crime.

00:22:35.520 And so once it got dismissed, they sued and ended up winning, I think, like $1 or $2 million.

00:22:40.340 So the people who destroyed the city got paid by the city cash.

00:22:44.500 It's infuriating.

00:22:45.400 Yep, it is.

00:22:46.160 You had politicians and Jacob Frey in Minneapolis just bending the knee to the protesters.

00:22:53.460 Yeah, it's shocking to see that kind of thing happen.

00:22:56.680 But so how does this get into, you know, big tech censorship, right?

00:23:00.120 Yeah, it's a weird transition, but it's funny because it goes right out of what you're saying, the whole, how do we get even about this?

00:23:08.340 So I had this crazy story of what happened to me.

00:23:11.000 You know, it was bad.

00:23:12.240 I had no money.

00:23:13.800 And, of course, you know, Facebook's free.

00:23:16.160 They offered this, you know, come build your business on Facebook and you'll get reach and distribution.

00:23:21.440 You just have to come build it, right?

00:23:22.560 That's what they represent to everybody.

00:23:24.820 So we all bust our butts to, you know, it's what we're doing here.

00:23:29.140 We're working to get attention and reach and distribution so that we can essentially sell product or whatever it is.

00:23:35.800 And I wanted to get the story out.

00:23:38.660 So this is before anybody really realized the value of reach and distribution.

00:23:44.540 But I needed reach and distribution.

00:23:46.680 And at the time I was telling my wife because, I mean, we were so broke.

00:23:50.220 I mean, I remember being on Angel's Food Network.

00:23:52.880 Like we couldn't feed ourselves.

00:23:54.500 I mean, it was – I felt like a failure as a man because everybody else had taken everything from me.

00:23:59.720 And I was bound and determined to get this story out.

00:24:03.720 And my goal was to write a book, and I didn't.

00:24:06.940 I never had an editor in it, so there's a lot of mistakes in it.

00:24:09.920 But at the end of the day, it was one of those I needed to fight back.

00:24:14.180 And the way was to build an audience, get those people to hear what I had to say.

00:24:18.400 So I started a magazine, you know, and I thought, well, I'll at least try to build this out and try to get an audience there.

00:24:25.600 So I started working on Facebook, and I started building an audience as fast as I could.

00:24:31.220 And then one day I discovered the fake fan thing.

00:24:34.920 And I was like, huh.

00:24:36.460 Now, I was doing it like where I would go to events, and I was just burning money, and there's no good ROI on the whole thing.

00:24:42.640 So I was trying to build this audience.

00:24:44.960 Well, then I realized that the people that had bigger audiences than me, I went to a model who I didn't like.

00:24:51.400 She was actually a really, really terrible person.

00:24:54.360 But she was just like all about herself.

00:24:57.320 But she had 67,000 fans, which was huge on Facebook in those days.

00:25:01.660 We were talking 2011, right?

00:25:04.220 I had like 14,000, and she was going to share me if I helped promote her.

00:25:08.720 And then when it came time, she was like, I'm not going to waste my time on you.

00:25:12.180 And I was like, oh.

00:25:13.620 But when I figured out the fake fan thing, right?

00:25:15.820 This was on Fiverr.

00:25:16.760 And what is that?

00:25:17.520 What is that?

00:25:18.020 So they're bots.

00:25:19.620 This was really where the whole bot farming thing for social media became a thing.

00:25:24.100 What do you mean you figured it out?

00:25:25.680 So somebody had said to me, well, no.

00:25:28.340 No, I was actually, I was just Googling how to build an audience.

00:25:32.060 And somehow it took me to a website called Fiverr, F-I-V-E-R-R, I think it is.

00:25:37.840 And hire people for five bucks.

00:25:38.760 Yeah, it's like a five-buck thing.

00:25:40.340 And it said $5 for 100 fans.

00:25:44.840 And I'm like, well, that's better than the ROI on anything else.

00:25:48.580 So I bought it.

00:25:50.060 And I was like, yeah, I've got 100 fans.

00:25:51.640 And they came overnight, boom, done.

00:25:52.960 I was like, wow.

00:25:54.340 And then a couple weeks goes by, and it's like $500 for $5.

00:25:58.500 And then it's like $1,000 for $5.

00:26:00.060 And when it hit $1,000 for $5, and I'm noticing nothing is really changing on my metrics.

00:26:05.940 I'm just like, why are they just not engaging?

00:26:08.140 So I asked the guy, I asked the person I bought it from.

00:26:10.600 I said, are these real accounts?

00:26:11.620 And he said, yes.

00:26:13.660 I said, no.

00:26:14.360 Are they like real people?

00:26:16.300 Oh, no, no, no, no.

00:26:17.700 This was all India, right?

00:26:19.080 This was India building these bot farms.

00:26:21.960 And all of a sudden I realized, I mean, basic business 101.

00:26:26.640 How many products or books are you going to sell to a fake account?

00:26:30.480 Get ready for Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

00:26:36.520 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous for

00:26:41.760 when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

00:26:48.180 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games,

00:26:53.520 and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you

00:26:59.940 than with BetMGM Casino.

00:27:02.520 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

00:27:05.560 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

00:27:08.100 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

00:27:10.020 19 plus to wager.

00:27:11.160 Ontario only.

00:27:12.040 Please play responsibly.

00:27:13.060 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

00:27:16.420 please contact ConnexOntario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge.

00:27:24.480 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:27:29.140 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

00:27:33.560 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level

00:27:37.820 to tell our clients that we really care about you.

00:27:40.700 We care about you.

00:27:42.000 We care about you.

00:27:42.800 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

00:27:46.100 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

00:27:48.900 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

00:27:54.640 Did I mention that we care?

00:27:59.240 Exactly zero.

00:28:01.040 So I'm like, well, this is no good.

00:28:02.520 I don't care about having numbers.

00:28:03.980 I care about like actually building my life.

00:28:06.840 So I went back to that model and I said, hey, I can get you 1,000 fans if you can get me 1,000 fans.

00:28:13.540 She said, you can't give me 1,000 fans.

00:28:15.480 I was like, yes, I can.

00:28:17.460 So I did overnight.

00:28:19.720 Well, then she was beholden to actually get me 1,000 fans, which was organically, which all of a sudden blew up.

00:28:26.120 Well, guess what?

00:28:26.760 I started realizing all these models wanted – because they didn't know how to monetize back.

00:28:31.660 This is way early, right?

00:28:32.700 This is before OnlyFans and Instagram and everything else.

00:28:36.480 They just wanted the numbers because they would get gigs.

00:28:39.980 So next thing I know, she's getting me at that, but they're all organic.

00:28:44.400 They're real people, right?

00:28:45.720 So as that's building and building and building, my page is going nuts.

00:28:52.080 Next thing I know, I'm like half her size, but she's at over 120,000 and I'm at like 70,000.

00:28:58.020 So what happened?

00:28:58.760 Except mine are all real.

00:28:59.980 Right.

00:29:00.560 So, well, it's kind of funny because then I got undermined by her.

00:29:05.380 She realized that we were buying them.

00:29:06.540 So she starts undermining – undercutting me the entire thing.

00:29:09.300 So you were buying fans for her?

00:29:11.040 Other people.

00:29:11.860 Okay.

00:29:12.200 For all the models, which was building my audience organically because they were basically promoting me.

00:29:17.040 So you were like cheating them basically.

00:29:18.740 That sounds like fraud.

00:29:19.540 In essence, yeah.

00:29:20.980 Yeah.

00:29:21.300 But way past statute of limitations and nobody cared.

00:29:23.880 And some of them, when they did care, they kept buying them.

00:29:26.520 So she figured it out and then continued to buy them and go up to about a quarter million fans.

00:29:32.140 And basically undermined the whole thing and it started to drop off.

00:29:35.680 So what did I do?

00:29:36.940 I'm like, okay, well, I'll just expose how it works because I understood how all the bot farms work at this point and everything else like that.

00:29:42.800 I'm like, okay.

00:29:43.800 So I did and I put a video out on YouTube.

00:29:46.180 It's still there.

00:29:47.120 And I explained how you could identify it because like their primary like top city of response was like Romania, Lithuania, and like Egypt and all these other places that were just not American.

00:29:58.820 And mine was like Chicago.

00:29:59.800 It's still there.

00:30:00.140 Right?

00:30:00.460 Right?

00:30:01.280 Well, this was right before the IPO drop of Facebook.

00:30:04.780 This is stuff I haven't talked about on any show.

00:30:06.760 So we let Facebook know like, hey, look, like a third of your business is like bots now and they didn't care.

00:30:16.160 So you bought bots for people on Facebook then exposed them to Facebook?

00:30:20.960 I exposed the whole bot system to Facebook.

00:30:24.860 And it was one of those things that, like I said, they didn't really care.

00:30:28.660 At that point, they all started buying them for themselves.

00:30:31.140 They just wanted audience.

00:30:32.780 And they were using like Fiverr and stuff for them.

00:30:34.940 Yeah.

00:30:35.140 They found the same systems and everything else like that.

00:30:37.580 And then it became like a whole industry and people were buying.

00:30:39.860 A whole fraud fan industry.

00:30:40.500 Yeah.

00:30:40.680 People were buying like 60,000 fans.

00:30:43.540 And that's not, that wasn't my interest.

00:30:45.700 I had basically gotten out of it within a couple months because I just needed to start.

00:30:49.820 But then by that point, I was large enough to actually compete in it.

00:30:54.100 Then I exposed it.

00:30:55.380 And then Facebook goes public.

00:30:57.560 Well, you know, during this whole process.

00:30:59.720 What year was this?

00:31:01.360 It was like 2012, I think, they went public.

00:31:04.260 And you'll see the video that I got out there.

00:31:06.600 It was a couple months before it.

00:31:07.400 So it was public that they knew that a whole bunch of fans, which, of course, as soon as the IPO came out, you remember the first nine months, they dropped massive in value.

00:31:15.440 Well, there's also a theory that Facebook was essentially in on something to some degree.

00:31:20.740 I'm being very careful with my language here because I don't know.

00:31:22.720 But I remember back in around this time, 2013, 2014, I was having a meeting with some, with a large television network, digital side producers.

00:31:35.360 And we were having lunch and they were talking about whether they wanted to do YouTube or Facebook as their principal channel.

00:31:42.220 And they said, well, Facebook's way bigger than YouTube.

00:31:44.080 I mean, YouTube gets all the video views, but Facebook's bigger.

00:31:46.040 But now with Facebook video launching, they're like, we put up a video on Facebook.

00:31:50.180 We get two, three million views in a day.

00:31:52.420 We put it on YouTube.

00:31:53.440 We're getting a couple hundred thousand.

00:31:54.920 So we're going to shift all of our focus onto Facebook.

00:31:58.700 Well, those views aren't real.

00:32:00.260 And this was a huge, huge problem.

00:32:03.920 I think some of these networks may have accused Facebook of fraud.

00:32:07.620 Facebook ultimately said they were going to change their metrics.

00:32:10.080 But the general idea was for YouTube, you have to watch for 30 seconds for it to count as a view or something.

00:32:17.300 It might be 15 to 30 seconds.

00:32:18.640 I don't know.

00:32:18.840 They might have changed it.

00:32:19.620 For Facebook, it was if the video played.

00:32:21.820 Like, they call those one-second views, five-second views, or 30-second views.

00:32:26.820 And so the view count on the video would say millions.

00:32:29.280 Here's where it gets good.

00:32:30.940 These networks making the video, when I said, you realize you're not getting real views.

00:32:36.960 No one's actually watching the video.

00:32:38.080 They're swiping past it.

00:32:39.300 And they go, advertisers don't know that.

00:32:42.280 And so ultimately, all that mattered to a lot of these big companies was, if we get 300,000 views on YouTube,

00:32:48.320 I go to an advertiser and say, here's how much it costs for 300,000.

00:32:50.880 I get 3 million on Facebook.

00:32:52.440 I say, here's how much it costs for 3 million.

00:32:54.340 They say, sure.

00:32:55.800 Short-lived.

00:32:56.600 This went on for a little while.

00:32:57.820 And there's a whole – I mean, maybe I should write a book on the algorithmic ad manipulation of the early 2010s.

00:33:04.300 Because I'm sitting in some of these meetings.

00:33:05.980 I was in the top of Freedom Tower in New York City with one of these big digital publishers.

00:33:11.500 And they explained to me how they had to engage in the bot fraud.

00:33:16.200 Otherwise, they'd go out of business.

00:33:17.780 Because what was happening was all of these big digital publishers – and you know their names.

00:33:22.700 I'll avoid saying them for legal reasons.

00:33:25.120 But you've been to their sites.

00:33:26.080 You know who they are.

00:33:26.700 They're digital media websites and news websites, some of the biggest.

00:33:29.060 And I'm talking to this individual who does development and marketing.

00:33:33.280 And she says to me, when we go to advertisers, if we tell them that our organic reaches 30 million and we need, say, $10,000 for a sponsor spot, they're going to say, company X over here is offering me double that.

00:33:46.320 And we try to explain to them those aren't real views.

00:33:48.340 And they say, I don't know anything about this.

00:33:49.840 All I know is I'm going to go to my boss.

00:33:52.040 And so it went all the way to the top.

00:33:53.840 Here's the fascinating thing about this.

00:33:55.040 So Facebook is running the – you put a video on Facebook.

00:33:58.040 You get views.

00:33:58.500 The views are meaningless.

00:33:59.280 Nobody actually watched the video.

00:34:00.840 The company then goes to – the video producer then goes to, say, I don't know, like an energy drink company and says, look, we got 3 million views here.

00:34:10.800 They then say, okay, if we buy from you, we can get 3 million impressions, views on our ad.

00:34:18.960 And if we buy from this honest purveyor, we're going to get 300,000.

00:34:22.140 We're going to buy from you because we get 10 times – we get the same amount for 10 percent or we get 10 times the views.

00:34:29.300 These people knew.

00:34:30.940 So the media producers knew the views were fake.

00:34:33.600 The buyers knew the views were fake.

00:34:35.720 And the bosses didn't.

00:34:37.400 So what happens is the people who are buying the sponsor spots only cared to go to their boss and say, I was able to secure 100 million impressions through these networks.

00:34:48.460 And it only cost us this amount of money.

00:34:50.700 Aren't I good at my job?

00:34:51.620 And when people started saying, hey, we're looking through the numbers and these are not converting into sales, the response was maybe the product is bad.

00:34:59.940 Because how do you determine whether or not the ad is the problem or the product is the problem?

00:35:05.200 I can advertise asparagus-flavored ice cream.

00:35:07.160 I ain't going to get any sales, am I?

00:35:08.600 So what happens then is the people who make the media go to those companies and say, look, we can run the ads for you and our audience will see that.

00:35:16.180 Those are views.

00:35:16.620 Facebook said so.

00:35:17.880 Yeah.

00:35:17.980 Or we can show you the organic reach through our Google Analytics.

00:35:22.740 If nobody wants to buy your product, that's not our problem.

00:35:25.300 So they dump this money into this.

00:35:27.480 Then they don't get any sales.

00:35:30.100 And at a certain point, the heads, the CEOs, the C-suite start going through the numbers.

00:35:34.980 And they're like, why are we spending a million dollars a year and not getting any sales?

00:35:39.140 Cut the ads.

00:35:40.360 This makes no sense.

00:35:41.680 The whole way through, everybody was in on it.

00:35:46.060 And so I'm sitting in this meeting, and there's something called ad rights distribution, where what companies would do is they would use bot farm websites.

00:35:55.540 You make a website.

00:35:57.040 They contact India, where they have the bot farms.

00:35:59.580 You've seen the videos where they have 500 cell phones on the wall, and they're all plugged into a terminal.

00:36:03.980 They can control each one with the keyboard.

00:36:06.800 And they say, we're going to make a website.

00:36:10.260 It will look like 25 celebrities who have weird faces.

00:36:14.940 And every page has 100 ads on it.

00:36:18.480 And it will show one picture.

00:36:19.840 It will say, Tom Cruise.

00:36:20.860 And then when you want to see the next in the slideshow, it reloads a new page with another 100 ads.

00:36:25.620 That bot farm will send 1,000 accounts to that one page, generating 100 times 1,000.

00:36:32.540 You click next, 200 times 1,000.

00:36:35.380 They would then show through their tracking and analytics, we got a million views.

00:36:39.720 They're not real people.

00:36:41.640 They would then distribute the rights to those ad sales to large networks.

00:36:48.660 So let's just say, we'll call the company Golden Media.

00:36:53.200 I'll make up a name.

00:36:54.560 Golden Media would generate 15 to 20 million views per month organically on their videos and their content.

00:36:59.040 They would then go to, you know, viral clickbait.patriot slash win or whatever and say, we're going to buy the rights to all those ad sales.

00:37:11.560 Now, their 20 million per month is 120 million per month.

00:37:16.980 They then create a docket, a presentation where they go to advertisers and say, our network gets 120 million views per month buy from us.

00:37:26.580 And everybody knew that it was a scam.

00:37:30.200 So final point, as I'm sitting at the top of this tower, they said, we don't do that.

00:37:34.540 But we're looking at doing ad rights distribution because we don't have the organic numbers relative to the big networks that are making all of this money.

00:37:44.300 I think it was one of the greatest fraud schemes we've ever seen pervade.

00:37:48.920 And I do believe one of the reasons we saw a major collapse in digital media near the end of the 2010s and even in the 2020s, you know, Vox layoffs, SB Nation was because advertisers realized they had been defrauded and then started pulling all of the money.

00:38:04.260 And then all of a sudden, these networks didn't have revenue anymore and couldn't keep their staff on board.

00:38:08.940 So it was just like a like a massive little Ponzi scheme.

00:38:12.280 Massive.

00:38:12.640 Well, I think it was a massive fraud scheme to steal marketing dollars from Coca-Cola and Nabisco and things like that.

00:38:19.520 Yeah, there were allegations.

00:38:20.460 They would just bring more people in.

00:38:22.120 There were allegations that Facebook was actually showing bot farms specifically content for advertisers so that they could charge for the advertising, but actually never show it to anybody for real.

00:38:33.260 They were just inflating the numbers back in the day.

00:38:35.120 And that that's really what where the turn in social media happened.

00:38:40.180 And so this was about 2011 and going into 2012.

00:38:46.400 And I built this audience and I remember sitting there and I built this.

00:38:51.240 I this was very early 2012.

00:38:53.000 I got eight point six million fans.

00:38:57.880 Oh, there it is.

00:38:58.900 Yeah, I just want to keep talking about I pulled this up.

00:39:01.020 Facebook may have knowingly inflated its video metrics for over a year.

00:39:03.960 And this isn't this is this is is not even the tip of the iceberg.

00:39:07.600 Nope.

00:39:08.060 No, not even slightly.

00:39:09.260 This was very careful and how these media outlets were reporting the story.

00:39:12.380 But anyway, continue.

00:39:13.280 Yeah.

00:39:13.480 Matter of fact, actually, we're going to show everybody the iceberg today.

00:39:16.580 We're going to show exactly how bad this problem is and how big it is, because that's what what we're working on now.

00:39:22.800 So we get to this point where, if you remember, their their first business model was all about engagement.

00:39:28.940 Right.

00:39:29.260 It's getting people on.

00:39:30.560 Why?

00:39:30.820 Because they needed to have the data.

00:39:32.180 That was originally what they got out of this was the data and the metrics and so forth to be able to, you know, sell that information to other people.

00:39:41.080 Well, it then switched, if you remember, right around 2012, 2013, they decided they were going to go heavy into advertising.

00:39:49.580 But see, everybody missed something.

00:39:52.900 And I mean, it's so obvious.

00:39:54.900 Get ready for a Las Vegas style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

00:40:00.080 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat and Roulette.

00:40:12.640 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino.

00:40:26.580 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

00:40:29.020 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

00:40:32.160 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

00:40:34.080 19 plus to wager.

00:40:35.220 Ontario only.

00:40:36.100 Please play responsibly.

00:40:37.360 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor.

00:40:47.520 Free of charge.

00:40:48.520 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:40:51.720 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

00:40:56.720 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell our clients that we really care about you.

00:41:06.600 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

00:41:10.220 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

00:41:12.420 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

00:41:18.680 Did I mention that we care?

00:41:20.040 When you look at it, when I post something, right, whatever page I had, whatever's like that, if you follow my page, where would you see that content?

00:41:31.660 Newsfeed, right?

00:41:33.020 Show up in your newsfeed.

00:41:34.240 So they aggregate content from everybody and they put it in the newsfeed.

00:41:37.480 And they control that because they are the dominant party, right?

00:41:40.420 They're the platform.

00:41:42.120 Right.

00:41:42.360 Well, then their advertisers come in and say, hey, if you pay us, we'll put you higher in the newsfeed.

00:41:51.160 So now that same, my straight line competitor, like let's say Tim and I have two pieces of content, right?

00:41:58.160 And he pays to advertise and I don't.

00:42:00.900 And somebody down there, he's the platform and he says, oh, thank you for your money.

00:42:05.220 I'm going to put you first.

00:42:07.220 That's unfair competition at its core.

00:42:09.220 So you're saying that Facebook was essentially violating 230 by doing that?

00:42:15.660 No, you can't violate Section 230.

00:42:18.720 Section 230 is an affirmative defense.

00:42:20.560 Right.

00:42:20.860 So what they were violating was state law, state and federal law, unfair competition at its antitrust.

00:42:26.160 They are essentially a dominant party in a market working in a partnership with our direct competitors.

00:42:34.040 My straight line competitor has an advantage over me and because of that shift to that business model, their entire business model, they needed to make room.

00:42:44.400 And people would argue, well, wait a second.

00:42:46.000 The Internet's infinite.

00:42:48.040 Well, it's not because time on site's not.

00:42:51.840 There's only so many people on there and there's only so much time they'll spend on there.

00:42:55.020 So the higher in that news feed you are, the more value it is.

00:42:59.420 And guess what?

00:43:00.340 Lo and behold, the people that were valuable to Facebook, Google, Twitter, et cetera, get higher in the news feed.

00:43:06.880 They can't do that.

00:43:07.980 That's not fair to the rest of the market.

00:43:09.520 And they say, well, their terms of service, everybody jumps up and screams terms of service.

00:43:14.320 Their terms of service are not law.

00:43:16.200 They don't get to just write terms of service that violate laws.

00:43:19.640 Right, and this is a very important thing people don't seem to understand because we heard this endlessly from the left, from liberals over censorship, is that, well, you know, the terms say they can ban anybody for anything at any point, any reason.

00:43:34.280 People don't understand this.

00:43:37.040 If I were to draft a contract or a consideration with Libby, where it's like an exchange for something of consideration, I will provide you with something else of consideration.

00:43:46.380 And within it, it is completely manipulative and unreasonable.

00:43:50.600 A judge will look at it and just say, this contract is insane and unreasonable.

00:43:55.060 I'm voiding it.

00:43:55.920 Like you can't be an indentured servant anymore.

00:43:58.680 Right.

00:43:59.240 Yeah.

00:43:59.400 And so Libby might agree to something and read through this, and it could say something like, in the event of termination of this contract, you agree to pay me $100,000.

00:44:09.340 And then, you know, on page seven, it says, a company may terminate this contract at any point for any reason.

00:44:16.420 I'm just going to look at that and be like, you created a contract where you could hire them for a week, fire them, and they owe you $100,000.

00:44:21.520 Nice try, dude.

00:44:22.960 Throw that out.

00:44:24.040 Right, right.

00:44:24.620 So with these big tech companies trying to pull off all this other garbage, there's a big question about whether or not any of their terms could even hold up in the full picture when it comes to these lawsuits.

00:44:36.520 Well, keep in mind, too, the Terms of Service is a contract by adhesion.

00:44:40.060 You just adhere to it.

00:44:41.780 You don't actually agree to it, right?

00:44:43.260 They just kept changing the contract.

00:44:44.880 Have you seen anything recently where it says, oh, updated?

00:44:47.460 No.

00:44:48.200 You just adhere to it.

00:44:49.320 But unfortunately, a lot of judges will look at that and go, oh, well, you agreed to it.

00:44:53.700 No, I didn't agree to it.

00:44:55.700 From the time that I originally, you know, built my businesses on Facebook back in 2010, 2011, they've changed the contract on, you know, the Terms of Service so many times.

00:45:05.940 And I'm adhered to that.

00:45:07.780 Imagine, imagine if one day Facebook says in a mass email to all their users, we have updated our Terms of Service.

00:45:14.080 Please review them here.

00:45:14.940 And when you click it, it's 40 pages of updated Terms of Service.

00:45:19.820 And in it, buried in page 27 was, you as a user of Facebook agree to give Facebook power of attorney on all affairs and matters related to your life, your next of kin, et cetera.

00:45:29.080 Imagine them trying to go to court to enforce that.

00:45:33.000 Let's take a look at one of the most absurd things imaginable.

00:45:36.180 There was a man and his wife recently, this is a big story, went to Disney, Disneyland or Worlder.

00:45:40.740 Yeah, this was crazy.

00:45:41.560 And the woman, I think she, what was she, she had a peanut allergy?

00:45:44.840 She had an allergic reaction.

00:45:46.260 She, they didn't, they made a mistake.

00:45:48.080 They served her a meal that caused an allergic reaction.

00:45:50.520 She died.

00:45:51.660 This man filed a lawsuit and Disney sought to have the lawsuit moved to arbitration because something like a year and a half prior,

00:45:59.740 he signed up for a free trial of Disney Plus, which said in it that you agree to resolve all disputes with the Disney Corporation or whatever through arbitration.

00:46:08.740 And they argued that now that he was at Disney World with this, his wife being dead, the watching Disney Plus for one month now takes away his ability to sue.

00:46:19.280 I'm pretty sure Disney lost that one in two seconds.

00:46:21.160 Yeah, they did lose it.

00:46:22.040 The courts were like, nice try, dude.

00:46:24.460 You couldn't write what, look, and they weren't wrong on the face, right?

00:46:29.020 He did agree to the terms that all disputes with Disney would be done through arbitration.

00:46:34.620 And a judge looked at it and was like, that's insane.

00:46:38.700 Nice try.

00:46:39.900 Plus, no one ever reads the terms of service, ever.

00:46:42.940 There's a word for this.

00:46:44.140 It starts with a U and I can't think of the word right at the moment.

00:46:46.580 But that's, that's how, unconscionable.

00:46:48.840 It's an unconscionable contract.

00:46:50.900 It's just not possible that that's how it would work.

00:46:53.380 But the other thing too is, and to stress this point about reading or not reading, in the movies, you always, they always have these plots where it's like the lawyer's looking at the contract and he's like, whoa, you did agree to this.

00:47:06.800 They've got you.

00:47:07.640 There was, I think it might have been Black Mirror, I'm not sure, where the woman is watching Netflix.

00:47:13.680 And then it's literally her life that day being played.

00:47:17.200 So weird, yeah.

00:47:17.680 And it's, and then she goes to her lawyer and she's like, can they do this?

00:47:21.960 Like, in the terms, it says you agreed to allow them to do this.

00:47:25.320 I just saw that immediately and I was like, if you signed up for Netflix and then they started ripping off your likeness, a judge would penalize them in two seconds for manipulative and unfair contracts.

00:47:36.700 They'd say, no, no, no.

00:47:38.880 This is, contracts are intended to be legitimate agreements between two people.

00:47:42.240 You write them down and presumed reasonable, we try to enforce that.

00:47:46.060 But if you, if you manipulate someone who isn't smart enough to understand, like you're a powerful, very wealthy individual who gives someone a 100-page contract and they're a working class Joe, and then you try taking their house from them, the Joe's going to tell you to screw off.

00:47:58.300 Yeah.

00:47:58.580 Well, one would hope.

00:47:59.580 One would certainly hope.

00:48:00.420 There are bad jurisdictions for sure.

00:48:01.860 Or sometimes the police will falsely, falsely accuse you of murder.

00:48:04.660 And put you in jail for two months.

00:48:06.500 That's right.

00:48:06.700 Well, let me, let me give you another example.

00:48:08.660 And this really paints this in a better light.

00:48:11.160 If, for example, Facebook decided to change it, you know, Facebook, Google, Twitter, whatever, decided to change their terms of service.

00:48:16.620 And they said that black people can't post on our website.

00:48:20.440 Just blatantly, you know, it's blatantly illegal, right?

00:48:24.380 It's discrimination.

00:48:26.140 They, that means they violated a law.

00:48:28.240 Now, people put that in context, it's like, oh, wait, wait a second, they can't write it that way.

00:48:31.480 Exactly.

00:48:32.640 It means that the terms of service are wrong.

00:48:35.100 They're, they're, they're not good.

00:48:36.780 And see, we, I recognized really early on, and this, this is, this is how this story progresses into the fight with Facebook.

00:48:45.120 It was 2013.

00:48:46.740 I, I was making over $300,000 a month.

00:48:50.500 Just, just marketing, doing funny stuff, memes, you name it.

00:48:54.620 And we were just entertaining people.

00:48:56.860 It was so much fun, right?

00:48:58.100 Big marketing, because I had, I mean, I had, my engagement was in the billions.

00:49:02.840 It was crazy what I could do back in those days.

00:49:05.620 Well, I'm, I'm making 300 grand a month, and then all of a sudden their advertising thing kicks in.

00:49:11.220 And overnight, I dropped to making $6,000 a month.

00:49:15.060 I absolutely got annihilated.

00:49:17.440 I hadn't done anything wrong.

00:49:19.080 I hadn't violated any terms of service.

00:49:20.620 They simply shut it off like a light switch.

00:49:23.960 That's artificial manipulation of reach and distribution.

00:49:26.520 It has nothing to do with treating them as a publisher.

00:49:28.520 It has nothing to do with anything other than illegal conduct.

00:49:32.600 This had to do with them prioritizing ad stuff in the news feed.

00:49:37.700 Correct.

00:49:38.040 And people think that they're allowed to do it.

00:49:39.480 No.

00:49:40.460 The fact that they're a partner taking money to manipulate content makes them an information content provider, at least in part.

00:49:47.580 Now we're starting to apply to Section 230.

00:49:50.420 Interesting.

00:49:50.880 Wait, wait, hold on.

00:49:51.600 This is an interesting point.

00:49:53.060 Correct me if I'm wrong.

00:49:54.700 When they make the argument that we are not the speakers of this information, right?

00:50:00.380 This is the argument.

00:50:01.280 They say Section 230 protects a platform for the speech of third parties who use that platform.

00:50:06.060 I'm being very rudimentary on this one.

00:50:07.480 But the general idea is if I go on X and I say that Libby kicked a dog, you can't sue X for my speech.

00:50:13.420 I defamed Libby, not X.

00:50:15.460 However, X made money off that with you as a partner in the distribution for the purpose of monetary gain.

00:50:22.420 Got it.

00:50:22.880 They absolutely are party to that speech.

00:50:26.380 You got it.

00:50:27.100 That's massive.

00:50:28.320 Yeah, there's more to it.

00:50:29.480 Can you pull up Section 230?

00:50:32.380 I know this is a bit technical.

00:50:33.600 26 words that changed the internet.

00:50:35.320 Yeah, more like the 26 words that blew it all up.

00:50:38.440 Actually, it really comes down to one.

00:50:40.220 I'm going to show you exactly how this is.

00:50:43.320 Can you zoom in on 230 C1 and C2?

00:50:47.820 You're at it.

00:50:48.980 No, this is a different one.

00:50:50.300 No, Cornell's perfect.

00:50:51.420 Cornell's perfect.

00:50:52.020 Oh, okay.

00:50:52.320 All right.

00:50:52.720 Yeah, that's an easy one.

00:50:53.740 All right.

00:50:53.980 You said Section C1 and C2.

00:50:56.160 C1.

00:50:57.380 Let me zoom in.

00:50:58.520 There you go.

00:50:59.680 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.

00:51:08.080 All right.

00:51:08.540 And C2 is no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access or availability to material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, otherwise objectionable, et cetera, et cetera.

00:51:24.980 Any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others, the technical means to restrict access, yada, yada, yada.

00:51:32.980 Yes.

00:51:33.580 So most people can't do this.

00:51:35.700 But this – we're going to get a little technical here.

00:51:37.540 But I want people to see this, right?

00:51:39.920 Because this is definitively broken.

00:51:42.140 We actually can point it out.

00:51:44.120 Oh, we lost it.

00:51:45.200 No, no, no.

00:51:45.520 I pulled up the definition of information content provider as I think it's particularly relevant.

00:51:48.800 Yeah, this is the other portion.

00:51:50.320 The Cornell defines information content provider as any person or entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service.

00:52:04.740 Yeah.

00:52:05.160 So let's walk through this, okay?

00:52:07.300 First line, 230C, protection for, quote, good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive materials.

00:52:12.860 Now, this is the actual law.

00:52:14.280 I mean, this is – I mean, it's a representation of it through Cornell.

00:52:16.460 But this is how it's written in the law.

00:52:18.000 This is what protects big tech, all of them, right?

00:52:21.740 You see good Samaritans got quotes around it.

00:52:24.400 Nobody talks about that, do they?

00:52:26.420 Is there a legal definition of good Samaritan?

00:52:28.520 See, there doesn't need to be.

00:52:30.760 The thing is is that why are quotes on anything?

00:52:33.900 Why do we quote something?

00:52:35.920 It's coming from somewhere.

00:52:37.580 Bingo.

00:52:38.080 It's coming from somewhere else.

00:52:39.420 You're quoting somebody.

00:52:40.620 So who are they quoting?

00:52:41.440 They're quoting Congress.

00:52:42.680 So an affirmative defense, right?

00:52:47.300 Do you know what an affirmative defense is?

00:52:48.740 Like self-defense?

00:52:50.280 Right.

00:52:50.460 I'm sure you're familiar with it, right?

00:52:51.500 If you're arrested for a crime, an affirmative defense is under the law.

00:52:54.580 I am allowed to do this for these reasons.

00:52:55.980 Correct.

00:52:56.460 You commit an otherwise unlawful act that is absolved, but the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that they acted within the confines of self-defense.

00:53:06.160 Meaning the basic premise of it is that they acted in their own defense or the defense of others, right?

00:53:11.780 Pretending to self-defense.

00:53:12.700 And there's a bunch of other areas where the truth is an affirmative defense for defamation, things like that.

00:53:17.120 Yes.

00:53:17.440 Some would call that a general provision, but it actually has a formal name.

00:53:21.680 Get ready for a Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

00:53:27.980 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas strip excitement MGM is famous for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

00:53:39.660 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, alert selection of online table games, and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino.

00:53:54.000 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

00:53:57.040 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

00:53:59.560 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

00:54:01.480 19 plus to wager.

00:54:02.640 Ontario only.

00:54:03.520 Please play responsibly.

00:54:04.540 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario.

00:54:09.880 At 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge.

00:54:15.940 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:54:20.600 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

00:54:25.020 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell our clients that we really care about you.

00:54:32.160 We care about you.

00:54:34.300 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

00:54:37.280 Weird.

00:54:38.200 I don't remember saying that part.

00:54:40.380 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

00:54:45.940 Did I mention that we care?

00:54:47.460 It's called an intelligible principle.

00:54:52.160 Easily understood principle for an affirmative defense, right?

00:54:55.820 And Section 230 has one, too.

00:54:58.940 It's right there in quotes.

00:55:00.480 That is what Congress's full intent was.

00:55:03.820 They said that they have to be good Samaritans.

00:55:06.100 And while it doesn't have a legal definition, the basic premise of good Samaritan is easy to understand.

00:55:11.180 That they're not acting for their own good.

00:55:14.000 It's the entire premise.

00:55:16.340 So if I'm arguing and my case says, hey, look, you took me down for your own good.

00:55:23.660 They fail instantly.

00:55:25.280 It should die right there on the line because you get no protection.

00:55:29.360 But see, there was another problem.

00:55:32.040 There's been two and a half decades since this thing was written, this law.

00:55:35.860 What was it, 92?

00:55:38.200 96.

00:55:39.200 It was like Bill Clinton, right?

00:55:40.480 Yeah, 96 is when it was modified.

00:55:42.020 97 is when you have the –

00:55:43.660 I believe it was the Wolf of Wall Street was the reason for its creation.

00:55:47.160 Oh, that's fascinating.

00:55:48.220 Yeah.

00:55:49.160 Yeah, they got – it was – I can't think of his company's name off the top of my head.

00:55:54.100 But essentially what happened is that they held themselves to be family-friendly and they were taking down content.

00:55:59.740 And then the content that they missed –

00:56:01.220 Was it a prodigy?

00:56:01.600 It was – so this is – it's the Wolf of Wall Street who helped create Section 230.

00:56:05.960 What had happened was a very simple version.

00:56:09.360 You may have to correct me because it's been a while since we went over this.

00:56:11.380 But there was a website that talked finance.

00:56:13.940 And in the comments on the website, someone said something defamatory.

00:56:17.320 So they sued saying that's your website.

00:56:19.420 You're hosting the speech.

00:56:20.280 And they said, we didn't write that.

00:56:21.280 That's a user.

00:56:22.360 And so Congress is like, whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:56:23.580 We can't have you suing a website because a user made a comment.

00:56:27.440 Here we are.

00:56:28.060 But they made a public representation that they were actually going to keep it clean.

00:56:32.540 Well, and I think they were trying to for the most part.

00:56:35.080 And they missed some.

00:56:37.160 There's the point.

00:56:38.080 Yeah.

00:56:38.440 Keep that in your head when we go into the next of this part.

00:56:41.720 Miss something, meaning they didn't do anything.

00:56:44.280 They failed, right?

00:56:45.420 They didn't see it and allow it.

00:56:48.440 And I can prove that this is all going to be right at the end.

00:56:50.200 I'm going to show you the cases even.

00:56:52.140 The law is changing.

00:56:53.660 And we know it's changing because it's already happened.

00:56:55.500 So if you look at 230C1 again, it just so happened.

00:56:59.620 This is actually how it came about.

00:57:01.460 The courts dismissed my case under C1.

00:57:04.320 Now, I was arguing that they took down my content in bad faith, right?

00:57:08.720 So that should apply to C2A, shouldn't it?

00:57:12.880 Because they took any action to restrict my materials in bad faith.

00:57:17.040 Except they didn't.

00:57:18.120 They didn't even bring a C2A argument.

00:57:20.160 This is actually really interesting.

00:57:21.100 C2A says, any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability to material that the content provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:57:30.940 No provider shall be held liable on account of.

00:57:34.120 Right.

00:57:34.400 So what this means is—

00:57:35.340 This is the liability protection.

00:57:36.580 So this is interesting.

00:57:37.220 This means that if any of these big tech platforms take you down in bad faith—

00:57:41.440 Right.

00:57:41.620 And we can define that, especially in West Virginia, there actually is bad faith.

00:57:44.960 It goes back to being a good Samaritan, though.

00:57:46.900 Good faith as it relates to being a good Samaritan.

00:57:49.960 But to put it very, very simply, it seems as an argument that if you are restricted in any way unrelated to these things, you may actually have cause of action.

00:58:00.700 Correct.

00:58:00.940 So the argument for the protection is that you are being lewd and lascivious.

00:58:06.480 But this is—so I knew a guy 10 years ago.

00:58:09.140 He had a business online, and I forget what his service was.

00:58:13.060 He made six figures, older guy with a family, and he said it's because when people Google search for his service, he's in the top five.

00:58:21.420 Google changed the algorithm, removing him from the front page.

00:58:25.180 His business was gone overnight.

00:58:26.520 That is not a good faith restriction of his content, which he was in this real estate.

00:58:33.500 So this would be akin to you going to the city, filing for a permit to open a food truck in this parking lot, and they guarantee you—they say, yep, permit is good.

00:58:44.240 You can operate here.

00:58:45.420 This land is good for 10 years.

00:58:46.900 And then one day you show up, and they've towed your vehicle out to the countryside where there's no people anymore.

00:58:50.640 And you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:58:52.240 You've shut me down without cause.

00:58:54.020 Yeah, I built my business based on what you said to do.

00:58:56.520 So I built it, and then you took it from me?

00:58:59.040 Exactly.

00:58:59.760 This is getting really crazy.

00:59:01.000 I think the craziest thing about this, in fact, is that I have not heard it argued, but I believe it is true and correct, and I think a reasonable judge would agree.

00:59:09.360 Now that we're in the era of shared profits on social media, that is to say there are many people who produce content on YouTube whose sole 100% income is YouTube's ad sales.

00:59:23.800 I'm sorry, but I believe that makes them a party to the information content provider definition, which is in whole or in part responsible for the creation.

00:59:37.060 You're starting to catch on.

00:59:38.000 If there is a person who films documentaries, and it requires them to spend $2,000 to fly to a location, and YouTube is the one selling ads for YouTube on YouTube's platform for this individual who then uses the revenue generated from the content they produce, YouTube is half.

00:59:54.200 They are half or—

00:59:54.840 They're a party.

00:59:55.700 They're a party to the creation.

00:59:56.980 Right there.

00:59:57.460 In part.

00:59:58.200 It probably wouldn't be created if it wasn't for them enabling the revenue source.

01:00:02.020 Well, I think any reasonable judge is going to say, in fact, it is true.

01:00:06.000 We know this to be the case.

01:00:07.740 YouTubers have articles for the last decade about how much money they make on YouTube solely.

01:00:12.680 This makes YouTube party to that creation.

01:00:14.880 Now, hold on.

01:00:15.960 If we have a sponsor, let's say it's a candy bar company, and they sponsor the content, I would argue that is not in part responsible for the creation of the content as they are simply selling on what already exists.

01:00:26.260 They say, you have a show.

01:00:27.460 It gets 100,000 views.

01:00:28.700 We'd like to put ours in the beginning of a show you've already made.

01:00:31.100 If, in the instance, they say, you're going to be launching a show, you expect to get this much, and we want to sponsor the show, I still would argue sponsorship would be exempt from this.

01:00:40.780 The issue here is that YouTube is the platform by which you are putting the content on, and YouTube is Google's parent company.

01:00:47.560 Dominant party.

01:00:48.340 They control it.

01:00:49.360 They control the site.

01:00:50.900 Can people see it?

01:00:51.820 They control whether or not ads get sold against it.

01:00:54.920 So not only are they generating the revenue—we can make the argument that Google says, no, no, no, no.

01:01:00.800 Google ad sales will sell an advertiser for you, but we're not the ones putting the money towards it.

01:01:06.820 It's the advertiser.

01:01:07.840 And then my response is, YouTube decides whether my video will be viewed or not to generate that money.

01:01:14.520 And if YouTube removed me, the sponsors would not buy.

01:01:17.780 I would make no money.

01:01:18.660 So by you, algorithmically or by choice, putting me on front page or recommended or otherwise, while another subsidiary or sister organization in Google is doing the revenue generation, you are a party.

01:01:30.940 You are an information content provider, and you are legally liable for the speech said by all of these channels.

01:01:36.260 You nailed it.

01:01:37.220 Now do you want me to tell you where the courts went wrong?

01:01:39.060 Where they go wrong.

01:01:39.780 This is where it goes wrong.

01:01:41.420 So you know that they took down my content in bad faith, right?

01:01:43.920 So that should have been a C2A consideration.

01:01:45.860 They should have looked at it that way.

01:01:46.920 Let's pause.

01:01:47.260 Define bad faith.

01:01:49.320 It's irrelevant.

01:01:50.500 And I'll explain why in a second.

01:01:52.260 The reality is that they—let's take different words from that.

01:01:57.080 They restricted access to or availability of my materials, did they not?

01:01:59.680 They shut down six of my pages, all of my content, shut down my business, and so forth.

01:02:03.700 They took me down.

01:02:05.640 That's a C2A consideration.

01:02:07.200 They didn't advance a C2A defense, though.

01:02:11.380 They advanced a C1 defense.

01:02:15.120 Now here's why.

01:02:16.580 What most people are completely unaware of because they just lump it all together is Section 230.

01:02:23.280 C1 has been applied wrong for two and a half decades, and we have not only proved it.

01:02:29.540 We can prove it's unconstitutional, and the law is already changing.

01:02:33.240 They talk about a broad or narrow interpretation.

01:02:35.000 There isn't.

01:02:35.420 It's just the written words.

01:02:37.200 Now look, I had an epiphany one night.

01:02:40.200 The court had decided that C1 protected it.

01:02:42.900 They never considered C2, and I'm sitting there going, well, if they never considered C2, what's the purpose of it if it's a completely worthless law?

01:02:50.440 It doesn't have any purpose, right?

01:02:53.220 Well, C1 was applied wrong, and I figured out why.

01:02:56.760 It's an actual word.

01:02:57.940 I was sitting there watching Judge Napolitano talking about natural rights, right?

01:03:02.140 What I do for my fun time.

01:03:03.940 And he's got this class, and he asked the class, what's the most important word in the right to free speech?

01:03:09.860 Let me ask you.

01:03:11.060 What's the most important word in the right to free speech?

01:03:13.240 This is profound.

01:03:14.900 Is it the?

01:03:16.120 You got it.

01:03:18.040 Well, I follow you on Twitter.

01:03:19.540 Oh, okay.

01:03:21.780 All right.

01:03:22.480 So the word the is what's called a definite article, right?

01:03:25.660 It's English language.

01:03:26.880 It means that we know what it is.

01:03:28.800 It was actually James Madison once argued in defense of free speech that it was the most important word because it already exists.

01:03:36.500 We know what it is, right?

01:03:37.380 There's a difference between a White House and the White House.

01:03:41.080 Yeah.

01:03:41.440 You all know what I'm talking about.

01:03:42.580 Your audience knows what I'm talking about.

01:03:43.960 I haven't said anything except the White House.

01:03:46.160 I have a White House.

01:03:47.180 Yeah, you have a White House.

01:03:48.080 I have a White House.

01:03:49.140 But there's the White House, right?

01:03:51.060 Right.

01:03:51.260 Well, if you look at this sentence again, it says, any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene.

01:04:01.520 It says – oh, sorry.

01:04:03.340 I'm reading the wrong one.

01:04:04.180 It's section one.

01:04:04.660 Yeah.

01:04:05.120 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another content provider.

01:04:12.800 So the publisher or speaker specifically is another information content provider.

01:04:18.820 Now, hold on.

01:04:19.580 So what you're arguing is nowhere does it say, ah, in which case the argument could be made that certainly the speaker of the information is Libby, but YouTube is also a publisher.

01:04:29.980 A publisher.

01:04:30.500 Exactly.

01:04:31.640 There is – and I can say this, and it is factually correct.

01:04:35.620 There is nothing in that law that says we cannot treat them as a publisher for their own publishing conduct.

01:04:40.360 Are you in the courts right now with that argument?

01:04:42.380 You got it.

01:04:42.880 How does a judge tell you you're wrong?

01:04:44.860 The law does not say any – the law should be very specific.

01:04:49.980 It should say if the intent was to totally identify –

01:04:53.620 Correct.

01:04:53.880 It should say no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher, comma, a publisher, comma, or in any way responsible for the publishing of information coming from a –

01:05:05.440 Even if they mess with it and whatever, it's like that.

01:05:07.580 And the question that we have asked now twice to the Supreme Court is – and think about this question for a minute.

01:05:12.100 Does Section 230C1 protect any publishing conduct whatsoever?

01:05:16.240 The answer is no.

01:05:18.340 It goes back to what you were saying earlier.

01:05:19.780 It's when they fail to remove content, they cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker who put it there or did anything with it.

01:05:27.540 It doesn't protect their own publishing.

01:05:30.340 And in my case, it did.

01:05:32.160 It protected not only all of it.

01:05:34.700 It protected it to the point that we said that doesn't make any sense because if they can't be treated – held accountable for their own publication decisions, at least they have to be a good Samaritan.

01:05:43.820 And you know what the judge did?

01:05:45.560 The judge removed good Samaritan from the entire law.

01:05:48.000 Well, they said, oh, that doesn't apply to C1.

01:05:51.040 It's the headline of the whole thing.

01:05:52.780 That's like the whole point.

01:05:53.600 Section C is good Samaritan.

01:05:55.280 Correct.

01:05:55.780 It's the whole premise they have to be a good Samaritan.

01:05:58.040 So now –

01:05:58.600 Do you know the origin of the quote?

01:06:00.260 Can I pull that up?

01:06:01.360 Of the good Samaritan?

01:06:02.840 No, it's what Congress made the intelligible principle of the affirmative defense.

01:06:08.120 That's the basic premise.

01:06:10.320 But here's the kicker.

01:06:12.460 They did something in my case that set them up, right?

01:06:15.400 We had to go – this has been an incredibly long grind.

01:06:18.100 Six years, two trips to the Supreme Court.

01:06:19.940 We've argued the right thing.

01:06:20.960 To answer your question, Tim, why are they getting it wrong?

01:06:24.500 They're not.

01:06:24.940 They're not even letting me in the door.

01:06:26.180 They have denied me a single hearing in six years.

01:06:28.960 Now, that's changing.

01:06:29.860 We'll get to that in a minute.

01:06:31.560 Well, that new matters, you know.

01:06:33.320 That's –

01:06:33.640 Go find a Trump judge in West Virginia and maybe you'll get through the door.

01:06:36.520 And everybody knows it.

01:06:37.320 But you're in California, right?

01:06:38.140 Yes.

01:06:38.560 You go to California.

01:06:39.560 I sued him in Northern District, California.

01:06:41.500 Because I was so early on in this, I didn't think we could beat the forum selection clause of that stupid terms of service.

01:06:47.960 So, here we are in Northern District, not being able to get in the court.

01:06:51.720 We have a definitive reason why.

01:06:53.740 So, texturally –

01:06:54.960 Get ready for a Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

01:07:00.960 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

01:07:12.620 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games, and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you

01:07:24.380 than with BetMGM Casino.

01:07:26.980 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

01:07:30.020 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

01:07:32.560 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

01:07:34.480 19 plus to wager.

01:07:35.620 Ontario only.

01:07:36.500 Please play responsibly.

01:07:37.520 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor.

01:07:47.940 Free of charge.

01:07:48.940 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:07:52.120 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

01:07:57.760 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell our clients that we really care about you.

01:08:07.100 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

01:08:10.620 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

01:08:13.360 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

01:08:19.360 Did I mention that we care?

01:08:20.400 I'm correct.

01:08:24.280 It says what it says.

01:08:25.420 Do what it says.

01:08:26.120 It's all I'm saying to do.

01:08:27.740 C2 would then have a purpose because then if they do anything at all, any consideration, C2A applies.

01:08:35.020 But now here's your question.

01:08:36.320 I'm going to answer the good faith thing.

01:08:38.340 No, there's no legal definition.

01:08:40.220 But you know who gets to decide what is and is not good faith?

01:08:44.060 People miss this.

01:08:45.260 It's not a judge and it's not big tech.

01:08:48.040 It's a jury of your peers.

01:08:49.380 If it goes to a jury of your peers, now you're at trial and the merits of the case will decide.

01:08:56.680 And that jury, because they're private entities, it's not government censorship.

01:09:01.040 It's private entities deciding.

01:09:03.260 So all of a sudden this thing becomes constitutional.

01:09:05.180 But see, when they took the Good Samaritan piece out, so now they can do all publication decisions regardless of the motive.

01:09:13.440 That's what's called unfettered immunity, meaning they can do anything.

01:09:16.860 Well, wait a second.

01:09:17.600 Well, wait a second.

01:09:18.980 There's no private entity that has the right to take my life, liberty, or property, correct?

01:09:22.320 I have a right, a legal remedy right to redress my grievances with the United States, right?

01:09:29.400 Well, I did.

01:09:30.920 And then I was denied all legal remedy all the way up to the Supreme Court.

01:09:35.800 Well, that was the moment that the government violated my rights.

01:09:39.720 Everybody talks about the rights being violated by big tech.

01:09:41.520 Nope.

01:09:42.260 It wasn't until the government denied me all access to legal remedy that my due process was harmed.

01:09:49.260 And that was when we went back around again to the Northern District.

01:09:52.760 Now, this is a crazy story.

01:09:55.100 We go back to Judge White in Northern District, California, right?

01:09:59.240 And we filed something called a procedural rule 5.1.

01:10:02.580 It's a constitutional challenge.

01:10:03.980 This is a whole different game.

01:10:05.800 This is, hey, wait a second.

01:10:07.240 This law has been applied in a way that is unconstitutional.

01:10:09.760 It has concretely and particularly injured my rights.

01:10:13.260 There's a whole section in procedural rule 5.1 that says non-forfeiture.

01:10:20.040 Don't know what that means, right?

01:10:21.800 They don't get to forfeit this one.

01:10:23.420 This is my rights.

01:10:24.840 Courts have to do this.

01:10:26.920 So now I backed them into a corner.

01:10:29.120 You know what happened?

01:10:30.440 Next thing we know, we get a notice.

01:10:32.660 Judge White has voluntarily recused himself.

01:10:35.440 Wow.

01:10:35.760 Interesting.

01:10:36.160 Five years into litigation, he backs out.

01:10:39.760 Just gone.

01:10:41.180 We did a little digging later into his finances.

01:10:44.900 Millions in tech stock.

01:10:46.980 Wow.

01:10:48.760 He shouldn't be handling any big tech.

01:10:51.340 You know, he's handled a lot of them.

01:10:53.200 And as an aside, too, these politicians know that if any one of these politicians comes out

01:10:58.920 and says, we're going to take a stand against big tech in Section 230, Google, Facebook, all of them just smirk and say, downrank this politician.

01:11:08.920 And then they don't appear anymore, and they can't run ads, and we've seen it happen.

01:11:12.980 We'll get to that, too.

01:11:14.600 This is – it's fascinating when you start to understand where it all broke.

01:11:19.040 But see, now that we've gone through the textual issue, we've gone through the intent, which is Good Samaritan because they took that out.

01:11:25.400 Now we have a constitutional challenge up against it.

01:11:27.640 But the judge recuses himself, right, and in comes an Obama appointment judge.

01:11:34.660 Did they have money in tax, too?

01:11:36.940 We don't know yet, but I can tell you this.

01:11:39.620 His decision was get out of my court until you give me a Supreme Court decision.

01:11:45.660 We don't want to hear it.

01:11:46.660 We don't care that there's six or seven other cases that are militating towards your direction.

01:11:51.840 And there's a – and I kid you not.

01:11:54.260 This is one of those.

01:11:54.920 This is so aggravating.

01:11:57.640 The Northern District – there is actually a judge who's honest and smart.

01:12:01.900 It's great.

01:12:02.840 Judge Alsop.

01:12:04.560 Decision called Dangard versus Instagram.

01:12:06.600 And I can tell every lawyer that is listening to this broadcast, go look that case up.

01:12:12.260 It is the holy grail.

01:12:13.800 It is the Rosetta Stone.

01:12:15.520 They unlocked it.

01:12:16.400 The factual background of that case, the basics of it, is identical to my case.

01:12:21.060 It was my advertiser and – so my straight line competitor and my advertiser being in cahoots with one another effectively to push me out of business.

01:12:30.120 And that's what happened there is that – except in that case it was OnlyFans.

01:12:33.000 Okay.

01:12:33.720 And they – and Judge Alsop nails it.

01:12:36.040 He goes, to approve metatist defense – still Facebook, go figure, right – would be a backdoor to CDA immunity contrary to its history and purpose.

01:12:47.760 The backdoor he's talking about is C1 would be used to absolve all publishing backdooring C2's evidentiary requirements.

01:12:58.680 You circumvent it.

01:13:00.280 And that's what happened in my case.

01:13:01.540 It's what happened in two and a half decades of precedent.

01:13:03.900 So now the nice circuit is sitting on a ton of crap that they're going to have to undo.

01:13:10.680 I mean this is – this is monstrous.

01:13:12.620 Now to your point, we were talking about being a content provider, right?

01:13:16.540 Go back down to 230F3 again.

01:13:19.580 F3, you said.

01:13:20.240 Well, it is the other slide.

01:13:22.600 Yeah.

01:13:24.100 Information content provider.

01:13:25.420 Any person or entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service.

01:13:32.720 So almost all the judges have been focused on creation.

01:13:36.760 So as you even kept saying it, create, create, create, create.

01:13:40.040 Create is bringing content into existence, right?

01:13:43.500 Like if I – this coin thing that's sitting in front of me here.

01:13:46.800 If I make that coin, that's creation.

01:13:49.060 If I rip it, I've changed it in a way.

01:13:51.860 That's also creation.

01:13:53.780 And so I –

01:13:54.120 What if I do that?

01:13:54.880 I'm going to jump ahead of you.

01:13:56.420 It says development.

01:13:57.700 Correct.

01:13:58.060 When YouTube tells us explicitly what we can or cannot say without removal,

01:14:02.140 they have directly involved themselves in the development of our content.

01:14:05.520 Correct.

01:14:06.020 That's aggregation, the whole purpose of aggregation.

01:14:09.000 And people say, well, then how are they going to aggregate content without development?

01:14:13.280 And I'll say it's very simple.

01:14:14.960 You know how they always use a newsstand in a – or a bookstore as an example of how Section 230 works?

01:14:21.020 Yeah.

01:14:21.240 It's completely wrong.

01:14:22.520 Yeah.

01:14:22.780 I'll give you a much better example.

01:14:24.100 Ready for it?

01:14:25.040 Public library.

01:14:27.280 People – citizens are allowed to walk in, put their book on a shelf.

01:14:31.060 That book is then logged by the library, and the library puts it in the – remember,

01:14:34.960 the Dewey Decimal System, the old –

01:14:36.240 The library has to put any book into circulation?

01:14:38.800 Correct.

01:14:39.280 They put it into circulation, right?

01:14:41.240 Mm-hmm.

01:14:41.860 Now, somebody –

01:14:42.800 Do they have to?

01:14:43.280 Like, I show up with a book?

01:14:44.860 I say –

01:14:45.360 Let me get through it, and I'll actually answer your question.

01:14:47.820 Cool.

01:14:48.100 So somebody else comes in there and says, I want a book on cats.

01:14:51.600 Okay.

01:14:52.280 So the library says, let's look in the Dewey Decimal System back in the old days.

01:14:55.840 It's – here's a book on cats.

01:14:57.300 It's on shelf, you know, whatever, and you get your book of cats.

01:15:01.060 Now, that's aggregation.

01:15:03.400 It's organization and so forth, but you're getting what the person wants and what the

01:15:07.760 person asks for.

01:15:09.020 But what if they said that they want a book on cats, and they say, well, you don't really

01:15:12.400 want to see that book.

01:15:13.280 Here's this other book that we're getting paid to show you on cat food because you want

01:15:19.920 to buy cat food.

01:15:21.060 That sounds like doing a Google search.

01:15:22.940 Well, now there's consideration involved, which goes back up to C2A, the word considers.

01:15:29.580 They've now considered the content, and they've now developed it.

01:15:33.220 In other words, they pushed out what they didn't want, and they put their interest in there.

01:15:38.380 This is the end of algorithmic feeds.

01:15:42.060 You got it.

01:15:42.440 And it is the end of all moderation rules.

01:15:46.320 They will have to be a neutral public forum finally.

01:15:49.340 That is what this forces them to do to avoid liability.

01:15:52.660 They cannot allow content because there's consideration.

01:15:57.300 It protects them.

01:15:58.380 What about the idea of opening the algorithms?

01:16:01.400 Remember you said fails?

01:16:03.160 Okay, that's what I'm saying.

01:16:04.460 If they fail to remove something, they can't be held accountable for it because they cannot

01:16:08.260 be treated as the one who did it, right?

01:16:10.760 There's your C1.

01:16:12.440 C2 is if they allow it or disallow it.

01:16:17.040 Now they're a content provider in part.

01:16:19.420 And to go to your point of the library, it means that if they get child pornography on

01:16:23.880 one of the books, right, and they know about it, they should remove it.

01:16:28.340 C2A gives them a pathway to remove it because they become publishers.

01:16:32.940 And when they become a publisher, they take it down.

01:16:34.980 They do it in good faith.

01:16:36.340 They would – somebody could theoretically sue them for that.

01:16:39.020 That would probably hit dismissal because it's so obvious.

01:16:41.420 But it goes to a jury based on the merits.

01:16:44.780 None of the cases are going to court at all because they're getting wiped out beforehand.

01:16:48.300 They're – I think development may be the biggest argument here.

01:16:53.640 You got it.

01:16:54.220 In terms of information content provider, which again, we'll have pulled up here.

01:16:57.520 You can see if you can show the people.

01:16:58.820 But the argument would be – and I think this is completely reasonable – YouTube does

01:17:04.140 several things.

01:17:05.260 They routinely publish updated guidelines.

01:17:08.340 This is not a good faith removal.

01:17:11.760 If YouTube said in their rules, if we find your content to be objectionable under C2A, section

01:17:18.800 230 C2A, we may remove it in a good faith effort for these reasons.

01:17:24.520 YouTube does not do this.

01:17:25.620 YouTube makes political decisions over who is the most appropriate medical authority,

01:17:31.600 for instance, which was a big deal during COVID.

01:17:33.560 That is entirely editorial direction.

01:17:37.120 It's development.

01:17:37.860 It is completely development.

01:17:39.500 So you have two factors here.

01:17:41.640 The first, I believe creation is an argument that should be argued, and I believe any reasonable

01:17:46.200 person would have to agree.

01:17:47.700 Creation is obvious.

01:17:48.800 Creation is obvious.

01:17:49.820 YouTube says we're going to sell ads on content you make, and we're going to split it.

01:17:55.620 The money, and we will determine if it's good enough to make the money if people see it

01:18:00.440 or not.

01:18:01.140 That is absolutely – no, no, that's creation.

01:18:04.320 That's creation.

01:18:05.440 This is YouTube –

01:18:06.360 It's kind of both.

01:18:07.400 It is both.

01:18:08.400 But for the creation argument, think of it this way.

01:18:11.040 I say to –

01:18:12.600 Creation would be the part where they're paying to have the content effectively made.

01:18:16.920 There's your creation aspect.

01:18:17.900 Right.

01:18:18.280 But to prioritize it, that's when it becomes a development issue.

01:18:21.720 So the development – I'm going to split this up into two arguments, but there's

01:18:25.060 an obvious overlap.

01:18:26.780 If I am to make content on YouTube, and I just put it up, and YouTube blindly just says,

01:18:34.280 it may or may not appear, we don't know, or it's – I think algorithms out the window.

01:18:38.920 I think they can't do algorithmic distribution because that is a choice they make on who to

01:18:42.080 show.

01:18:42.260 But when you combine these things together, that YouTube tells you as a new user, we're

01:18:47.360 going to split the revenue, hey, make a video, we're going to sell ads on your video, we're

01:18:53.040 going to put it on our platform, and we're going to choose when and how many people get

01:18:56.920 to see it.

01:18:57.620 That is a party to the creation of the content.

01:19:00.580 Development is when they say, hey, if you make YouTube videos under these specific rules

01:19:06.360 and regulations that are subject to change at any moment, we want you to make content

01:19:10.400 fitting these guidelines, then we're going to sell ads against it, then we're going to

01:19:14.860 promote it, we're going to make sure people see it, and we're going to split the money

01:19:18.020 with you.

01:19:18.520 You would be hard-pressed to make the argument that if I said I have a gallery, I have a

01:19:23.360 gallery space on the corner of 5th and Lexington or whatever, it's got big, beautiful glass

01:19:27.740 windows.

01:19:28.720 I can't be held responsible for what I put in those windows, and I'm going to tell someone,

01:19:33.540 I'm going to bring customers in, I'm going to sell your paintings, I'm going to split

01:19:38.340 the money with you, if you paint pictures of Donald Trump looking bad, or how about this,

01:19:43.800 let's make it literal for YouTube, don't paint any pictures that in any way question Dr.

01:19:48.340 Fauci or the World Health Organization, and I'll put them up and split the money with

01:19:51.660 you, you are absolutely a party to the production, distribution, development, and sale of that

01:19:57.820 product.

01:19:58.580 Right.

01:19:58.800 This is massive.

01:19:59.880 This would mean the end of all algorithmic feeds, because an algorithmic feed is by which

01:20:04.060 the platform has decided who will be visible and who will not, which is distribution by

01:20:09.220 choice, and the moderation rules that even X has right now, that YouTube has.

01:20:15.480 The big argument here is, you could make a very simple rule that says, section 230.

01:20:20.880 Get ready for Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

01:20:26.860 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips, with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous

01:20:31.780 for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions, or popular games like Blackjack,

01:20:37.080 Baccarat, and Roulette.

01:20:38.900 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games,

01:20:43.880 and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience

01:20:48.940 of Las Vegas home to you, than with BetMGM Casino.

01:20:52.880 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

01:20:55.960 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

01:20:58.460 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

01:21:00.380 19 plus to wager.

01:21:01.520 Ontario only.

01:21:02.400 Please play responsibly.

01:21:03.640 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please

01:21:06.980 contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge.

01:21:14.820 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:21:18.940 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

01:21:24.000 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell

01:21:28.580 our clients that we really care about you.

01:21:33.300 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

01:21:36.520 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

01:21:39.260 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

01:21:44.880 Did I mention that we care?

01:21:46.320 We have the right in good faith to remove for these reasons and nothing else.

01:21:53.600 The problem then is they'd have to remove massive amounts of content.

01:21:58.040 YouTube doesn't want to be in the position where they're going to have 20 to 30 percent

01:22:02.540 of the content produced falling under a nebulous definition of lewd and lascivious.

01:22:06.280 They want to tell you explicitly what they think is lewd and lascivious or objectionable.

01:22:11.980 Objectionable to them is arbitrary.

01:22:14.200 The World Health Organization is hereby the authority on all things medical, not the CDC,

01:22:18.960 not your doctor, not WVU Medical Center.

01:22:23.700 We have editorially and arbitrarily chosen who we think that authority is.

01:22:27.160 If you produce content that doesn't adhere to our developmental guidelines, we will remove

01:22:32.560 it from our platform.

01:22:33.400 That is 100 percent development.

01:22:36.580 How much of that is influenced by what they hear from advertisers and what advertisers want

01:22:40.900 to see?

01:22:41.520 That's that's the whole premise of my lawsuit.

01:22:43.960 The fact is, is that they develop the information.

01:22:46.980 They remove me and they put my advertisers in in place of me because they that's how you

01:22:51.260 develop an idea, right?

01:22:52.100 You get rid of the pieces you don't want.

01:22:53.540 You keep the pieces you do want.

01:22:55.040 The point is, where it failed is C1 was being used as blanket immunity to completely backdoor

01:23:01.760 C2.

01:23:02.600 There was no consideration.

01:23:04.940 It just completely messed up.

01:23:06.600 And see, it's changing.

01:23:08.500 Here's why.

01:23:09.260 This is the great part.

01:23:10.820 So, of course, my briefs have been out there for years, right?

01:23:14.760 And we had the right argument from day one.

01:23:16.840 And, of course, the trolls, you know, say that I and I don't even know if I want to

01:23:21.440 touch this, but Facebook lied about me flat out.

01:23:23.720 They said I had pages dedicated to urination, which was an outright lie, right?

01:23:28.820 The page's name was Take a Piss Funny.

01:23:31.520 Well, Take a Piss is a UK.

01:23:32.980 Yeah, like make fun of funny things.

01:23:35.060 Right.

01:23:35.380 And I had actually accidentally transcribed it, but they're like, and the judge is not

01:23:39.900 supposed to consider facts of the plaintiff at, or excuse me, facts of the defendant at

01:23:43.440 the time of dismissal.

01:23:44.600 He put it right in the first paragraph, which, of course, disparaged me even more.

01:23:48.880 This is the same guy who recused himself and has millions in tech stock.

01:23:52.220 This is what I've been fighting, right?

01:23:54.280 But here's the kicker.

01:23:55.460 If C1 is simply applied correctly, C2 is going to be all your, and an easier way to understand

01:24:01.040 development is any affirmative content decision, if they're doing it with their own intent,

01:24:08.140 it goes to consideration of C2A, and that goes to trial based on the merits.

01:24:12.320 That's how this is supposed to work.

01:24:13.980 You're supposed to be able to argue whether or not they were in good faith.

01:24:16.880 Yeah.

01:24:17.120 And the good faith was decided by a jury, not by them.

01:24:20.440 So what you're saying about it being arbitrary, it is.

01:24:22.820 There is no legal definition.

01:24:24.440 What it's going to be is 12 people that decide, was that done in good faith?

01:24:27.860 And arguably, I think they should have a fairly wide swath.

01:24:30.460 You know, what I would need to know is, we probably should have had a lawyer with us.

01:24:34.780 The question of, in, let's say, Hustler Magazine, the publisher of that is going to be, you know,

01:24:41.800 the parent company or whatever.

01:24:42.900 Right.

01:24:43.180 However, do the courts, through legal precedent, consider individuals otherly involved in the

01:24:50.040 creation of that magazine to be publishers?

01:24:52.180 Mm-hmm.

01:24:52.660 So let's do a different example.

01:24:54.900 Let's say that there is a company that manufactures all of the graphics, designs, and stories

01:25:00.260 for a magazine and then uses a third-party printing company to print and then hand the

01:25:06.660 physical copies out for distribution.

01:25:08.780 Would that secondary company be considered a publisher as well?

01:25:12.440 Not under any kind of newsroom definition of who the publisher is, but in terms of what

01:25:17.320 it means to publish content.

01:25:18.660 Are they just a conduit?

01:25:19.940 Are they acting as just a conduit, meaning they don't make any content consideration?

01:25:23.860 If they have no content consideration whatsoever.

01:25:25.740 But they're making the magazine itself.

01:25:28.100 Like to create it?

01:25:29.760 So there's a company that creates a PDF.

01:25:32.120 Yeah.

01:25:32.480 And it's got pictures, photos.

01:25:34.700 They compile it out with their journalists.

01:25:36.120 They send that to a third-party printer who then physically makes the magazines and hands

01:25:41.900 them off to trucks to be delivered.

01:25:43.540 Are they also a publisher?

01:25:45.020 Sure.

01:25:46.120 They, I mean, the point there would be based on the intent.

01:25:49.300 It would come down to the merits of the case, whether or not they, if they knew what

01:25:52.240 they were publishing, like it, if you're knowingly distributing child pornography, you

01:25:57.980 are actually liable automatically.

01:25:59.640 Matter of fact, section 502 of this same thing says that it's a crime to knowingly distribute

01:26:05.900 content.

01:26:07.020 And see, that right there has been what's changed.

01:26:10.280 You heard about Anderson versus TikTok, right?

01:26:12.600 That recent case.

01:26:13.580 Did you hear about that?

01:26:15.340 One more time?

01:26:15.620 I'm trying to figure out legal definition.

01:26:17.460 So under Anderson versus TikTok, the basic premise of the case was, is that the...

01:26:23.580 Real quick.

01:26:24.900 Okay.

01:26:25.280 It gets crazier.

01:26:26.760 According to Cornell, to publish means to make a publication, to give publicity to a

01:26:31.860 work.

01:26:32.360 Yeah.

01:26:32.660 To make a work available to the public in physical or electronic form, to circulate or

01:26:36.760 distribute a work to the general public.

01:26:38.200 Like, this would mean that the, your the or a argument completely stands.

01:26:45.960 Yes.

01:26:46.200 We would not consider them to be the publisher of the content.

01:26:49.120 Because that's somebody else.

01:26:50.280 But they are a publisher.

01:26:51.480 Correct.

01:26:51.760 By giving it publicity and distributing the content.

01:26:53.700 You got it.

01:26:54.040 It's all in the words.

01:26:54.940 We're just asking them to apply the law correctly based on how it's actually written.

01:26:59.360 It's not some dramatic novel idea.

01:27:03.260 Do what it says.

01:27:04.340 So what would be the fallout if this all you and your case?

01:27:08.460 Well, let me go back to the TikTok case because this will show you some monster...

01:27:12.700 Like, this is about to change dramatically.

01:27:15.240 Like, dramatically.

01:27:17.400 Now, I don't know if they have some other plan with AI coming after that and they're just

01:27:21.260 going to finally have to, you know, capitulate to us.

01:27:23.760 But Anderson versus TikTok, the basic premise of the case was, is that Anderson sued because

01:27:29.680 somebody had died based on the blackout challenge.

01:27:33.280 Remember that?

01:27:34.140 Yeah, I remember that.

01:27:34.980 Okay.

01:27:35.300 So they sued and they said, well, TikTok's argument was, we're not the publisher.

01:27:43.460 Like, they brought a C1 defense.

01:27:45.920 And they said, well, we're not suing you as the publisher or speaker.

01:27:50.180 We're not trying to treat you as someone else.

01:27:52.560 Right?

01:27:52.920 There's no real protection in that.

01:27:54.360 That's just preventing you from being treated as another individual in its correct application.

01:27:59.600 Right now, it protects all publishing.

01:28:01.280 Right?

01:28:01.460 That's what's wrong.

01:28:03.140 So they argue a C1 defense and the Third Circuit, right?

01:28:06.740 Because remember, we were talking about forum selection.

01:28:08.900 Ninth Circuit's a whole different animal out there.

01:28:10.940 But the Third Circuit decided to get it right.

01:28:12.900 And they turned around and they said, wait a second.

01:28:14.580 No.

01:28:15.300 You knew that that was a harmful challenge and you still recommended it.

01:28:21.280 You developed it.

01:28:23.300 Mm-hmm.

01:28:23.740 They found that they were not – it had nothing to do with being the publisher or a publisher.

01:28:29.760 Developer of it.

01:28:30.140 The content provider.

01:28:31.900 You knew that this harms people and you still did it anyhow.

01:28:35.340 And see, the sad part is, do you know that if this had been applied correctly, it would have worked against Backpage years ago.

01:28:42.600 Mm-hmm.

01:28:42.900 Backpage, they had to create two new laws, FOSTA and SESTA, because it was never applied correctly.

01:28:47.880 But the reality was –

01:28:48.640 FOSTA and SESTA was because of Backpage.

01:28:50.880 The cause of the failures of Section 230.

01:28:52.580 Interesting.

01:28:53.300 I didn't realize that's that relationship.

01:28:53.780 They had to create new laws to protect children.

01:28:55.940 And see, the reason that they exist is because if they had read it correctly, what would happen is they would say, no, you didn't create the content that was trafficking, but you had an escort section.

01:29:07.080 You made it easier for them to make money.

01:29:08.720 You did all of these things to facilitate tracking.

01:29:11.840 Yeah.

01:29:12.140 That's development.

01:29:13.400 Yeah.

01:29:13.600 So I've got another angle, at least as it pertains to Wikipedia, I've often argued, that I think could be another vector for altering 230 precedent and social media that I do not believe has been even attempted to be adjudicated.

01:29:28.140 Before you, I have the James O'Keefe Wikipedia page.

01:29:31.180 Mm-hmm.

01:29:31.520 Now, let's – with your knowledge of Section 230, I want to present.

01:29:33.640 I've already looked into a Wikipedia argument, so I know exactly how this works.

01:29:36.220 So my argument is this article is from Wikipedia.

01:29:40.400 Yeah.

01:29:40.820 It's not from a third party.

01:29:42.060 Right.

01:29:42.340 It's not from, you know, PPPPooPoo420.

01:29:44.960 Actual YouTube user who super chats, by the way.

01:29:47.100 Good name.

01:29:48.180 This is – by their own admission, Wikipedia says, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

01:29:54.460 The byline on the article is, Wikipedia published this.

01:29:57.300 Therefore, any misrepresentation, defamation, or otherwise, is the responsibility of the publisher, Wikipedia, who has taken credit for the article.

01:30:03.440 Yes.

01:30:04.080 The argument I've heard is that, no, no, Wikipedia articles are aggregate.

01:30:08.040 They're – you go to the view history, and you can see all of the different people who contributed to this.

01:30:14.860 I – my proposal then was – and someone – and people actually did this.

01:30:18.640 I said, okay, then we can make a website, a news website, where everyone gets to add a single – they get to offer up a single word.

01:30:27.080 Yep.

01:30:27.280 And the users can vote on that word, and then you can actually write an article that says, Kamala Harris brutally kicked a dog and stomped it to death, and no one will be responsible.

01:30:36.500 Why?

01:30:37.060 An individual user wrote only the word the.

01:30:39.240 Right.

01:30:39.540 An individual user wrote only the word Kamala.

01:30:41.620 You can't sue me.

01:30:42.660 All I wrote was Kamala.

01:30:43.800 Someone else just wrote dog.

01:30:44.360 You can't sue me.

01:30:44.660 All I wrote was dog.

01:30:45.600 Right.

01:30:45.720 Someone else put it there.

01:30:46.860 And they say, what about the website that published it?

01:30:48.200 Don't look at us.

01:30:48.920 It's the users who wrote the words.

01:30:50.560 That means there is no speaker of what was published.

01:30:53.520 Right.

01:30:53.680 An absurdity.

01:30:55.080 Wikipedia does not show you, in this, each and every user who added words.

01:31:02.200 So my argument was this.

01:31:04.340 At the end of the day, they aggregate it.

01:31:06.220 The fact is there is content development in there.

01:31:08.880 And right.

01:31:09.840 So take a look at this.

01:31:11.060 Let's say that someone went to James O'Keefe's page and wrote,

01:31:14.340 James Edward O'Keefe, born June 20th, 1984, is an American political activist who founded

01:31:18.580 Project Veritas, a far-right activist group that uses deceptively edited videos and information,

01:31:23.840 gathering techniques to attack mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.

01:31:27.900 Now, let's say somebody writes that.

01:31:30.820 Okay.

01:31:31.360 It's already defamatory.

01:31:32.700 It is defamatory.

01:31:33.980 Deceptively.

01:31:35.020 There's arguments that deceptively is an opinion.

01:31:37.160 What does that mean?

01:31:37.980 Right.

01:31:38.380 And they're responsible for that opinion.

01:31:40.200 What if then, someone goes in and adds to this paragraph, after groups, comma,

01:31:47.380 kicks dogs mercilessly?

01:31:48.880 Yeah.

01:31:49.260 To death.

01:31:49.760 No, no, no, no, no, no.

01:31:50.360 Hold on, hold on.

01:31:51.420 That's a sentence fragment.

01:31:52.700 I never defamed James O'Keefe.

01:31:54.600 Right.

01:31:54.860 If I go on X right now and wrote, kicks dogs mercilessly, people go, what does that mean?

01:31:59.740 If I go onto Wikipedia and say, I never wrote the first paragraph, I, as a user, just simply

01:32:05.020 wrote the words, kicks dogs mercilessly.

01:32:07.700 What's the argument?

01:32:08.800 No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

01:32:09.520 That's absurd.

01:32:10.200 A reasonable judge is going to say, you knew what you were adding to that paragraph under

01:32:13.960 James O'Keefe, as if to imply then, anything written before is also your liability should

01:32:20.900 you even add a period and click publish to alter the article, which would mean, and I

01:32:25.740 believe that's reasonable, every single person on Wikipedia who has added to Wikipedia is legally

01:32:32.140 liable for everything written before them that they confirmed.

01:32:36.480 That is to say, if you go on Wikipedia and it says, James O'Keefe is an activist, and

01:32:43.500 then you write, and a journalist, you wrote only and a journalist, but you are now responsible

01:32:48.160 for what came before it because you clicked publish.

01:32:50.820 Someone else then comes in and writes, and a philanthropist.

01:32:54.340 They are now responsible for everything that came before it.

01:32:56.940 All that's happened is when they went to edit this, they were presented with a pre-written

01:33:01.120 text, which when they hit submit, they confirmed was their writing, all of it, every single

01:33:07.900 person.

01:33:08.360 So I argue this, what we would need to see, of course, is lawsuits.

01:33:13.040 The first thing I'd say is, I would, I don't know the capability of the individuals who watch,

01:33:19.460 but imagine under the development argument, we got 1000 lawsuits in every different jurisdiction,

01:33:24.640 and it would not be too expensive, but you'd have to be able to afford it, right?

01:33:30.780 How would these come, eventually you're going to get into a court and they're going to be

01:33:33.960 like, oh, absolutely.

01:33:35.500 Providing editorial guidelines under your community, your community guidelines of how to produce

01:33:40.060 content is directing the creation of that content.

01:33:42.980 That means you're in development of it, right?

01:33:44.820 You're selling ads against it saying, we will show it if you do these things.

01:33:48.180 It's a gallery saying, I will put your paintings up.

01:33:50.800 If you give me good paintings and you don't do these things that make me angry or would piss

01:33:55.380 people off, you are giving them developmental guidelines.

01:33:57.980 Next, imagine if...

01:34:00.800 Get ready for a Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

01:34:06.160 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous

01:34:11.080 for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack,

01:34:16.400 Baccarat, and Roulette.

01:34:18.220 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games,

01:34:23.020 and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and

01:34:27.880 ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino.

01:34:32.180 Download the BetMGM Casino app today.

01:34:35.280 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

01:34:37.760 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

01:34:39.680 19 plus to wager.

01:34:40.820 Ontario only.

01:34:41.700 Please play responsibly.

01:34:42.980 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

01:34:46.080 please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor.

01:34:52.920 Free of charge.

01:34:54.160 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:34:58.740 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

01:35:03.300 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell

01:35:07.880 our clients that we really care about you.

01:35:12.600 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

01:35:15.840 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

01:35:18.540 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

01:35:24.180 Did I mention that we care?

01:35:25.620 We go to view history and I take a look at this.

01:35:32.040 Green C bot moved one URL.

01:35:35.060 I don't think there's an argument that they're responsible for any speech for moving a URL.

01:35:38.820 They didn't add anything.

01:35:39.940 But right here, football team executive 506 characters.

01:35:44.560 Objective 3000.

01:35:45.820 We can preview exactly what Objective 3000 wrote.

01:35:48.920 And let's see if they added anything that was defamatory.

01:35:53.120 The owner of the team was a comma.

01:35:55.900 But the person he went out with was actually an undercover reporter for O'Keefe Media.

01:35:59.740 And then references this individual who wrote only two sentence fragments should, in my opinion,

01:36:06.800 be sued for the entirety of the article.

01:36:09.600 So you have to file some kind of paperwork for the discovery of the individual, their username, their location,

01:36:16.360 so that the lawsuit can be filed.

01:36:18.720 Wikipedia would likely have to comply, just as YouTube does when these things happen.

01:36:23.500 And then this individual would have to make the defense of, I didn't write that, which opens up a can of worms.

01:36:28.540 What did you write, and why are you not responsible for everything else published in that article?

01:36:33.260 So I might differ on that opinion, right?

01:36:36.220 Because if that individual had, you know, that they sourced from, his information that made it to Wikipedia was aggregated by, you know,

01:36:45.480 it was aggregated by Wikipedia and then used for it.

01:36:47.900 What he said he would be responsible for, but he could actually bring a 230C1 defense and say,

01:36:53.240 I can't be treated as Wikipedia.

01:36:55.340 I didn't do that.

01:36:56.200 They used my words in a different context, maybe.

01:36:58.900 There's actually a process.

01:36:59.720 He is a publisher of the content.

01:37:01.300 Of the original content.

01:37:02.560 That's what he's responsible for, but not what Wikipedia used it for, right?

01:37:07.560 There's something, and...

01:37:08.840 I'm saying that, what I'm saying is two different things.

01:37:13.360 The users are not protected under Section 230.

01:37:16.620 If I go on X and say, Libby kicked a dog, Libby consuming.

01:37:20.080 Do you know how much hell I catch every time you say, Libby kicked a dog?

01:37:22.860 We'll use that little clip, right?

01:37:27.480 I'm intentionally making up something false as a point that you could sue me for defamation were I to actually imply it.

01:37:32.700 These users have no protections.

01:37:34.220 My argument is we should be suing Wikipedia users for the slightest alteration to add words under the argument I made that they are knowingly adding things to a greater context and they are speaking the entirety of the article.

01:37:47.500 They have no Section 230 protections.

01:37:49.640 Sue them for defamation.

01:37:50.760 That would be like how you're suing the Kamala Harris campaign for her defamatory speech on X, but you're not suing X for allowing the speech to remain.

01:37:59.860 Right, because X wasn't the party that can't be treated as Kamala Harris, right?

01:38:05.120 Do you know there's a name?

01:38:06.060 There's actually a name for this.

01:38:08.280 Look up proof texting.

01:38:09.740 Proof texting.

01:38:10.800 Yeah.

01:38:11.040 This whole process, there's an actual name for this thing.

01:38:14.920 My attorney used it in one of our briefings, and I was like, what's that?

01:38:18.420 And I looked it up, and I'm like, there it is.

01:38:20.600 This is what they do.

01:38:21.860 The only thing I can find about proof texting is references to the Bible.

01:38:24.820 Yes.

01:38:25.800 Read it.

01:38:27.000 The practice of using a Bible verse or passage out of context to support a theological belief or argument.

01:38:32.520 So it started with the Bible.

01:38:33.800 This has been happening for a long time.

01:38:36.160 It's taking something out of context to mean something else.

01:38:39.900 It's what they do to Trump constantly, like the Charlotte thing, right, where, you know, very fine people.

01:38:48.060 They use a piece of it to use it out of context in order to use it in a different way that was never meant in the first place.

01:38:54.340 And they did it with the Bible, and it's literally got a name.

01:38:59.420 It's how they manipulate context.

01:39:01.400 They do the same thing with a good lawyer.

01:39:04.120 If they can't argue the merits and they can't argue the facts, they just, you know, they used to say they slam their hands on the table just to confuse people.

01:39:09.900 But they use precedent, these pieces of precedent, and that's what they did to me as well.

01:39:14.920 They said that 230C1 protects traditional editorial function, in quotes, right?

01:39:20.720 Well, what they mean by that, out of the original Zeran case, right, Zeran versus American Online,

01:39:25.600 the traditional publisher function was a platform, a distributor's function, the basic transformation, you know, conduit of information.

01:39:35.780 And they turned that into it was an active publication decision that protects.

01:39:40.540 And it's, again, using that context out of its original context in order to mean something totally different.

01:39:45.540 And that's where it comes from, proof texting.

01:39:47.940 Interesting.

01:39:48.480 Isn't that wild?

01:39:49.100 Yeah.

01:39:49.660 I learned so much, you know.

01:39:51.540 And we were talking about, like, Wikipedia and why I even looked into Wikipedia.

01:39:56.020 You know, I became a subject matter expert on Section 230.

01:39:59.160 Like, I've invited – it was funny because when we started talking about this, you invited some of my opposition to come sit here.

01:40:04.340 I would have loved that because I don't have a bar license.

01:40:07.840 I don't need a bar license.

01:40:09.080 I just need to be smart.

01:40:10.020 I've got six years.

01:40:11.840 I understand this thing.

01:40:12.840 I can cite it verbatim.

01:40:15.400 And my argument come out and, you know, and he did the whole urination thing just to smear me.

01:40:20.920 And meanwhile, I've offered to pay for him to debate me.

01:40:24.420 Really?

01:40:24.800 And he still won't do it?

01:40:25.600 Oh, no.

01:40:26.260 No.

01:40:26.780 No.

01:40:27.160 He's the co-dean of a school, of a law school.

01:40:30.340 He should be embarrassed because in reality, I would end his career.

01:40:36.140 He would look like an idiot because I can smoke any lawyer on this.

01:40:39.780 I became the – like, I guarantee you I'm the foremost expert in the nation.

01:40:42.960 And, I mean, I know that's a really bold statement.

01:40:45.880 But I go up to lawyers and they say, oh, no, Section 230.

01:40:48.120 I say, okay, why are there quotes on Good Samaritan?

01:40:50.300 And they look at me funny.

01:40:51.740 Right?

01:40:52.300 Right.

01:40:52.740 Well, because of that subject matter expert issue, I became an expert in other cases.

01:40:58.020 And this is where we started going after the censorship industrial complex.

01:41:01.880 Now, actually, the funny thing is we didn't even tell everybody the big announcements.

01:41:05.540 After six years of litigation, right?

01:41:07.740 And this is actually why Tim and I finally connected here.

01:41:10.680 Six years of litigation, we have not ever had a hearing.

01:41:13.020 They wouldn't let me in the door.

01:41:14.940 We know what's wrong with Section 230.

01:41:16.600 We know how to solve the internet.

01:41:17.960 We know that it's going to be catastrophic for big tech.

01:41:19.980 I mean, antitrust is an existential threat to big tech.

01:41:23.560 Zuckerberg admitted that.

01:41:25.020 He knows because their whole business model is based on it.

01:41:27.500 That's why they're so big.

01:41:28.720 They stole everything from everybody, right?

01:41:32.060 They're exposed on a level that you wouldn't even believe once they fix this.

01:41:37.560 And finally, this is the strange part.

01:41:40.260 So not only did the judge recuse himself, then the other judge that came out on Obama appointment

01:41:45.940 violated my rights because he terminated a non-forfeitable constitutional challenge.

01:41:51.180 You can't do that.

01:41:52.240 That's procedurally wrong.

01:41:53.620 It's a willful disregard for his oath to the Constitution.

01:41:56.840 So then we brought it to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit has done something really crazy.

01:42:02.160 Northern District of California, San Francisco, right?

01:42:05.440 We don't seem—I mean, we have got all sorts of problems going on in the Northern District.

01:42:09.320 Like, there's some stuff that we showed.

01:42:11.680 I mean, it's like, wow, what is going on with this case?

01:42:14.000 Like, just do what it says.

01:42:15.720 We got a notice that it moved to San Jose.

01:42:19.180 Well, San Jose.

01:42:20.680 Ten minutes—

01:42:21.320 That's big tech.

01:42:22.100 Well, wait a second.

01:42:23.280 Yeah.

01:42:23.520 Ten minutes later, it moved again to Pasadena.

01:42:27.620 Wow.

01:42:28.020 Now, sometimes they'll move a case if, like, a judge is in two courts.

01:42:32.100 There aren't any judges that are in three courts in there.

01:42:35.420 So they've moved this to Pasadena, and the question then becomes, why is it now in Pasadena?

01:42:41.220 Now, at first, right, you know, like, we've had oral arguments set, right?

01:42:46.400 And you go into a hearing to talk about the dismissal stuff.

01:42:48.920 But they vacate every time, meaning cancel it.

01:42:52.460 And it was always the date range.

01:42:55.100 This week, keep it free because we're going to call you in.

01:42:57.860 And they always cancel.

01:42:58.940 Well, this, you know, no big deal.

01:43:01.140 It was November 4th through 8th, so we didn't get our hopes up yet.

01:43:03.420 We're like, okay, cool, which was going to be crazy because I was going to have to be in California during the election.

01:43:07.740 I didn't want that.

01:43:09.560 But—

01:43:10.020 Where are you based?

01:43:10.980 I'm from Pennsylvania.

01:43:12.120 Okay.

01:43:12.360 And so then we get another notification.

01:43:15.700 Pasadena, November 20th, 930 in the morning, courtroom one.

01:43:20.760 It appears that we are going to court finally.

01:43:23.100 Wow.

01:43:23.740 And we are armed with the resolution that is definitive.

01:43:27.840 It can't be argued.

01:43:29.260 We know that this is the only way it works.

01:43:31.200 There's only one way it can be constitutionally applied.

01:43:33.620 And then there's corruption.

01:43:35.000 So they could just lie and kick you out.

01:43:36.740 Well, but see, I am perfectly then set to come back to the Supreme Court with a constitutional issue, deprivation of rights.

01:43:45.000 And I have a circuit court conflict because both the Fourth Circuit in Henderson versus Public Data and the Third Circuit in Anderson versus TikTok both conflict with the nice circuit now.

01:43:55.960 So we have circuit court conflicts.

01:43:57.580 We've got constitutional issues.

01:43:59.520 Like this thing, we are coming like a bulldozer in their direction.

01:44:03.380 And, I mean, they thought they could outrun me.

01:44:04.960 You know, I basically, you know, self-funded all of this stuff.

01:44:08.400 And my attorney and I, it's funny because we got so good at this, people asked us to start working on their cases.

01:44:16.440 And while my attorney's essentially their attorney, I'm an expert consultant on it, and there was no fanfare for this.

01:44:23.460 But do you know that we filed a case on Memorial Day, right?

01:44:27.340 Brighteon and Webseed versus basically the USA.

01:44:30.220 We are suing the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, News Guard, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Facebook, Google, Twitter, the whole censorship industrial complex.

01:44:41.640 Because while, you know, you know, Mike Benz, right?

01:44:46.680 Yeah.

01:44:46.820 You know what he's talking about?

01:44:47.840 We were, I was under NDA for a year and a half working on all of that.

01:44:52.060 We were digging through it, and we brought a case forward.

01:44:54.940 And, I mean, it's a monster.

01:44:56.380 There's no attention because they can't have this get out there.

01:44:58.760 In fact, some crazy things have happened with regards to Mike Adams' case, right?

01:45:03.940 We were going to get to Paxson, like Attorney General Paxson was going to come in.

01:45:09.220 We had a meeting with him, all scheduled, right?

01:45:12.040 He had lawyers with it.

01:45:13.520 30 minutes before our meeting, he was served with impeachment papers.

01:45:17.640 That was wild, that whole impeachment process.

01:45:19.980 That morning, we had a meeting with him.

01:45:23.560 When we filed, I went on Alex Jones' show, right?

01:45:26.360 First time I'd actually done it with Alex.

01:45:28.040 I'd been on the war room and so forth in years past, talking about this years ago, right?

01:45:32.840 Same thing.

01:45:33.540 We've been right all along.

01:45:35.960 And we went out there, and Alex, you know, Alex did something he doesn't usually do.

01:45:40.200 He let me talk.

01:45:42.700 I love the guy, right?

01:45:43.960 But he interrupts people, and it's great.

01:45:45.580 But he was fascinated by it, and I started going into the actual censorship industrial complex.

01:45:49.520 I know how it all goes.

01:45:50.800 I know how it started.

01:45:51.480 I know, like, we basically uncovered everything.

01:45:54.640 It's way bigger than Missouri versus Biden, although they're definitely blazing a trail.

01:45:59.240 And he goes, we've got to get you out to the studio.

01:46:03.680 We've got to do a whole episode, three-hour episode.

01:46:06.440 They shut him down the next day.

01:46:09.340 I'm telling you, while everybody is fighting all of these different arguments, right, all different directions, the Democrats are moving on free speech.

01:46:17.960 They are trying to shut it down.

01:46:20.000 You've got Gavin Newsom.

01:46:21.180 Yeah, it's a huge deal.

01:46:21.720 You even had Kamala Harris yesterday say that she thought you needed to talk to your neighbors and friends about misinformation.

01:46:27.920 You have Tim Waltz saying that free speech is not an absolute right, and to confront people at the grocery store.

01:46:35.140 You have all of this stuff.

01:46:36.480 Why do you think Congress hasn't taken any action on 230, even though the Supreme Court just left it in place?

01:46:42.280 What was it, last year?

01:46:43.500 Well, Congress doesn't need to.

01:46:45.180 All of this stuff, and this comes back to that.

01:46:47.260 Remember the threat that they did with the disinformation dozen?

01:46:49.480 Yeah.

01:46:50.060 They said we're going to amend or revoke it.

01:46:51.980 They can't.

01:46:53.180 Matter of fact, the government even argued in Missouri versus Biden that they lacked the power because of the separation of powers, right?

01:46:59.540 The Biden administration can't amend or revoke it.

01:47:02.040 And they said, well, we didn't do anything because there was no real threat.

01:47:04.560 But they missed something in Missouri versus Biden that we didn't miss.

01:47:08.440 He also said that we would scrutinize the law better.

01:47:12.500 What does that mean?

01:47:13.600 Get ready for Las Vegas-style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos.

01:47:18.960 Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas Strip excitement MGM is famous for when you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette.

01:47:31.480 With our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games, and signature BetMGM service, there's no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino.

01:47:44.980 Download the BetMGM Casino app today!

01:47:48.540 BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

01:47:51.040 BetMGM.com for T's and C's.

01:47:52.960 19 plus to wager.

01:47:54.120 Ontario only.

01:47:55.000 Please play responsibly.

01:47:56.260 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor.

01:48:06.420 Free of charge.

01:48:07.420 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:48:10.620 When you really care about someone, you shout it from the mountaintops.

01:48:16.260 So on behalf of Desjardins Insurance, I'm standing 20,000 feet above sea level to tell our clients that we really care about you.

01:48:25.580 Home and auto insurance personalized to your needs.

01:48:29.120 Weird, I don't remember saying that part.

01:48:31.860 Visit Desjardins.com slash care and get insurance that's really big on care.

01:48:37.880 Did I mention that we care?

01:48:40.620 They would get it right.

01:48:44.340 If they told the courts, this is how it actually works, by scrutinizing it, all of a sudden they're exposed to massive antitrust liability.

01:48:54.460 We already know that they're exposed to antitrust because the DOJ versus Google.

01:48:58.300 This whole thing is coming down on them real fast.

01:49:01.380 I see a couple of potentialities and it depends on the power of the deep state, I suppose.

01:49:05.160 Should the deep state want to make sure they control narrative and they lose the mechanism by which they can create arbitrary developmental rules, which I'll refer to them as now, then they're going to have to shut the whole thing down.

01:49:17.440 You mean shut down the whole internet?

01:49:19.660 Yeah.

01:49:20.120 Social media.

01:49:21.100 Social media is gone.

01:49:22.180 And it can be accomplished.

01:49:25.100 You don't think it's too big to fail at this point?

01:49:28.820 Social media can be gutted.

01:49:31.200 Yeah.

01:49:31.600 And the challenge, though, is that it'll be extremely painful and it'll be one of the biggest—it'll cause an earthquake.

01:49:37.520 Oh, it would be awful.

01:49:38.400 I mean, it's—the best thing about the internet is that it brings everyone together around the world.

01:49:44.240 Everyone can talk to everyone.

01:49:45.200 That's also the worst thing, but it's great.

01:49:47.140 I disagree.

01:49:48.040 I disagree.

01:49:48.680 I think they want homogenized global culture.

01:49:51.320 Yes.

01:49:51.620 And they have to use these developmental machines to make that happen.

01:49:54.900 However, what's the worst case scenario for the Davos executives and the global elites and the people who are trying to create their vision of what the—and I want to clarify this, too.

01:50:04.380 I'm not saying there's a cobalt that gets together, wrings their little hands, and then says, we must ban this thing.

01:50:08.360 I'm saying that ideologues are working in San Francisco.

01:50:12.560 They don't have meetings, but they all agree on how they want the world to be, and so they act in this way.

01:50:17.140 If they lose the mechanism by which they can say, you must produce content in this style or else, they have two choices.

01:50:25.360 They can allow unmoderated, reverse chronological content only, which actually, I think, could be nightmarish in some ways.

01:50:35.040 The early days of YouTube was nothing but thumbnails of women in bikinis because that's what guys click on, and the content could be—there were tons of videos back in the day.

01:50:45.360 And you guys who are OG YouTubers might know this.

01:50:47.680 You might remember this.

01:50:48.820 You'd see a video, and it would be like pictures of women's butts in bikinis, and it would be titled something like, the most beautiful one you've ever seen.

01:50:56.460 And when you click it, it's just a flashing screen with a countdown on it or something random because they got you to click.

01:51:01.860 They're going to get the views.

01:51:02.740 However, I will stress, this was all part of their rudimentary algorithms where the more views you got, the more they showed the content.

01:51:09.420 If they don't have that, it might just be more chaotic until there's a genuine culture build around certain users.

01:51:17.280 The problem with that is it means that YouTube has no control, and the channel that rises to the top through meritocracy might be Alex Jones, who in fact did to a great degree, and they had to shut him down.

01:51:28.860 The other alternative—and it's not the end of the world for these people—it means Section 230 gets overturned.

01:51:35.540 There's this period of tumult where tons of creators are devastated.

01:51:39.780 It's really bad for the economy, mind you, so it's an earthquake.

01:51:42.620 But the deep state's end result is, without social media, everything reverts back to CNN, NBC, CBS.

01:51:51.380 YouTube still exists, but the only videos available are going to be Big Five networks.

01:51:55.240 That's preferable for them as well.

01:51:56.660 And they'll say, you know, look, YouTube's going to be like, we got sued into oblivion, it destroyed the company, and so we're only working with publishers where we can assume liability safely that are working with us directly.

01:52:07.220 That is, Stephen Colbert.

01:52:08.600 Right.

01:52:09.140 Jimmy Kimmel, etc.

01:52:10.440 The people that the advertisers are comfortable having their content.

01:52:13.900 No, no, no, no, no.

01:52:14.940 It's—if you have five content creators, and you're—let's say you're YouTube, and you're told you can no longer set developmental guidelines, there's no problem for you.

01:52:24.880 You'd simply just say, let the best creator win.

01:52:28.160 Right.

01:52:28.460 But they don't want that.

01:52:29.720 Well, that's what 230C1 protects.

01:52:31.900 Like, they should be advocates for this correct interpretation, technically.

01:52:36.200 Right.

01:52:36.440 Because at the end of the day, they just push back from the table, right?

01:52:40.620 It protects them.

01:52:40.880 But let's say—

01:52:41.700 And that protects them.

01:52:42.220 We're not—we don't have to, like, correct anything.

01:52:45.380 Right.

01:52:45.560 Except—let's broaden the picture here.

01:52:46.780 Am I Racist by Matt Walsh.

01:52:48.880 It is not being reviewed by any of the major publishers in movie reviews and entertainment.

01:52:55.480 Really?

01:52:55.780 Hollywood Reporter Deadline, like all of them?

01:52:57.580 They all—they told Matt Walsh to screw off.

01:52:59.840 The emails they got back said things like, ha-ha, yeah, right.

01:53:02.680 I'm not going anywhere near Matt Walsh.

01:53:03.500 That's insane.

01:53:03.960 When we published our song, Only Ever Wanted, in 2022, the response is, we sent out PR emails

01:53:09.500 to entertainment magazines that are not political saying, new song by The Offsprings, Pete Prada

01:53:13.660 and Tim Poole, and they responded with obscenities, insults, or otherwise.

01:53:18.660 These are the same people at YouTube.

01:53:20.860 They will not tolerate a meritocratic YouTube where Alex Jones becomes the top creator.

01:53:28.420 When people saw that Jeremy Johns, the YouTuber, reviewed Matt Walsh's film, the left went

01:53:34.500 nuts, started attacking him, saying, why are you reviewing the film?

01:53:36.880 And he was like, I didn't even say anything about his politics, or I was talking about

01:53:38.680 a comedy film.

01:53:39.300 Doesn't matter.

01:53:40.160 They go after him.

01:53:41.640 YouTube is full of these people, and they're going to be like, first of all, you're going

01:53:46.320 to have a lot of people saying, I refuse to work at a company that's allowing Alex

01:53:48.860 Jones to be the top creator.

01:53:50.120 They will not allow that.

01:53:52.300 So my fear is, as a business, perhaps, with shareholders, it's corrective.

01:53:57.080 And I shouldn't say this, my optimistic view is this.

01:53:59.960 The correct application of Section 230 results in shareholder revolt demanding YouTube strictly

01:54:05.660 adhere to the law to avoid litigation and liability.

01:54:09.100 May the best channels win.

01:54:10.800 Remove your developmental guidelines.

01:54:12.640 Sell the ads like normal.

01:54:13.660 We want money.

01:54:15.000 Bang.

01:54:15.380 Alex Jones is number one on YouTube.

01:54:16.900 And I genuinely believe he would be.

01:54:19.040 No question.

01:54:19.580 For sure.

01:54:20.040 Meritocracy, it always goes to the top.

01:54:23.200 The ideologues get purged.

01:54:24.580 This is my optimistic view, because the shareholders don't care.

01:54:27.680 They can't compete.

01:54:28.240 They have a legal obligation to generate revenue for the shareholders.

01:54:31.600 The shareholders say maximize profits, and that means they're going to have to make

01:54:35.300 the most entertaining and the best content will be the ones that are shown.

01:54:39.080 YouTube won't be able to remove things arbitrarily without being sued for being developers.

01:54:44.240 The other side of the coin is-

01:54:45.160 Content providers, technically, but yes.

01:54:46.620 But yes, developers or content providers, they're manipulating.

01:54:50.220 My fear, however, is that the powerful interests in intelligence and the ideologues who control

01:54:57.580 a multi-billion dollar international corporation simply say, let's run the PR, claiming that

01:55:03.780 because of the severe liability, we have no choice but to shutter servers and begin removing

01:55:08.100 channels.

01:55:08.800 We are going to then start culling all of these other channels that defy us.

01:55:14.420 It'll give us an excuse to ban Tim Pool.

01:55:16.680 It'll give us an excuse to ban Steven Crowder and Stix Hexenhammer.

01:55:19.360 Then what will be left?

01:55:21.960 CBS, ABC, NBC, or better yet, Disney+, Max, etc.

01:55:27.020 And what they'll say is, YouTube is still the home for original content among large companies

01:55:33.060 that we have direct control over.

01:55:35.340 Mr. Beast, for instance.

01:55:36.680 You'll go on YouTube and there will be, I think, reasonably 50 to 100 channels of individuals

01:55:42.860 that directly work with YouTube liaisons.

01:55:45.740 Mr. Beast will start getting 2 billion views per video instead of 500 million.

01:55:49.760 Because there will be substantially less videos on the platform.

01:55:53.320 Everything will hyper-aggregate in the hands of powerful corporations.

01:55:56.960 And Stephen Colbert will get 27 million views per clip because the only video to watch is

01:56:01.900 going to be Stephen Colbert.

01:56:02.840 It'll be like in the old days when we could only watch what was on TV.

01:56:05.080 We're devolving.

01:56:05.620 Big Bang Theory will get 20 million views per episode on YouTube once again.

01:56:09.760 And you don't think YouTube would suffer any financial repercussions for that?

01:56:13.360 I think they would collapse.

01:56:14.400 I don't think anybody would go.

01:56:16.580 I think everyone would.

01:56:18.580 Because it would be the only game in town.

01:56:19.500 Something new will come about.

01:56:21.120 I don't think they can do it, though.

01:56:22.440 I disagree.

01:56:23.460 And this is, again, my worst case scenario.

01:56:24.820 I'm saying my optimistic view is that they're forced to adhere to the meritocratic system.

01:56:28.280 Yeah, they push back from the table and say, here's the platform.

01:56:29.700 Well, let's go back to, you know, 2010 or whatever, Vice.com, when they had these big

01:56:34.580 hit documentaries that were getting 10, 11 million views.

01:56:37.280 The suicide force in Japan was massive.

01:56:39.240 The biggest booties in Brazil, I think that was like 2013, millions of views.

01:56:43.280 And the reason for those views was not because they had the best content.

01:56:47.800 It was because there was little else to watch.

01:56:49.640 So I was thinking about Loose Change 9-11.

01:56:52.120 You guys ever see that one?

01:56:53.420 Yeah.

01:56:53.880 Oh, Loose Change.

01:56:54.760 Remember that?

01:56:55.180 So in the mid-2000s, a documentary was made called Loose Change.

01:57:00.120 It did well.

01:57:01.560 But Loose Change, second edition, went insanely viral.

01:57:07.580 It's a video that purports there was a conspiracy behind 9-11, perhaps involving the government,

01:57:12.440 et cetera.

01:57:13.060 And I'm sure many people watching have seen it.

01:57:15.580 Zeitgeist was another documentary that went massively viral.

01:57:19.200 I believe it was the second Zeitgeist which took off, where they talk about fractional reserve

01:57:23.680 banking, and this is, I forgot the guy's name who made it, but they went viral.

01:57:29.220 Why?

01:57:29.680 There was nothing to watch.

01:57:31.540 This was the day of ordering movies on Netflix in the mail.

01:57:34.800 So if you were sitting at home and you wanted to watch something because you were bored,

01:57:37.400 it was the TV or the internet.

01:57:39.520 What were the internet's offerings?

01:57:41.720 Well, all the big content providers, the little actual channels that made movies, were

01:57:46.000 looking at their bottom line saying, internet is too small a revenue share for us to invest

01:57:50.400 in, if we have to spend $50 million to get our movies on the internet, but we can only

01:57:53.920 make five, we ain't doing it.

01:57:55.320 So what happens?

01:57:56.240 Low quality, but still content.

01:58:00.160 People then begin watching Vice documentaries.

01:58:02.160 I'm online.

01:58:03.080 I want to watch a video.

01:58:04.280 I don't have a TV.

01:58:05.400 Many of my friends in this day, they didn't have TVs.

01:58:07.060 They had laptops because they couldn't afford any of this stuff.

01:58:09.180 Right.

01:58:09.460 So Vice puts out a documentary.

01:58:11.320 Everybody watches it.

01:58:12.500 In 2013, I had a meeting with Google, Google News Team, and their YouTube development partners.

01:58:17.800 And they said, our biggest competitor is Netflix.

01:58:21.440 And I said, you are completely wrong in how you're approaching this.

01:58:27.020 YouTube is a place for everyone to share videos and produce content for it to rise organically.

01:58:31.860 Netflix has produced movies and distribution.

01:58:34.460 And they said, yes, but we are losing viewers to Netflix.

01:58:38.600 When Netflix launched streaming, people stopped watching YouTube videos and started watching

01:58:43.080 premium content.

01:58:44.000 I believe it is fair to say, as we are moving in this direction, take a look at Mega Upload.

01:58:51.800 People used to go to Mega Upload to watch movies.

01:58:53.520 Why?

01:58:53.880 Because you couldn't watch movies on anywhere else.

01:58:56.080 Amazon didn't exist.

01:58:57.360 So Pirate Bay, once they introduced platforms about you could spend 10 bucks to get the movie,

01:59:01.940 the studios took everything back over and regained control of what was going on.

01:59:06.800 That's sort of the story of the internet.

01:59:08.340 Right.

01:59:09.140 The moves that are being made right now are an attempt to once again recreate the homogenized,

01:59:14.660 controlled structure of broadcast towers.

01:59:16.760 Yeah.

01:59:17.200 So for 50 years, 60 years, the way I would describe it is there was one gigantic obelisk at the

01:59:22.900 center of society that beamed down to the masses the word of culture.

01:59:28.300 You must adhere to these things.

01:59:29.920 Every day, people would walk into work, go to the water cooler and say, did you see the

01:59:33.560 Jeffersons last night?

01:59:34.620 I saw the West Wing.

01:59:35.680 What did you think?

01:59:36.340 I mean, but even back then, there were substantially less content, but we know what-

01:59:39.460 Well, this is also-

01:59:40.920 Real quick, what ends up happening is, with the age of the internet, those obelisks collapsed.

01:59:45.940 People immediately started sharing content, and from the ground up, alternate towers started

01:59:50.320 to emerge that became quite powerful, and people stopped paying attention to the obelisk.

01:59:54.560 The machine is trying to recreate the obelisk of culture by banning individuals, by creating

02:00:01.380 these arbitrary rules by having courts incorrectly enforce their fake rules and laws, and judges

02:00:08.580 with tech stocks, and politicians who know that if they speak out against this, their name

02:00:13.680 will never appear on the internet again, and they will lose their election.

02:00:16.960 Well, it's the kind of disruption, like with the Mexican radio, the border blasters, who

02:00:22.700 really took down the monoliths of radio because they weren't being paid to play any records.

02:00:27.920 They just played whatever they wanted, and they had such high-frequency signals that

02:00:32.200 they could get their content from across the border out to everywhere.

02:00:37.640 Yeah.

02:00:38.300 That really changed things in radio, too.

02:00:40.440 Well, so this is something that we sort of have been working on, because as I said, we

02:00:46.100 work on other cases.

02:00:47.480 But if you think about it, right, how did Donald Trump get elected?

02:00:51.640 A lot of people try to take credit for that.

02:00:53.200 Me magic.

02:00:54.480 Well, yes, but there's a core of that.

02:00:59.440 The powers that be, whatever you want to call it, the establishment, the council, CIGIE.

02:01:04.940 CIGIE?

02:01:05.660 CIGIE.

02:01:06.260 C-I-G-I-E.

02:01:07.180 Oh, I thought you were making a quantum leap reference.

02:01:09.020 No, they're actually codified.

02:01:11.840 That goes backwards in the censorship industrial complex.

02:01:14.400 They act outside of the Constitution.

02:01:17.080 That's a whole different animal.

02:01:18.360 That's what they don't want me to go into.

02:01:20.300 Look into it sometime.

02:01:21.320 C-I-G-I-E, right?

02:01:23.260 Oh, I think we have talked about that before.

02:01:25.800 What's his name?

02:01:27.460 Greg Stentrum, I think, wrote an article that Roger Stone pushed forward.

02:01:32.020 And I mean, it's just like, whoa.

02:01:33.720 It ties it all together as to how this is effectively what the establishment is.

02:01:37.580 But they were not prepared, right, 2016 election.

02:01:42.280 I was one of the monsters out there in Facebook that was pushing, right, the memes, the meme war and whatever.

02:01:49.680 And we made, we effectively made Trump's position simple with memes.

02:01:55.620 It's very, very simple concepts.

02:01:57.320 Right, like, no, don't eat the cats.

02:01:59.220 Exactly.

02:01:59.800 Don't eat the cats.

02:02:00.480 Don't eat the dogs.

02:02:01.140 I love that song.

02:02:03.700 So, but the thing that they were not prepared for, and I'll sort of put this in a framework here, is that they were not prepared for what social media does, which it connects the candidate to the electorate.

02:02:15.640 There's no filter anymore.

02:02:16.800 Right, I mean, that's what everybody loved about Trump in 2016 in that election.

02:02:21.900 And that's also what everybody loved about him during his presidency.

02:02:24.420 And that's also the reason that you have Democrats complaining about misinformation because they're essentially complaining about Trump.

02:02:31.140 Right.

02:02:31.540 And it goes with what Tim's saying is they're trying to get it back to that system because they don't control it anymore.

02:02:37.740 And he got so ahead of them, they weren't prepared for when it came election day and all of a sudden the guy won.

02:02:46.800 They didn't know what to do.

02:02:48.280 This is why they raided Kim.com in New Zealand, a man who had never set foot in the United States, who ran a business out of Hong Kong, who complied with the law.

02:02:57.280 They went and arrested him, and they are now planning to extradite him on all of these charges, I mean, over a decade later.

02:03:02.020 To the United States?

02:03:02.780 To the U.S.

02:03:03.480 Even though he's never once been here?

02:03:05.100 Yep.

02:03:06.020 So the story of Mega Upload.

02:03:07.260 Why is Australia doing that?

02:03:08.840 The U.K. is going to start trying to extradite people?

02:03:10.320 Because they're vassal states of the American hegemonic authority.

02:03:13.360 Yeah.

02:03:13.560 So Kim.com starts a company called Mega Upload, maybe everybody remembers, and it was a website where you could upload files and store them.

02:03:21.940 Very, very important for businesses.

02:03:24.440 Like we use, people use Google Drive and other file authors.

02:03:27.160 Or Dropbox or whatever, yeah.

02:03:28.020 Right, and Dropbox, is that what you said?

02:03:29.940 Yeah.

02:03:30.540 So Kim.com makes this site, and what happens?

02:03:33.380 People start pirating on it.

02:03:34.700 They upload movies, post the links, and then anybody can watch the movie on Mega Upload.

02:03:39.480 Kim.com gets told to remove these things.

02:03:41.260 Whenever he does, he says, well, take them down.

02:03:42.880 Like, we make money as a file locker.

02:03:45.420 People can upload pictures and memes and their content.

02:03:48.060 We're good.

02:03:48.740 We don't need to have piracy.

02:03:50.000 They start removing it.

02:03:51.300 But it's too much.

02:03:52.900 People all over the world are pirating faster than the company can actually deal with it, despite the fact that Kim.com says they actually took all of it down.

02:03:59.020 They were working.

02:03:59.860 One day, filmed.

02:04:01.720 You get New Zealand authorities, I don't know, the MPA movie industry.

02:04:08.600 You see dudes with guns raiding his home to arrest him.

02:04:12.820 He gets run to the ringer.

02:04:14.040 They destroy his business, which didn't even operate in the United States.

02:04:16.760 And now they've been trying to extradite him the whole time.

02:04:18.960 Because he created something that broke the control operation of American cultural economics, like cultural exports, as well as control of the narrative and otherwise.

02:04:31.740 It then gets replaced by the machine state's version, which they can't control.

02:04:36.040 And they're still trying to just – they've destroyed the guy's life, basically.

02:04:39.340 Not that he's living as bad as, say, like, you know, somebody who's poorly living on the streets or anything like that.

02:04:43.600 But they have tried to make an example of a guy who stumbled upon something.

02:04:48.700 It's not like he was an evil guy who trolled his mustache and said, I'm going to destroy the industry.

02:04:51.960 He's like, I made a company.

02:04:52.860 Look what I did.

02:04:53.520 And then they were like, we don't like that you did that.

02:04:55.720 Whether it was bad intent or otherwise, you are an affront to the system.

02:04:58.580 I didn't know his backstory.

02:05:01.640 I've spoken with him several times with Twitter spaces and so forth.

02:05:05.600 And we go back and forth.

02:05:06.560 I don't think he quite gets the magnitude of what this is.

02:05:09.140 I mean, I think you all do.

02:05:11.220 I think, you know, if the state was concerned that, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars were being lost due to piracy because of mega upload.

02:05:18.580 And they felt the only way to deal with it was to shut it down.

02:05:21.740 They didn't have to destroy the guy's life, arrest him.

02:05:24.100 They could have just said, look, man, it's a machine for piracy whether you want it to be or not.

02:05:27.460 But why they're trying to destroy his life just seems mean.

02:05:30.740 Well, they like destroying people's lives.

02:05:32.820 Look, they were trying to destroy James O'Keefe's life, Douglas Mackey's life.

02:05:37.020 Well, maybe they don't want these subversive – you know, these individuals are deviant.

02:05:43.780 They don't want somebody who is powerful, capable, intelligent, and who – I mean, the mentality may be, look, we stopped this guy now.

02:05:52.720 But he's a smart guy.

02:05:53.980 He's going to figure out something else later on that we're going to have to deal with.

02:05:56.540 Just shut him down now.

02:05:58.120 That may be the thing they're –

02:06:00.500 Well, that's exactly what it is with Trump is he got ahead of them, right?

02:06:05.340 They didn't expect the electorate to connect.

02:06:07.760 He got ahead of them.

02:06:08.680 He wins the election.

02:06:10.320 They have to say, okay, fine.

02:06:14.260 But then the entire government underneath him, all the intelligence community and so forth, they got to work on what was effectively the Election Integrity Partnership.

02:06:21.280 That was purely to get him out.

02:06:23.220 This entire – like everybody underneath him was trying to get him out.

02:06:27.140 And they did that for the 2020, and, you know, we won't talk about whether or not that was – but it was one of those – yeah, right, okay.

02:06:34.040 But that's just it is they got to get that connection severed.

02:06:38.040 We can't – they can't have us talking about it, and that's like you were talking about the obelisk.

02:06:42.080 They don't want other ones to rise because same people will rise to the top, the ones that have the better arguments.

02:06:49.160 But the problem is is that that conflicts with their arguments, and that's at the core of what the disinformation does in cases.

02:06:55.740 Well, I can put it another way.

02:06:57.840 You know, let's say you're a chicken farmer.

02:07:00.360 I am technically, but –

02:07:02.060 And you got 50 chickens all hanging out doing their chicken business.

02:07:05.700 What do you want of the chickens?

02:07:07.220 I want them to eat the food when I give them the food, lay the eggs.

02:07:10.920 I'll collect them every morning.

02:07:12.380 But what if there's one rooster that keeps pecking other roosters and causing problems and hurting the hens?

02:07:17.160 You remove him.

02:07:18.660 You say, that behavior is not allowed in my chicken city.

02:07:21.680 Gone.

02:07:22.380 What if there's a chicken that keeps escaping?

02:07:24.540 Well, we don't want that one having babies because the chickens are going to get out and they're going to die.

02:07:27.660 They're defying our rules and the confines we've created for them, so we're going to eat that one.

02:07:31.900 This is how they view the system in a sense.

02:07:34.540 Someone like Kim.com or Alex Jones, these are the individuals who completely find ways through the system to succeed in ways that are outside what they're trying to make happen.

02:07:46.780 The difference is we're not chickens.

02:07:48.080 We're all humans.

02:07:48.780 We are peers, and they think they're better than we are, and they want the world to run the way they think it should be run.

02:07:53.260 Typically when people do this, the world collapses and people die.

02:07:56.840 But, you know, ideologues and zealots tend not to care because they think they're right.

02:08:02.400 But I do want to say, as we've got a few minutes left, one thing to add.

02:08:07.040 If there is anything that I have ever experienced that has made me believe in a higher power or in something greater than myself,

02:08:13.760 it is the mini-doc that was produced online about meme magic getting Donald Trump elected.

02:08:18.660 If you guys have not seen this, I really recommend – I don't know how to find it.

02:08:22.680 But it's a short video that was made on YouTube years ago talking about meme magic that got Donald Trump elected,

02:08:29.440 and I'll give you a few of the points.

02:08:31.940 In World of Warcraft, a video game 2006, it was very popular.

02:08:36.720 There are two factions, the Horde and the Alliance.

02:08:38.740 How does the game work?

02:08:39.760 You sign up.

02:08:40.680 You choose a faction.

02:08:41.640 You choose one of the races within each faction.

02:08:44.240 The principal races are human and orc, but there's druid – what is it?

02:08:47.400 Night elves and blood elves.

02:08:49.120 They added a bunch more.

02:08:49.820 There's pandas now for whatever reason.

02:08:50.980 But let's say, in the early days, you say, I want to be a human character.

02:08:55.880 You're running around the Kingdom of Storm, the Castle Storm, City of Stormwind, and you're hunting boars to get experience.

02:09:01.040 You come across a Horde player as an orc.

02:09:04.320 The way they made it, because they didn't want collusion between the two factions,

02:09:08.400 because there's player versus player and the factions are at war,

02:09:11.520 is that if you speak in the game, people will see a word bubble above your head.

02:09:15.760 If you speak as a different race that has a different language, it will present gibberish.

02:09:20.900 But not really gibberish.

02:09:22.080 It's some kind of algorithmic alteration of the words.

02:09:25.320 When somebody of an opposing faction would type LOL, the other person would see K-E-K, kek.

02:09:32.460 This created a meme.

02:09:34.040 Young people started saying kek instead of LOL.

02:09:36.080 Because you'd be playing World of Warcraft, you'd see an orc, and the orc would put kek and jump up and down,

02:09:41.220 and you knew they were laughing at you.

02:09:42.560 We knew what that word meant.

02:09:44.600 There's a game called Life is Strange, where in the first—I don't know about the second or third one,

02:09:48.660 but in the first one, it's a story-driven game where you play as a college-age woman, young woman,

02:09:56.120 and she has the ability to rewind time.

02:09:58.720 In one part of the game, she's texting on, like, a sidekick in, like, old school with this other male character,

02:10:04.720 and he responds, kek.

02:10:06.660 Kek was a meme among young people.

02:10:09.260 As it turns out, kek was also the name of an Egyptian god of chaos and darkness, who is a frog.

02:10:15.640 But this was just sort of, like, happenstance.

02:10:17.180 Now, hold on.

02:10:17.900 I did not know the origin of this.

02:10:19.440 This is great.

02:10:19.880 Well, so this—no one looked up the Egyptian god kek or keku and was like,

02:10:24.580 I'm going to make this a meme.

02:10:25.940 Pepe the frog went viral.

02:10:27.200 Not because someone knew that there was an Egyptian frog god, because Pepe was just a meme that someone made.

02:10:33.100 And so they started sharing this frog.

02:10:34.600 They started saying kek.

02:10:35.680 And then people were like, eh, this is kind of weird.

02:10:38.680 Then a song went viral, Chatelet.

02:10:40.540 And there's an album cover of It's a Frog with doing some kind of magic or something.

02:10:45.280 Someone put all this stuff together, like, these weird coincidences that came together.

02:10:49.640 And then people noticed, actually had an analog in ancient Egyptian religious culture about chaos and dark energy or whatever.

02:10:56.540 And I'm probably getting a lot wrong, but this is, like, the gist of it was absolutely insane.

02:11:01.720 So on 4chan, when you make a post, there's a string of digits.

02:11:06.600 I think it's 16.

02:11:07.380 I could be wrong.

02:11:08.040 Maybe it's not.

02:11:09.200 And that's your post ID number.

02:11:11.120 And so you can reference other posts by clicking that number, and it brings you to it.

02:11:14.060 But it'll be, like, 990101356.

02:11:17.560 There's a thing they do as a joke where they say dubs, trips, quads.

02:11:22.340 And that is, if the final numbers on your ID are the same, they can say, they'll say something like, who's going to win the Super Bowl?

02:11:30.920 Trips gets it right.

02:11:32.340 Someone would then respond, the Chiefs or, you know, the Ravens.

02:11:36.580 And if it was 777 or 666, they'd be like, oh, it's trips.

02:11:40.260 That means it's true as a joke.

02:11:42.440 Someone posted on 4chan, Donald Trump will win, and it was all sevens.

02:11:50.080 There, you got to watch the video breaking all this stuff down, because I remember being online at this time, seeing the memes, seeing the Pepes and all these things and being like, this is wild.

02:11:58.400 People really, like, believed.

02:12:00.620 I don't know.

02:12:01.180 You can look at it a bunch of different ways.

02:12:02.440 Is it magic?

02:12:03.940 It could just be collective conscious organizing around the Internet, forming these ideas and sharing these jokes.

02:12:09.940 This looks strange to an individual when you're looking at the greater entity that has sort of emerged through human culture.

02:12:17.140 Or maybe there's dark spirits from ancient Egyptian religion who are sowing chaos or something.

02:12:22.520 I have no idea.

02:12:23.520 Either way, it is fascinating to see all of these weird things that happened that lined up.

02:12:28.760 And some people believe the purpose of censorship is to stop the emergence of a collective conscious around these ideas.

02:12:36.320 One thing that I see with it that is much more realistic than spiritual is humans will eventually create a conscious, a pseudo or faux conscious entity through the Internet.

02:12:49.360 When we all go online and we all share things, you will eventually see all of the collective actions of information sharing and gathering and opinions come together to form some greater culture.

02:13:00.100 When it was unchecked, people were willing into existence, memes, chaos, jokes, silliness.

02:13:08.860 And the machine state saw this and said, there is this gigantic sphere of influence that is creating a conscious entity of chaos and silliness and disorder.

02:13:20.180 We must destroy it.

02:13:22.020 It's the Tower of Babel.

02:13:23.060 Maybe.

02:13:24.000 Maybe.

02:13:25.180 Which is such a fascinating biblical story, which was reinterpreted by Jorge Luis Borges, who was an Argentine writer, into the library of Babel, where every combination of letters exists in a book.

02:13:43.080 And then what happened?

02:13:44.100 God struck them down and destroyed their ability to communicate?

02:13:47.360 Well, in the Tower of Babel, yeah.

02:13:48.820 So the people build a huge tower in order to get closer to God, and they got too close, just like Icarus.

02:13:56.080 I mean, all of our stories are so amazing when you put them in...

02:14:00.740 Correct me if I'm wrong.

02:14:01.540 It was like the people were building, communicating, and through communications created this great tower.

02:14:07.380 Yeah, because everybody spoke the same language.

02:14:09.380 So the tower, they were able to coordinate.

02:14:11.620 Yeah, they were able to coordinate.

02:14:12.960 They were able to build this great big tower.

02:14:14.560 They got too close to God.

02:14:15.680 God smote the tower and confused their tongues so that they could no longer communicate.

02:14:21.020 Wow.

02:14:21.480 And scattered them across the world, speaking different languages.

02:14:24.640 And then what's fascinating, too, is there's the reversal of the Tower of Babel when, after Jesus is crucified and, you know, he ascends into heaven and the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles and they go out to speak to everybody.

02:14:37.540 The Holy Spirit opened their tongues so that they could speak to everyone and proclaim the Word of God.

02:14:42.760 Wow.

02:14:43.220 Yeah.

02:14:43.420 That's what big tech basically is.

02:14:45.480 It's the Tower of Babel.

02:14:46.120 It allows people to cross over and speak.

02:14:48.400 Well, we're building it.

02:14:49.100 And organize.

02:14:50.000 So we're building it so big.

02:14:51.760 And these kinds of communications emerge.

02:14:53.640 And I am now desperate to find this little mini-dog.

02:14:55.820 I'll try and pull it up.

02:14:56.680 I recommend people look for it.

02:14:57.340 I can probably find it in five minutes.

02:14:59.120 But that about does it for our time.

02:15:00.920 This is really, really interesting.

02:15:02.000 I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with your case.

02:15:03.540 I think anybody who heard this should share and discuss this because if we got a wave of lawsuits challenging 230 or challenging certain individuals on defamation.

02:15:12.520 That's what we do.

02:15:13.380 So can I put that out there?

02:15:14.700 If we had 5,000 people in all these different jurisdictions making the same arguments, it's going to get through the courts.

02:15:20.340 And it's going to happen.

02:15:21.540 Can I put that out there?

02:15:22.740 I mean, we're doing exactly that.

02:15:25.260 We are representing other people.

02:15:26.720 We're taking on cases and so forth because we know how to go after big tech now.

02:15:30.280 And, I mean, they can find me either on Twitter or Social Media Freedom Foundation or at socialmediafreedom.org.

02:15:35.880 They can reach out to us there.

02:15:36.940 There's a lot of materials on that and so forth.

02:15:39.140 But we are – I mean, I'm basically trying to take down big techs almost single-handedly.

02:15:45.060 But we know how to do it.

02:15:46.420 We know it's about to change.

02:15:47.280 I mean, the magnitude – I mean, it's nice being in a room when people actually understand what's going on.

02:15:52.900 Like, you guys caught on.

02:15:54.220 This is massive.

02:15:55.220 If that corrects itself –

02:15:56.340 Yeah, that's wild.

02:15:56.960 It changes everything.

02:15:58.280 It changes the internet.

02:15:59.100 It changes – they will not have the same power they do.

02:16:02.080 Do we know what's in the future?

02:16:03.500 I mean, trying to – they'll find a new way to maintain control.

02:16:06.720 But it would be nice to ease up on the brakes of massive control.

02:16:09.680 It's nice to win one war.

02:16:10.800 Massive control, yeah.

02:16:11.580 You know?

02:16:12.300 Yeah.

02:16:12.600 And that's what I think is going to happen in November is I'm – well, I hope there's two big wars.

02:16:16.940 There's one in November.

02:16:17.900 Not only mine.

02:16:18.520 You want to get it to the court, right?

02:16:20.080 Correct.

02:16:20.540 Yeah.

02:16:20.920 Yeah.

02:16:21.360 You want to get it to the Supreme Court.

02:16:22.560 Well, because the Supreme Court left it in place last year.

02:16:25.280 The Supreme Court would codify it permanently.

02:16:27.200 It would never get screwed up again.

02:16:28.640 If the Ninth Circuit does it, at least in the Ninth Circuit, you know, I'm high enough profile that I'm sure that, you know, we'll come back on here and we'll talk about it once we've beaten this thing.

02:16:37.940 What's interesting to me, too, is – oh, yeah.

02:16:40.680 You've got to wrap it up.

02:16:41.500 I know.

02:16:41.940 But Newsom is trying to ban – has signed a law banning all deep fakes, and I'm wondering how that would imply, too.

02:16:47.720 Yeah.

02:16:48.180 How that would work.

02:16:48.780 It's crazy.

02:16:49.640 Is there anything you want to shout out as we begin to wrap up?

02:16:53.060 Just Social Media Freedom Foundation, socialmediafreedom.org.

02:16:56.640 We got – you can find me on Twitter.

02:16:58.660 I don't really do much with any of the other sites anymore after all this nonsense.

02:17:01.480 I just – I pretty much stick to Twitter.

02:17:04.880 You know, that's it.

02:17:06.140 I sort of a one – you know, we're a small operation, but we pack a big punch.

02:17:10.860 Nice.

02:17:11.140 I appreciate you having me on, Tim.

02:17:12.620 This is – it was well overdue.

02:17:15.480 All right on.

02:17:15.940 Thanks for coming.

02:17:16.880 Should be fun.

02:17:17.500 Libby, you want to shout anything out before we go?

02:17:18.640 You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons.

02:17:21.040 Glad to be here.

02:17:22.980 We have some great stuff at the Post Millennial today.

02:17:24.880 You can check it out.

02:17:25.660 Great.

02:17:25.940 We're going to be back tonight, ladies and gentlemen, at 8 p.m.

02:17:27.940 YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.

02:17:30.420 Should be fun.

02:17:31.100 You can follow me on X at TimCast.

02:17:33.140 And tomorrow, I'm actually going to have a Saturday morning news show.

02:17:36.800 I'm going to pick weekends back up, so I will be doing my morning show six days a week now

02:17:41.200 because Friday morning is culture war, but we'll have Saturday and Sunday shows for you.

02:17:44.860 Follow me on X, again, at TimCast.

02:17:46.720 Thanks for hanging out.

02:17:47.280 We'll see you all tonight.

02:17:47.840 Jackpot City is the home of all things casino.

02:17:53.360 There's just one house rule to create the perfect online casino for you.

02:17:57.000 We've built a world-class lineup of classic casino games such as roulette and blackjack

02:18:01.200 and crafted a virtual range of the best slots, including Atlantean treasures.

02:18:05.040 Everything's online.

02:18:06.020 Everything's ready.

02:18:06.900 Everything's for you.

02:18:07.940 So whenever you're feeling playful, head to Jackpot City and you'll be endlessly entertained.

02:18:12.280 Jackpot City.

02:18:13.200 Casino games perfectly made for you.

02:18:15.140 Must be 19 plus.

02:18:16.160 Ontario residents only.

02:18:17.200 Please play responsibly.

02:18:18.240 Gambling problem?

02:18:18.840 Visit connexontario.ca.

02:18:20.100 Thank you.

02:18:26.580 Thank you.

02:18:27.420 Bye.

02:18:28.380 Bye.

02:18:29.380 Bye.

02:18:37.840 Bye.

02:18:38.660 Bye.

02:18:38.960 Bye.

02:18:39.300 Bye.

02:18:39.780 Bye.

02:18:40.200 Bye.

02:18:40.540 Bye.

02:18:41.020 Bye.

02:18:41.700 Bye.

02:18:42.140 Bye.

02:18:42.520 Bye.

02:18:43.160 Bye.

02:18:43.480 Bye.

02:18:44.020 Bye.

02:18:44.300 Bye.

02:18:45.240 Bye.

02:18:48.100 Bye.

02:18:50.020 Bye.

The Culture War - Tim Pool - September 20, 2024

The Culture War #82 MASS CENSORSHIP, The Suit To END Big Tech & Section 230 w⧸ Jason Fyk & Libby Emmons

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript