 And the biggest topic is, you know, this fight that Donald Trump is having with Twitter. And Donald Trump put out two tweets earlier in the week about mailing voting, that encouraging fraud, and Twitter labeled it as misinformation. Because the fact is that there is no evidence. There's no evidence that suggests that mailing voting is fraudulent. I've used mailing voting when I was in California. I know a lot of people have, many of the people who work for the president have used mailing voting. I've seen stories about that. It's just one of these talking points about trying, I mean, partially the president is trying to establish that there is a lot of voter fraud. So if he loses, he can blame the loss on fraud. I mean, that in my view, he's been doing this from day one. He's been doing this from day one when he got elected. It's a Republican talking point. I mean, the last election that was probably decided, presidential election decided by fraud was probably the Kennedy Nixon election, where Kennedy probably won that election in 1960 because stories have it that a lot of dead people voted in Chicago and that swayed Illinois towards Kennedy. And I guess it was a very close election and that gave him the election. Not even that is questionable, but the idea that, I mean, study after study after study have shown that, I mean, I'm not saying there's no fraud, there's always fraud, but that voter fraud swayed at the presidential elections in the United States has just done true and is unlikely to sway it in the future. And I'd be very careful with that claim because if I remember right, Donald Trump won the last election. If voter fraud swayed elections, maybe it swayed it in his favor, who knows, right? Why assume that voter fraud only goes one way? I certainly wouldn't. Although Democrats have been better at it in the past, they have been better at rounding up dead people and rounding up buses and paying people to vote than I think Republicans have. But I'm not sure Republicans haven't improved their capabilities in that regard more recently. Right, so he put out these tweets and they got this disclaimer and, man, was he furious? Oh my God, did he get angry? I mean, you can't do that to Donald Trump. You can't do that to pretty much anybody else, but you cannot do that to Donald Trump. And of course, immediately, we got an executive order, right? So interesting how if Twitter attacks other people, if Twitter discriminates against other people, if Twitter has political bias and affects other people, that's fine. But when it affects Donald Trump, immediately, we get an executive order because the world circulates right here. And the executive order is basically that the government that the FCC and other branches of the government are going to look carefully at section 230 of the US code. Section code 230 is protection of private blocking and screening of offensive material, which was passed in 1996. And they're going to look at that and try to weaken its protection of internet companies in order to prevent the ability of internet companies to discriminate politically. Now there are so many things wrong with this. You're giving the government the power, the ability to decide when internet companies are discriminating. Now maybe a lot of you are going to cheer this on because, hey, they're going to stop the discrimination against, I don't know, conservatives or pro-capitalists or whatever. I know YouTube discriminates against me, so maybe I should cheer this on because it'll stop discriminating against me. But then what happens when the left gets in and it decides that Twitter, Facebook, whatever is discriminated against them? What are they going to do? Once you open up the Pandora Dogs box, of letting government decide what constitutes ideological discrimination, you're getting the government involved in what is ideology and what is correct ideology, wrong ideology, inappropriate ideology, inappropriate ideology. How much time is given to left, right, center, objectivist, libertarian? Then you are basically eliminating the First Amendment. You're basically getting the government involved in speech, you're getting the government involved in ideas, you're getting the government involved in categorizing what is and is not ideological discrimination. And the government should have no business in doing that. A long, long time ago, there was a feminist doctrine. And the feminist doctrine said that you have to give all voices equal time on the radio and on television. So if you had a liberal, then you had to have a conservative. But what about a free market person? What about a socialist? What about a communist? How do you decide? And what is a conservative? What is a liberal? What is right and what is left? And who gets to decide what is right and what is left? And when does it deviate? And you're giving a government agency, the FCC, the authority to decide. And that's how it was in America for many, many decades. What, how to decide who is what and how much is enough and what is fair and what is not fair in terms of ideological balance. Indeed, when the Furnace Act was eliminated under Ronald Reagan, what's amazing is that conservative radio, boomed, conservative radio, because Rush Limbaugh could have never existed under the Furnace Act. Because for every rush, you would have had to have a lefty. Otherwise it wouldn't have been balanced. Once the Furnace Act was eliminated, indeed the right, the conservatives dominated, became dominant of radio. And talk radio today is dominated by conservatives or has been for decades. Imagine if you applied these principles of fairness, of balance to talk radio. You'd have to shut down half the kind of right wing conservative talk show radios and put on, replace them with leftists. Now nobody would listen to the leftists because there's no market for them, obviously, on talk radio. But the FCC would be required to do that. Now that is the kind of world we want to create online. The one domain in which it truly is a free fall. The FCC should look at whether a tweet was discriminatory or whether Twitter behaved in discriminatory fashion versus conservatives versus liberals versus whatever. There's just no end to this. No end. Once you give the government that kind of power. And why? Because the president of the United States has offended a private company said that his tweets were wrong. So but this has been called for by the way, by both left and right, both Nancy Pelosi and Ted Cruz want to regulate speech on the Internet. I mean, I said a long time ago, I did a whole show a while ago. I think the title was, we are all China now, right? China won. And I think China won. China is winning. China is winning the cultural war. Not the left. Not the right. China is what are we adopting from China? Well, China's solution to the pandemic was to shut everybody at home, isolate them, keep them at home, not allow for any social interaction for weeks. And I remember when that happened, everybody went, Oh, well, you could never do that in America. We have a constitution that protects us. And within a month, what were we doing? We were shutting everybody at home, isolating everybody, criminalizing, walking your dog further than X from your condo building. That's what we did. We copied China's model. The whole Western world, with the exception of Sweden, copied the Chinese model of shutting a city, shutting cities down, shutting economies down, shutting lives down. And then you want to do to our Internet. Well, it looks like what we want to do to the Internet is give the government control of it. Given the government, the control over the ideas expressed on the Internet. Have them decide what is fair and balanced, just like Fox, like fair and balanced. Now that's China. China controls the Internet. And the China authorities, I'm sure, convinced that they are doing a fair and balanced job in the common good, by the way, for the public interest to prevent subversive ideas appearing that would undercut the common good in the public interest. Because, don't you know, that is the war being of the Communist Party is in the public good in the common interest. And anything that undermines it would be bad and therefore must be eliminated. Well, the American government seems to want to do the same thing. Now, it won't start by claiming that everything has to be for the Republican or Democratic Party. But it's not far from that. I mean, after all, it was the tweets of the President of the United States being flagged, which spurred all of this. So what is it that they're trying to undermine? They're trying to undermine the Section 230. It stuns me, the number of people commenting on Section 230. Has anybody actually read it? Do they know what the context is? Well, this is the context. In 1995, I think there was, this is 1995, in the very early days, very, very early days of the Internet. And there was a bulletin board in which somebody posted something that turned, that was negative information about a particular company. And as a consequence, the stock of that company declined. And the company sued, or a broker sued, another investor I guess, sued, the, not the person who posted the false information, but posted the bulletin board, because it said, you guys posted this and you curate this. You don't post everything. Some things you won't post. And yet this you posted, therefore you are a publisher and therefore we want to sue you. And they won. Now here is the dilemma now. If you turn every platform company, every chat, every bulletin board on the Internet, if you consider every one of them a publisher, then you're going to have significant restrictions in what gets posted. They're going to have to fact-check everything. They're going to have to monitor everything. It's going to be almost impossible for them to publish stuff. Now it's possible they will do it. But then you're limiting what can happen online. And it's not clear. There should be a publisher, conceived as a publisher, because the fact is that they didn't write the content. They don't have positive content approval. They restrict certain content. But if you don't allow them to restrict that content, if the fact that they restrict certain content, turns them automatically into a publisher, then you basically cripple the web. This is 1996. There's no Google. There's no YouTube. There's certainly no Twitter or Facebook. I think Zuckerberg is 11 years old. There's barely Yahoo. Maybe Yahoo is just starting out. There's almost nothing. So we're trying to allow for platforms and bulletin boards and think about all the bulletin boards that are around today that think of all the, I don't know, channel, what is it? Channel four, channel eight, I don't know, whatever, that are racist, bigoted, alt-right BS places. Imagine if those were perceived as publishers and could be sued for the content that was there. I mean, they wouldn't exist. They'd be driven out of business. They would be gone. That would be it. The internet, as we know it, would not exist. If we had viewed anybody who restricts certain information and not others, if we turn everyone like that into a publisher. Now, this ruling came to the attention of a couple of congressmen. And they said, you know, one of the problems in this is, what if a company that publishes stuff online? What if it restricts pornography? Will that turn them automatically into a publisher? Because they've chosen to restrict certain content, legal content. Pornography is legal. But they've chosen to restrict it. If that turns them into a publisher, then what will happen is some sites will be publishers and they'll be very small, very limited and very resource constrained. Other sites will publish everything, including pornography. So they said that can't be right. And this, by the way, is exactly why we need a congress. It's exactly why you need a legislature. Is when encountering a new technology, we need to clearly define property rights. We need to clearly define how the laws apply to this new technology. So congress came together and said, OK, what we're going to do is we're going to say, you can publish stuff. You can be restrictive in what you publish. And we won't call you a publisher unless you're really a publisher. Now, the law doesn't say this, but what is a publisher? Publishers actually hire reporters. It actually does positive things to the article. It edits them. It promotes certain articles. It buys certain articles. It sends reporters to accumulate certain information. It doesn't just negatively exclude. It positively includes. It solicits particular materials that it wants. So unless you are explicitly a publisher, we won't consider you a publisher if you're just excluding material. That's what Section 230 does. And here's how it reads for those of you who've never read it. And there are many I know out there who comment on it all the time. Maybe you should read it. What is section? So this is under Section 230. I won't read you the whole 230 because it's a long thing. But 230, 5C. So no, this is Section C. Protection for Good Samaritan, blocking and screening of offensive material. One, treatment of publisher or speaker. 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. It's very clear. Two, civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of, A, any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. Whether or not such material is constitutionally protected or be any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others, the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph 1A, just paragraph 1. And it goes on again. And it's a long section, 240 years long. And it covers a lot of different things about interactive computer services. In other words, this is before the ideal platform either even existed. And it differentiates between interactive computer service, which means any information service system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users or a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. But Facebook and Twitter would qualify. And then it differentiates. And information content provider means any personal entity that is responsible in a whole and part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service. Now that's different. They're actually providing information. They're more like a newspaper. They're more like a publisher. So this is good law as far as I could tell. It makes clear differentiation. It expands the rule of law into a realm we don't yet understand. It takes away barriers that exist because of old ways of thinking about technology. It's the application of an objective assessment to a new technology. And look what it's put. It's created the internet as we know it today. Not a bad thing. Mostly good. And for those of you who think Twitter and Facebook and all these entities are horrible, then stop using them by the very fact that you use them. You're indicating that you think they're good. If you didn't think they were good, you wouldn't use them. You could be a hypocrite too. Nothing wrong with this. You don't like the way a particular company is using information. Then don't use that company. There are plenty of alternatives to Twitter. I mean, they might not be particularly popular, but you don't have a God-given right to a popular social media platform. I mean, you don't really have a God-given right to any platform. But certainly not a popular one. So go use GABA or go use something else. If you think they're censoring conservatives, fine. Don't use them. When people thought Patreon was discriminating against conservatives, a lot of people left Patreon. Fine. And indeed, the attempt now to restrict Twitter's ability to filter, to be selective in terms of what it allows on its platform or not, what it warns or what it not, is a violation of free speech. They are a private entity, and the government is stepping in or wants to step in to say, no, no, no, you can't flag the president's tweets. Why not? They want to flag the president's tweets. And if it violates the terms of service, if it's a violation of a contract, then sue them. That's easy. The terms of contract, go sue them. The fact is, they're not being sued, and they're not being sued because everybody knows they wouldn't win the lawsuit because the terms of service are written in a way that they can do these kind of things. Michael asks, what if Twitter removed every tweet posted, said nothing appears on the platform? By the logic of Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Holly, John Holly has to be the most nasty senator out there, him and Bernie Sanders. By the logic of Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Holly, he's really dangerous. Twitter then becomes a publisher. It's so absurd. Of course it's absurd. It's nuts. It's their platform. They can delete anything they want. They can flag anything they want. And look, I suffer from this. There's no question in my mind. I know exactly when they did it. That in August of last year, YouTube changed that algorithm in ways that restricts viewership of my content. I could see it immediately. Subscriptions suddenly plummeted. I didn't say anything. I didn't do anything. But subscriptions went down, viewership went down. I've struggled to bring it back up to where it was before. But subscriptions have never gotten back to where they were before. And there's no question, the algorithm changed. Dave Rubin told me he noticed the same thing on his platform and on his channel at about the same time. Okay. If I had an alternative to YouTube, I'd shift. But the fact is, if YouTube doesn't like me, they can do whatever they want. I don't, I don't, they don't owe me anything. Indeed, they're giving me this amazing service. A service that I couldn't even imagine 10 years ago. 10 years ago. 10 years ago is nothing. Yesterday. I couldn't even have imagined 10 years ago. They're giving me this. I don't know how much storage I have there. Gigabytes, terabytes. I don't know for free, not only for free. I make money off of it. You know, I made a hundred bucks, I think, today on Super Chat, at least, off of a platform. YouTube provides me for free. And you're complaining? Don't like it, move somewhere else, do something else. It's stunning to me, stunning to me. The number of conservatives, the number of so-called objectivists, so-called libertarians who are clamoring to see the government, the government that we so hate, the government that we so despise when it exceeds the protection of individual rights. They want the government who now they trust suddenly. They trusted the bill's walls. They trusted to do ideological checks at the border. Now they trusted to do ideological checks online. We trust the government to figure out if Twitter's balanced or not balanced, and if it's giving enough time to this point of view or that point of view. Or do we wanna take away the 230 restrictions and turn Twitter into a real publisher? And then most of your tweets will never be published. Indeed, Twitter will go out of business. Or they'll publish everything, including pornography, and you won't be able to stop them. And they won't wanna stop it, because as soon as they stop it. Or you could pass a bill that says, you can restrict pornography, but nothing else, but that won't stand up in the courts. Because why should pornography be separated from all of the content? It's legal content. So it truly is. What Trump and all these senators are trying to do is truly insane. Anti-the Constitution. Anti-the principles on which this country's founded. And destructive to the one area we still have in this country, an edge, which is the internet. You wanna give that away? I'm sure other countries would love to do it better than us. So that's Trump and Twitter. Oh, and today, or yesterday was it this morning. I can't even keep track. Trump tweeted something about the Minnesota riots. I'll talk about the riots in a minute. Talked about the riots in Minnesota. And at the end of the tweet, he said, basically said, we're gonna take this over. If Minnesota, the state can't take this, federal government is gonna send in troops there. And we're gonna stop the looting and start the shooting. So the president of the United States is advocating that it's okay to shoot looters. And Twitter put a warning on it. This is the president of the United States advocating for violence. All right, agree or disagree, their platform. Anyway, Trump has gone ballistic over that as well now. And so has most of the right wing. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...