 With that, we'll start with the first prompt. So the first prompt is, Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter. Is Twitter better for it or is it off or about the same? Forget the ball rolling with Justin and then we'll move to the right. I don't know if he can outdo Liz's trust, but man, is he trying. Just tanking it as hard as he can as quick as possible. I think he's finding out really quickly that I'm paraphrasing. I'll say it, I'm stealing an idea that Sean on Twitter had. He's finding out really fast that it wasn't a bunch of leftist liberal Marxist SJWs or whatever they're calling us nowadays in control of Twitter. They found out that they had to do those things for advertisement dollars. It turns out a lot of advertisers don't want to put their name on a platform with a bunch of hate speech and white supremacists and extremists of all types. So he's finding out really quickly that the whole free speech thing that he wanted to champion. If you go too far with it, you lose money. And ultimately, Twitter is a business. Not only that, even if you care about free speech, if you make it to where it's just a, and I'm not saying he wanted to do this, but if you make it to where it's just a political dumping ground where no one gets banned for anything and you can say anything you want, turns out the only people who like those areas, who like those spaces on the internet are the people who want to push them as hard as possible. And when they do that, it drives other people out. So no matter what you do, free speech is going to be under attack by someone's definition on the internet. I think the Twitter badge fiasco was so ill thought out. You saw him working through it. He's posting through it in a pure midlife process. He's posting through it, negotiating with Stephen King about how much his new Twitter verification should cost. Is 20, oh, sorry, you won't pay 20? Oh, it's gonna be $8. Oh, now 80,000 people are doing the exact same thing that we said would happen and that they're impersonating a bunch of other people. And the blue check actually doesn't mean anything anymore, but it was supposed to mean something. So we're gonna add another little badge to show what the original blue check meant. No, we're not gonna do that. Actually, we do need to do that. Actually, we're gonna do like a hybrid system. Actually, no, we're gonna bring about the original official tag. I think it's a wonderful thing to witness. I don't think Twitter's going to die. I just think he's finding out very, very quickly that Twitter and a lot of social media sites run the way they run, not because of some grand leftist conspiracy, but because they're businesses that need to make money. Well, just a moment before we started our debate here tonight, actually, Trump was reinstated on Twitter, so I think that's it. Oh, wow, I didn't see that. Let's go. I saw that just literally one minute before we started our debate here. So that's a W, whether you're a Trump supporter or not personally, I find a lot of the things that Trump championed while he was in office important. I think he's a war criminal, but I think that at the end of the day, it's good to have him on Twitter because he is the former president and he's gonna be running for president again. And that's a W. As for the comments of Twitter being an absolute chaos right now by the opposing side here, that's just ludicrous. Twitter is having, day by day, the highest user averages that it's ever seen in history of being a company. And I think if you're running a business, that's a good thing to have high amounts of users. In addition to that, I mean, we've seen a few companies, a few institutions say we're not gonna use Twitter anymore. I saw CVS news today said that they're not gonna be publishing on Twitter for the foreseeable future. I'm not crying over that. I don't think anyone's that upset with the fact that CVS news is leaving Twitter. I think if anything, mainstream media leaving institutions such as Twitter, we're having, trying to have conversations surrounding what is true and what is factual is a good thing because if we've seen one thing with the past five years or so, it's that the mainstream media is the largest purveyor of mis, mal, disinformation on the internet. And that's something that our opponents are gonna argue tonight. It's something that we should be trying to constrain on the internet. What they'll leave out is that the government and these big media institutions are the ones who are putting all that misinformation onto these various websites. I think for me too, when I think about this kind of topic, is Twitter doesn't have to take itself super serious. This is the headquarters where you're getting all of the top information from a lot of us Twitter is just fun. It's fun to meme there. It's fun to goof off. It's just supposed to be a fun place where you can get more information and all that sort of thing. But I think in terms of, okay, advertisers aren't going to want to advertise if there's more free speech. They will adapt if people just stop folding to this stuff and stand up against this stuff. And in terms of actual white supremacy, racism, actual cases of these, those are banable offenses. So I don't see how throttling people, throttling their reach and that sort of thing could ever be a productive thing on a platform like Twitter because for the really egregious offenses, they're already going to be banned anyway. So in terms of whether Elon Musk has made Twitter a better place or if it will be, I think, absolutely yes to a degree, but there still is some sort of deboosting he wants to do on certain tweets that I don't like. So I guess time will tell, but better than what it was, yes. Elon Musk is single-handedly the biggest threat to our democracy. The idea that you could let little minions, peons making under $30,000 a year without their blue check mark, tweet and say whatever they want against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, no, that should not exist. Within New York Post, post factual information that Hunter Biden's laptop was real and had incriminating evidence before the election and Twitter had the possibility of exposing that but they suppressed it. Thank God, thank the Lord. We need more information suppressed. And Elon Musk is not a homosexual, so he's gonna make it less gay. It needs to be more gay. Wait, what? We need to change our logo to a rainbow bird. Mandatory pronouns in bio. That's already mandatory, you obviously don't work there. Oh, okay. So yeah, Elon Musk, Elon, more like Elon Musk, stang. P-U. Yeah. P-U. He smells awesome, start us. He smells very delicious. That is a very strange comment, but I appreciate it. He smells awesome. Yeah, thank you. So as far as whether Elon will change things, I'm gonna be real with you guys. I didn't think that that much was going to change. I still am not 100% convinced that it is. I think I'm more likely to believe that this is a little bit more of a publicity stunt to get engagement up, to get more people using the website, which is not like a not-smart idea. The dude's pretty good at marketing. It's kind of like, you know, that's his thing. He makes really boring things, really fascinating. But I guess what I would say, what I would ask is, do we know for the long term that he's going to continue keeping up all of these changes, or is he going to eventually kind of just seed to advertisers? We saw when he first took over Twitter that he already issued a statement to advertisers saying, don't worry guys, it's not gonna be a complete hell hole. And then just the other day, just yesterday, he said, excuse you, anyways, just... I can see your search history is disgusting. You don't need to know about that. That's none of your business, okay? Would I search for obsessively while I'm doing things every day is none of your business? It's not so illegal, but okay. It's minions, okay? Anyways. Not doing what they're doing, it's not. Rule 34 minions. Minions slash excesses. It is rule 34 minions. But what I'm saying, yesterday... Minions of flexibility. Yes, yesterday, Yuan, he tweeted out, new Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Negative slash hate tweets will be max deboosted and demomitized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. You won't find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from the rest of the internet. Note, this applies just to the individual tweet, not the whole account. So what this indicates to me, this is kind of a similar policy that YouTube has. YouTube doesn't outright deplatform somebody, except in extreme cases. And what this indicates to me is that he's kind of taking the same YouTube approach where demomitized, deboost. So I'm not too sure that that's what people were looking for, especially conservatives. I don't think conservatives were looking for that. But yeah, we'll see how it goes, I guess. Yeah, I think you made some great points there, and that's been some of my skepticism about everything personally, is I'm like, wait a minute, I need to see more of this unfold before I know more, but like you said, a lot of what he said sounds like what's already going on with big tech right now anyway. Yeah, yeah, and I think it's just a publicity thing, really. It might be. So I don't know if Elon Musk will increase freedom of speech or not, I guess we'll see. I will say, I don't think that Musk can or should be trusted to practice what he preaches with respect to freedom of speech. He does have somewhat of a history of trying to shut down his own critics, and he's also connected to the national security state, which gives him a vested interest in enabling the US's surveillance machine, which is obviously itself a big threat to free speech. But more deeply, I just think like in principle, I don't think that we should have to rely on billionaires to protect freedom of speech. Having important sources of information being bought and sold by billionaires is not good for democracy or free speech. And I think we should protect free speech by removing our sources of information and discourse from the grip of rich elites, maybe by putting them under this public square through nationalization or something like that. I think that's actually partially based on the fact that I don't think big tech, I don't think billionaires, I don't think the government, I don't think anybody needs to be telling us what information we should be allowed to look at and seek, whether that's misinformation or not, where we should be able to decide what we believe and what we don't, and limiting any sort of information. You just can't trust a person or an organization to do that sort of thing. So I think as a whole, hey, go ahead and ban for threats, people actually trying to endanger other people, that sort of thing. But yeah, this whole misinformation, fact-checking, all that kind of stuff, you just run into a lot of potential issues because whoever has power over that, there's room for corruption. Well, that's not necessarily true because when they said that there's rockets were shot from Russia and they're actually shot from Ukraine, that's not, that's Twitter's fault. I mean, I think they corrected that pretty quickly. Like it came out, they came out. Yeah, they came out. I think I was the last he made about 21 hours after still climbing that. Well, yeah, but I think the rest of the world, the rest of the world. And then overwhelmingly ABC News, even after the fact, you can look at this headline, said, even though it was not a Ukraine missile, it was Russia's fault, you know, overall. Yeah, but I think majority of people know, especially, like, we know that, okay, this was not, this was not from Russia. Can you be serious? Wouldn't it be great if we had some way to suss out what actually happens? Like some, like reputable sources or something? Yeah, but I mean, all the people struggling right now and like literally spending 80s and billions of dollars in the Ukraine, I mean, I think that thing's a little... I think, I agree with us spending that money in Ukraine. I think that Ukraine has the right to its own self-sovereignty. And I think that it's important for us to defend that. This might be an opportunity for us to move to the next panel topic. In particular, Facebook's foreign state. Does Facebook have the conservative or Latin meaning bias? Or maybe no bias. So according to studies that I saw, Facebook has similar shares of Democrats and Republicans using it, about seven in 10 each. Nice. But according to internal discussions, Facebook removed strikes so that conservative pages weren't penalized for violations of misinformation policies. So it seems that there, I don't know that I can say that there's a bias, but it seems like, well, you're kind of like bending the rules for specific pages. Things like Breitbart, Diamond and Silk weren't penalized for like pretty clear misinformation. And I think if Facebook is relaxing its moderation in direct contrast to their policies on misinformation, there may be a bias problem. But I also assume this is due to the type of users that flock to Facebook as well, if it's more evenly split. So. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if Facebook has a left wing or a right wing bias. I imagine it's ultimately gonna come down to, Facebook and Twitter, these are platforms with a profit motive. They're gonna censor and platform whoever, it's most profitable to censor and whoever it's most profitable to platform and boost. And which side it happens to be more profitable to censor at the current historical moment is not the most interesting question to me. But I think whether you're on the left or the right, you should be concerned about Twitter and Facebook censoring the other side because it could just as easily switch, who it's profitable to de-platform could very easily switch at any point in time. Yeah, most of the data that's come out has shown that there's really no bias in terms of like engagements. Republicans seem to get as much or even slightly more engagement depending on what metrics you look at. Like Republican Congress people tend to get more engagement on their tweets and I'm not mistaken, also their Facebook posts, most of the like top performing Facebook posts for any given period are gonna be conservative. It's pretty hard to argue that they're suppressing conservatives when they seem to be getting a lot of reach there. Now in terms of like suppressing conservatives because they ban conservatives slightly more often for like violating TOS, what if one side is just violating TOS more? I see a lot of left-wing people get banned for like hate speech for targeted attacks. So plenty of left-wing people are getting just to violently ban for violating TOS. So I don't know what you would want to change about that. I think there's a huge double standard because I know across social media in general, me as a woman, I can say men are awful, I hate men, they're the worst and all that and I would get away with it. But if a man were to say the same thing about women, then he would get banned for it. So there is a double standard across social media and I think Facebook as well. I don't think oftentimes the terms of service is gonna be slanted in a way that is... Well, there's a whole thriving manosphere on YouTube. So I think men are able to say things about women pretty openly for the most part. It's only eight. Not as much as we as women can say. An example, I will give that to you. Andertate, I don't agree with him being a man. As soon as you blew up. But, yeah, but to say that there isn't this thriving manosphere online, I just don't think that that exists. Well, that exists, but there's like subcultures of all kinds of weird stuff online that exists that probably do break the terms of services if they get big enough like Andertate. So that's why the problem is the big people like Donald Trump, just the fact that he's president of the United States can be the platform. That means that us peons, obviously they can take us like that. So I think that's like the bigger issue of why. Although it might be more conservative, I think it's just because it benefits the people that run the tech and media companies are more liberal leaning. So of course the terms of services are always gonna benefit their ideologies. Well, according again to internal reviews and stuff like that, it was shown that Facebook, if anything is bending rules and not penalizing people who are right-want, right? Just look at the money that they donated during elections or that time. Yeah, I don't really trust an internal review from Facebook when they're the one who's doing that. Right. Just look at their donations. But if you think about it like anecdotally, like what are the big ticket items that face the most censorship today? Recently it was COVID. Who were the ones challenging the official COVID narrative? It was primarily conservative, some like hippie leftist, whatever. When it comes to the war in Ukraine, all these companies have literally crafted specific censorship outlines for the war in Ukraine. So if you challenge Joe Biden sending $80 billion to Nazis in Ukraine, then they'll censor you. I had my YouTube channel permanently demonetized because of that. And I'm still getting like tens of thousands of views every day, but they permanently demonetized my account. Many others have faced worse outcomes with that policy. Yeah, that specific policy is they're removing content about Russian Ukraine that violates a policy against denying, minimalizing, or trivializing will-documented violent events. You can still... Good point, good point. Yeah, you can still... No, no, no, so what about the situation that just took place in Poland with the missile that everyone, the mainstream media all said was a Russian missile? And I went down on Twitter, and I went down, and I didn't go on YouTube and say anything about it initially. I went on Twitter, and I said, I think it was a Ukrainian missile. I think if you look at the reverse azimuth, if you look at the missile itself, it's an S-300, it indicates that it was a Ukrainian missile. I didn't even go on YouTube and talk about that because I was fearful that they were gonna say it was denying a tragic incident. And then 24 hours later, they came out and said, it was in fact a Ukrainian missile. Yeah, it sounds like you can trust the mainstream media to tell you the truth. Yeah, it seems like a pretty quick correction to me. A quick what? A quick correction to me. Well, what about Kometors? What about BUSHA? There's so many incidents throughout the war that they never corrected. I mean, when it comes to things like that, like, there are going to be details that are hazy because we're in the middle of a war, right? It's hard to confirm certain things. But it's okay to ban people and ruin people's livelihoods over that? I mean, if you're spreading stuff that is blatantly misinformation, then yeah. But it's not... According to their terms of service. Honestly, if you were to ask me, I think that there is some value to having spaces online that have a very little moderation, that have rampant free speech. But do I feel comfortable me, a person dictating a huge company that's caring about its bottom line, what they should and shouldn't moderate? No, I don't. I mean, in the lead up to the war in Iraq, all of you would have said that there was WMD in Iraq and you would have supported social media companies censoring people who said that there were no WMD in Iraq. It's the same thing. It's very funny that you said that. I was literally before you cut me off gonna say, I'm uncomfortable with the argument that social media platforms should be able to decide what is or isn't misinformation because I have a feeling that at the time, when the government was saying that there were weapons of mass destruction and the whole entire mainstream media was saying that there were weapons of mass destruction, people who said that there weren't probably would have been the ones who got banned for misinformation and I don't think that we should leave it up to those powers who've made those judgments in the past to decide what is or isn't appropriate to say. John Stewart said that exact same thing and he would have been censored for the Daily Show if they were trying to do it today because he did speak so adamantly against the war in the Middle East. Is misinformation a problem at all? There's no such thing. No, it's not. It's like we survived on the internet a long time. I'm interested in what you mean by that. How do you define it? How do you define it? Well, you get the best answers you can for the people who know the most about it. And who are those people? The people who know the most about it. Now, I agree that that is awful. Are they the synthesizers of information or are they people who write the information? Here's a question I have. Make sure media do lie. Yeah, they were wrong about the weapons in Iraq. They absolutely lie. Is it alternative media? Every problem you have with the mainstream media, the alternative media has, but way worse. Are they biased? The alternative media is way biased. So any issue, any issue, you look at Russiagate, you look at COVID, the people who are right were worse than the people who got it wrong and lied about it for a while. If you give me any fact whatsoever, any, I want to trust the mainstream media over the alternative media. Okay. I mean, you laugh about that. I don't know. I don't know. You laugh about that because the alternative media is so great. There's so much like independent, like review and alternative media. There's so much oversight. There's so many resources. 90% of alternative media has just taken a stoop. There is independent. 90% of alternative media has just taken an actual story that the mainstream media has gotten, reading it that verbatim while slicing in like your narrative. That's really bad. That's really bad. The check on independence and alternative media is audience review. If you're unpopular amongst the masses, no one's gonna watch your show. No one's gonna follow you on Twitter. If you are the mainstream media, it doesn't matter if people like you or hate you because you're funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the largest mega corporations on the earth to keep lying your ass off and keep making sure that those corporations are making more money. That's the check. What is it like? Truth by popularity? They still have tons of viewers who will be experts in different things, like medicine, who will say, hey, there's something wrong with this. They'll have, you know- Like when Joe Rogan called out Sanjay Gupta and then Sanjay Gupta- Well, I mean, Sanjay Gupta did terribly in that. Yeah, for sure. But no, when we're talking about mainstream media, there are ways that the audience, because there are so many more eyes on mainstream media, there's that many more critics and there are a lot of people who write in and say, hey, you got this wrong. Well, I just think it's human instinct. I mean, I didn't go to journalism school. I did graduate from LSU in Baton Rouge, Louisiana with a general studies degree with a communications minor, because so I'm not that dumb. My point is, you know, when you look at, I forgot my point because I was saying all that stuff about- Just had to flex it, huh? No, no, when I'm saying journalism school, they teach it and I'll be biased. I think it's almost impossible inherently to not be biased. So, even when you're the most fair, because this is why, and I'm a small media figure, even though Tucker Carlson is my biological father, that's either here or there. What I'm saying is even oftentimes, I've spoken to influential people and they say, hey, Alex, this is off the record. And me, as nobody, as a comedian, as a professional idiot, I would keep that off the record as a journalist. And I'm sure people that are much more credentialed than I am do the same for other people. So I just think it's almost impossible for you to get the straight dope, as they say, in the street because any writer left or right is always gonna put their spin on. Sure, yeah, there's always gonna be some amount of it. You just try to have the least amount, I guess. I guess with respect to what Justin and Jackson were talking about, there was this conversation about whether or not the mainstream media is more trustworthy than the alternative media. I think that's gonna depend on what alternative media source you're talking about, right? You could be talking about like, Noam Tromsky or Democracy Now, or you could be talking about Alex Jones' show. And I think whether or not alternative media is gonna be more credible than certain mainstream sources is gonna very much depend on what you're talking about. I agree with that. Like how Democracy Now lied about the OPCW cover up in Syria. Getting to it. So alternative media does lie. Alex Jones got all the Jeffrey F. Seen stuff, correct? Not hard, just be clear. Alex Jones, is there anything he got wrong? And like, is there like something, some giant lawsuit, like a huge like one billion dollar lawsuit? Yeah, so that discredits every other thing he was writing about? No, it's like, just like what? Just like the, And he doubled down on it, he didn't even double down. He tripled down on that. Yeah, don't, don't stop. Alex, you think that's the only thing the mainstream media is lying about is vermin's, but it's not. Hold on, no. But the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't just prove that the mainstream media lies about everything. It doesn't prove that they're wrong about everything. Just like, Alex Jones lying about the, like the, See any books? See any books? Yeah, like, If you can use one example to like discredit the entire like media sphere that you're trying to discredit, that's stupid. I mean Alex Jones was writing about a lot of stuff, so I mean, you can see the facts. The gay frogs. The frogs are gay. Well, you're a boy from, where are you from again, Kentucky? Yeah. The frogs are the reason I'm gay. The frogs are the reason I'm gay. Well, it's actually not even in the water. I think, You know, I think we have to take everything with a grain of salt. And In Texas, you use like a little country gravy. Everything in the country gravy is sad. Do you have a birth defect? Did your mom drink while she was pregnant with you? She did a little bit. She's like, wait, let me bring her in. Yeah, that's rough, dude. I'm sorry. It was bad. But anyways, I think that we don't have to debate about whether the mainstream media is more credible than the alternative media. I think that core of the debate is, the reason I brought up the mainstream media in the first place was that the whole mainstream media, as well as like the government was saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction, or there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And when that's what the mainstream media is saying, that's what the government's saying. The people who disagree with that are gonna be the ones who get flagged for misinformation. And so I think that we shouldn't limit what opinions are allowed to be expressed to which opinions echo the mainstream news or certain alternative news sources. I think we should let any opinions be heard and sort of, as our friend Dave Rubin often says, battle it out in the marketplace of ideas or whatever. I can agree, I agree. Yeah, I think that there definitely is value to having these spaces online in media that are pretty much uncensored. But again, do I as an individual feel comfortable making those standards for companies that are trying to protect their bottom line? I'm not really sure that I do. So for a regular police and banning of men from paintings and others, and sneaker on YouTube, what are your thoughts? I mean, sneaker did not deserve to be de-platformed whatsoever. And I think that the three strikes were done at once or like consecutively or something. So no, that's actually one of my biggest fears, not just as a content creator, but it sucks because that is the catalog of all your stuff. Now you're like, oh, well, you should have it all backed up. Well, yeah, I mean, it's easier to say that a hard drive with a bunch of random files, all the edited stuff, all this stuff, just countless hours of footage. And then you have that backed up near where you have the same every single hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of videos that you put all your time and effort in to entertain people to get very few dollars and cents back if you even get any whatsoever and at any moment your blood, sweat, and tears can literally be deleted off the internet like it never even existed. So that fear and that threat is real and it happens every second of every day. So the fact that these companies can do that and you don't have any like basically legal recourse or any way to even get your old footage or content, which is like I say as the artiste in me, I lose that content and then it stops and then it's gone forever and you're literally deleted from the internet. So it's modern day book burning. So yeah, no, Sneeko should not be the platform. She'd only be the platform for serious stuff that would cause harm to incite violence towards somebody or something very disgustingly bad. But to have a different opinion than the mainstream media to say like, oh, I'd like this medicine for this illness, deep blood form, that doesn't make sense. I agree. Yeah, I mean, anybody who's familiar with me, probably not many of you, knows that I'm a democratic socialist and as a democratic socialist, I believe that we should empower ordinary people to run society in their own interests and through their own decision-making. And it's just flatly incompatible with that sort of ethos that we shouldn't have free speech and that ordinary people shouldn't be able to decide for themselves what to believe. I also just think like the classic, consequentialist arguments for free speech work. So like if you censor a belief, there are generally three possibilities. Firstly, if the censored belief turns out to be true, which is always possible, then censoring the view deprives us of our ability to exchange truth for error. Even if the censored view is false, there's always a possibility that there's some crumb of truth in what's being said and we can learn valuable information by engaging with people who defend the false view. And even if the view is completely false and contains no crumb of truth, engaging with incorrect views still gives us a livelier impression of our own views, right? Defending our views reminds us why we have them and what principles they stem from and so on. And so yeah, I'm not a big fan of it when I see people getting banned or deplatformed from certain spaces like Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube for making controversial political statements or having certain factual judgments or normative judgments that the powers that be decide are unacceptable. And here's a little all of branch, I actually sort of agree with you Alex. I do think that you should not be, you should be deplatformed only if you do something really, really egregious. So like calling for violence, calling for an interaction. That one's sort of a joke, but not really. But to be serious, I do think that it should be very, we should be very open in what we allow on these platforms. Unfortunately, it is a double-edged sword. And so like we can point the blame at YouTube and TikTok for censoring, Sneeko and you take, but the other edge of that sword is it wouldn't be where they are without those platforms. Those platforms are the reason that they're popular in the first place. They use that platform and the reach that it has and the ease of use and its access to hundreds of millions of people, that's what they use to get popular in the first place. So it's like the hand fed them and it took them away. That shit sucks. I'm not gonna deny it doesn't suck. But I don't see a solution that other than like some sort of government regulations say that, hey, you have to continue providing this service but you're gonna have a lot less oversight over it. I agree that it sucks. I don't see a meaningful solution that's not gonna step on the toes of business. Rumble, that's the solution. Go to a different platform? All righty, different, yeah, YouTube alternative. Yeah, there are tons of alternative platforms for sure. I don't think, yeah, well, yeah. I don't think Andertate should have been banned. I don't see a reason for that. Sneeko I think said some suss stuff but I don't know if it was like band-worthy. It was a little sussy, you know. What was sussy about it, dude? Remember, I'm not even hating, dude. It was like stuff about like Jewish people, I'm pretty sure. Yeah, and so yeah, I don't think that they deserve those bans. I do think that we actually have like a very significant cultural issue going on right now and I see this on the far left and on the far right where people are looking to use deep platforming as a weapon against people and they will use it for petty personal stuff and people who say it's only the far left doing it, I guarantee it is not. I've seen the far right explode with the deep platforming stuff. Even years ago, you can look at like YouTubers, popular YouTubers from years ago, they had their whole implosion because all of them were giving each other false strikes and false reporting each other. I hate when the conservatives side call for even climbing to be deep platforming. Even though I don't like to even climb. I've seen its interest to it. Like I- Yeah, no, everybody does it. There's a very serious, there's a very serious issue. Deep platforming. I'm like, ah, that's not. Like one time, Destiny said that I was a paid Russian agent and that's actually imprisonable but he said I was a paid Russian agent should be taken off the internet because of that. I was still in the middle of what I was saying. Thanks, Jackson. Sorry, go ahead. I'll cut you off. Thank you also for cutting me off. Unbelievable. Oh, since you're there. Yeah, I really, really appreciate it. Both of you guys, I just, I- Sorry. That's all I'm saying. All right. No, I'm not done. Okay. Anyways, right. So, yeah, it's been weaponized for at least a decade, if not longer and you'll see people go through waves of it and so I really don't like that. But it's hard for me to, I would ask a question, do platforms have an obligation to justify every ban that they do? That is the question. I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, and on Stardust's point about how supporting or rejecting free speech isn't really exclusively to the left. It's worth noting that, according to polls from Gallup, about 43% of Republicans think that the, while Donald Trump was in office, said that the president should be able to close news outlets that were engaged in bad behavior, which seems like a pretty big affront to freedom of speech. So really I don't think the issue should be framed as the rights fighting against the anti-free speech left. I think it should sort of be a bipartisan critique. Well, by your guys' logic, saying that people who lie about major events and mass casualties, for example, should be held financially accountable, like Alex Jones, you know, he's probably gonna end up with like a $3 trillion fine. Shouldn't all the people who lie about Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Niger, all these countries shouldn't be held financially accountable. And if that means that they go out of business because of the gross amounts of fines that they have to be, then so be it. Well, what I would say is that I think that... Chase it. Yeah, so I think that, yeah, I think that, you know, the, what everybody knew at the time was different, right? Now, if people got banned for saying the contrary then, they should definitely be compensated and unbanned because that's just wrong, right? So I could definitely, I could definitely see your point there. Here's an olive branch. Would anyone disagree with this? No matter what side you're on, any social media platform needs to provide greater disclosure for content moderation actions. They need to tell you why you were banned, what tweet, what video, what section of the video, what sentence in the video, they need to tell you why you were banned. And have access to your content, even if you get... Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's nice. That may be the ability to archive. Is that an olive branch? Is anyone gonna disagree with that? No, I think that, you know, and even that, you know, the ability to archive it, send it to, maybe it's part of the policy that you send all of the stuff that they had when you were in Ventsamari. That's for me, I mean, other than getting kicked off at the Ventsamari on these other alternate platforms, but for me, it's like the deletion of my, I mean, I know it's on the platform, but that's my content, and it's just gone up and in like that. And I just, I think that it's even one of the most egregious whether, it doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on. We do the hypothetical here. Let's say a huge account, annotate size, was promoting a cure for a deadly disease that did not work. And he was convincing hundreds, thousands of his followers to, instead of taking the medication that was saving their life, he started stowing snake oil. And he was convincing a bunch of people to take the medicine to, Do you care if you leave McDonald's? I mean, you know, I mean, That's a little bit different than other places. But McDonald's doesn't advertise them as, I mean, it is actually, food can actually make some way more impact on your health. Yeah, let me finish that half with that. That's everything. Would that be a valuable event? Would that be enough misinformation? Like, we knew it was false. I can answer that. Can you answer it without like, the simple answer is no, that's not a valuable offense because we just saw that with the COVID jab. Hope. Wait, the critical assumes that. Which is good. I know the COVID jab killed people. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I want to know why you think that's analogous. Wait. Let me see your back card, Daniel. But you also didn't actually, I got to tell you guys, you didn't actually answer it. If that was the case, everyone who promoted it, brought it back to what? Did the back scale work? Yeah, we had everybody pushing everybody. You don't even, you don't even have to. This is why we need moderation. Oh, wait, no, I have my phone on it. You don't even have to already do that, right? I feel like Jackson, you didn't really answer the hypothetical as per this, right? Because you can't say, you can't say that we'll know in your hypothetical, the medicine that you're talking about actually doesn't work. And the medicine that's being advertised by this hypothetical account does work. Because Justin's hypothetical just assumes, right, that the medicine being advertised doesn't work and that the one he's talking about does work. But you can't just change the parameters of a hypothetical and only answer it. Maybe I just understood. No, you were waiting for like the one about it. The truth to the question? Oh, it's true. All these people knew the truth about the jab. So, can you answer the hypothetical? The jab works, my dude. Can you answer the hypothetical? Jackson, can you grow a spine? Jackson, can you grow a spine and answer the hypothetical? Is that a bannable affair? Someone's convincing someone not to take medicine and selling snake oil that objectively doesn't work. We have magical knowledge, we know. Calm down, calm down, that's false advertising, right? I can't tell you guys. No, no, that's false advertising. So that would be, you'd not only be banned potentially, but you could be held like criminally responsible for false advertising. Okay, cool, so we can ban them from social media? Before that happens. Well, I mean, do you cut someone's tongue off when they violate a crime? Can they no longer speak? I'm sorry, can we ban them on social media? No, I don't think you should be banned from social media. Okay. Well, it's just like before all these fact checkers, we survived on the internet for quite a long time. It's just I don't understand why everybody wants daddy government or daddy big tech to tell us what's true or not when we have our own brains to do that. I can't agree with you. I don't think that there should be, I see like a rise in governments trying to have their hand in social media and stuff like that. And so I can definitely see something problematic happening there. I mean, we can even look at like authoritarian countries where we see problematic things happening. But yeah, I don't know. I think like as much as I'm pretty close to being a free speech absolutist, I still don't feel comfortable myself imposing that on a company. I have a hypothetical. Do you think people that say Michelle Obama is a boy should be censored from the internet? No. That should be the last. We'll start us. Do you like eat jangles? That should be okay. Yes, fine. It's a joke. I think that, so are you of the position, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, are you of the position that you value free speech but companies shouldn't be forced to abide by free speech? I, yeah, I don't know the answer. Yeah, no, I know that I value it. I don't know the answer for whether we should be holding companies to those standards. If somebody came into my cake shop and started saying crazy stuff, claiming that I'm an FBI agent that descended from the sky or something, I'd probably kick them out. I'd be alarmed. Do you guys make a penis cake, or what? Maybe, I think about it. Probably give us a part of your question. Yeah. I mean, the way I kind of come at this question is like, I hear a lot of people say that free speech is valuable on a legal level, but not so much when it comes to social media platforms. I think that's a bit myopic. I think, for one, the debate about freedom of speech, it's always encompassed more than just legal action. Read like any of the classic texts on free speech like John Stuart Mill or David Lewis. The case for free speech has always been applied to not only government, but also norms and social institutions and so on. I mean, it's pretty obvious to see why that would be. I mean, imagine you're like an atheist and you lived in a Christian society, and any time you tried to organize at a university to give a speech in defense of atheism, they took you off, people protested so that you couldn't give your speech. Every time you tried to organize on your own, people showed up with air horns. And then if you posted to Twitter in defense of atheism, you'd get banned by the Christian CEO of Twitter. Would you, in that case, really have the freedom to question the religious orthodoxy? Probably not, at least not in any sense, that matters. Because what we're concerned about when we're talking about freedom of speech is powerful people being able to control or suppress speech. And there are many forms of suppression and forms of control in the government, I think is just one of them. But it's obvious that non-government actors can also wield that kind of problematic control. Yes, speech can also be used in a way to harass people. So if somebody is following you around online or following you around in person and hurling obscenities at you, at a certain point, well, yeah, you have freedom of speech, but also you're kind of hindering my ability to live a normal life. So. I think my biggest problem in this sort of free speech debate is that free speech is important. All of us think it's important, so they disagree that I think it's important, but I absolutely do, because speech has power. Words have power. That's why it's important. That's why it ought to be protected. But anytime we talk about the negatives of speech, now all of a sudden it's just words. Ah, it doesn't matter. Ah, leave it out there. So words have power. They do. That's why they're worth protecting. And so there needs to be some sort of system like Twitter is not the public square, all right? You can go to the public square if you really want to. But. It's a digital new age, buddy. You can go. It's the only place, well, the only way to argue this, the only place where something can organically go viral or you can even, you know, talk to a celebrity that has a new type of. You say organic, but no. There's no other platform where I can interact with Elon Musk. But not people that are just in Joe Blow can have Elon Musk talk to them. But prior to Twitter. It is the quote unquote digital town, town hall, town square, whatever it is. Yeah, prior to Twitter. Prior to Twitter. Prior to social media. I don't know if they aim for that, but this seems to be some new definition of free speech that exists for social media. You just can't do it. Okay, but here's the thing. If Twitter didn't aim to be the public square, then is it really fair for us to force them to be the public square? Let me think of something. Life is not fair. That's the first thing you literally liberals need to learn that is life is not fair. Life is not fair. Life isn't fair. I thought you were doing anything. I thought you. And as bad as things are, look in the mirror because I can show you somebody that's way worse off. Look, I know I look like Danny DeVito. Why do you have to put it on my books? Big Twitter, oh, they didn't want to be this company. Big bad Twitter, the billion dollar company, oh, me. I'm sick of these multinational corporations actually using you as like political collateral. They don't give a crap about you. They would de-platform you in two seconds. You're like, oh, I feel so bad for Twitter. They didn't mean to be the town square. I don't know that for them. They are the town square. That's the harsh reality. Oh, that was bad. Here's the thing. So you did put the Twitter. I do not feel bad for Twitter. I'm just saying that I think just because we view them as the town square doesn't mean that that was their goal. And if that isn't their goal, then they're obviously going to do things that are going to achieve their goals that are obviously in contrast to that, right? I mean, so imagine, so I feel like the way I kind of think about this is like, even if Twitter didn't intend to become the public square, like if they at some point do become the public square, it's more important to make sure that they actually act as a public square than it is to satisfy the desires and the preferences of the billionaires who own Twitter. Like I mean, let's say we have like a food company. And the food company originally just wanted to be like a backdoor food vendor, not too big or whatever. But the food company eventually became more and more monopolized. And eventually it was like the only provider of food in the entire country. And then they were like gouging prices, and they were making it so that a lot of people couldn't buy food or they had to overpay for it. And then we said, OK, enough is enough. We should bring this under public control and make food cheaper. And then we were like, well, they didn't want to be the only food vendor in the country. It's like, yeah, but they kind of are. So we kind of need to treat them like that. Twitter isn't the only social media. Sure, but it's by far the like, there is like. Sure, it's the biggest one, but I still don't think that's a justification. I'm wondering about this new definition of free speech that seems to exist purely invented for social media. You can post whatever you want. You're not going to be arrested by the government for spreading misinformation to your friends. You can misgender somebody as much as you want on Parler or True Social or Gabber. You can spread information about Ivermectin and how it cures what ails you. You can say that Trump was the actual winner of the 2020 election. You can do all those things on these other social media sites. So why is it now, actually, this free speech, I get to post it on this one, the one that I want to, because that's the one that lets me have the most things that I want. And not actually like, I'm not being banned from saying anything, I just don't have the reach that I want. How is that compatible with the definition of free speech that wasn't purely invented thanks to social media? You just said it. It's about the reach. It's about the fact that these are where people go to talk about things. People's speech was never about reach. It was never a guarantee that everyone could hear. 93% of people are getting their news from one institution in the country. And you're not allowed to speak freely there. Don't you think that that's a problem for society? So you want to compel them to make them? Yes, I would like to nationalize Twitter. I would like to nationalize Twitter. You want the government to step in? Yes, I'd love to. I'm like, well, I'm a communist. So I'd love to nationalize Twitter, guarantee free speech rights for every user of Twitter. And also, there's limitations to free speech, right? So you have to protect people. You have libel, slander laws. You have false advertising. You have other things that you have to protect people about. But guarantee all of that to every user of Twitter. You know what, I want to think if the government was running something, they would have to abide by the First Amendment. So I mean, yeah, so. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I guess that's a solution if that's what you want. But yeah, I mean, I kind of always valid free speeches, like the ability to gather with people and say what you want to them and not get arrested for it, right? So yeah, reach never, that was a good point by Justin. I never really factored reaching to that definition. Well, that's the expected. Well, I mean, I feel like reach has to be in some respect important, right? I mean, if the government issued a statement like, listen, you can say certain things that the government disagrees with, but you can only do it inside of your house. You know, you could even gather with people inside of your house and tell that to them, but probably that would be bad, right? That'd probably be bad for freedom of speech. Right. Yeah. Would anybody defend the banning of Andrew Tate or Zico? No. Nobody on the panel. That's all right. And Jengles is insane. I'm the insane one. Will that be our next wrap? Oh, will that be our next wrap? It is insane for the Ukraine. Gas prices way too hot. Vladimir Putin needs to die. Keep going, finish it. Finish it and work in the Jengles' parts. Come on, just get those bars. Got the gas. Him and his husband are built to last. They kiss every night. They both are white, but their adopted children are Filipino. Drinking cappuccino. How low can you go? You know, Jackson is sniffing the blow. Stardust, eating pizza, but not the crust. Don't waste that. That part is the best. And you know, Melody Mack is always passing the tests. And you know, I'm primetime on the grind with Django Dangle, his big thing for his husband's wedding ring. I'm a pimp on a plane. And you know, my nests like to hang. Django, Django, Django, that's for you. That's for you. What are you talking about? Jackson, whether or not YouTube stands on Russia and Ukraine is fair, anybody have anything they wanted to add to that? I think we kind of covered that a bit, yeah. A little about Russia and Ukraine, but not that much, but like one, like 30-second answer, maybe? No? Or is Twitch overly restrictive? Say I'm not even on Twitch, but I think they are. Wait, Twitch overly restrictive? I think Twitch, yeah, I do think so. But I also think there's an actual issue. Again, this goes back to what I was saying. There's an actual issue where people are using deep platforming as a weapon against people that they have petty personal briefs with and it's super lame. Does anyone know why Destiny was banned? No, he should not have been banned. Yeah, I wanted to say this to everyone who really, really wanted Destiny banned and of course the people who didn't want to ban. Wouldn't it be great if you knew why at the very least? I know why I was banned. I got banned because I said that there were US run biolabs in Ukraine and then Victoria Newland came out and admitted it two weeks later. Yeah, they shut down everybody for that immediately. Yeah. Yeah. Unless there are any other thoughts, we can go to the Q&A. Sean. Okay, so like some of you, let's try to make this a litigation between government and the social media companies and their actions on speech. But the extensive definition of Section 230 comes from a 2015 lawsuit where Facebook, on behalf of the Indian government, which was an Indian nationalist government, banned a secret group from their platform because they considered not in line with the government of India. And this is where they've lunged the lawsuit in order to have this extensive definition. Is that a ban that you're in favor of being able to be done and you know it's clearly directed by the government and thus gave us the justification for this broad private companies to do whatever they want under Section 230? So to respond to you, I think, you know, I agree, I don't like the idea of governments, you know, having more and more hands in these social media things, right? And I definitely, you know, I definitely think that, but at the, yeah, so it's hard because it's like I don't agree with these governments trying to enforce these things on social media, but also at the same time, you know, is the average person really somebody who should be enforcing things on social media? Either I don't know, like it comes down the bottom line, right? The strange problem that we've run into is that we have most conservatives and probably most liberals as well don't want the government stepping in telling like individual companies what to do, but also the government has to run the, has to run Twitter, it has to run social media in order for the First Amendment to actually apply legally. Well, that's not what people want in platforms, right? Yeah. And that was, and there was carve outs for what these social media companies could do. For most of the history of Section 230, that was related to form and like a bulk conference, it's worded 15 different ways in Section 230. However, when a nationalist government banned a religious minority in India, this was challenged, it went to the Ninth Circuit Court, and this is where we got the expansive government, the expansive definition of Section 230. So when you were supporting the president, that was said when a nationalist government banned a religious minority. I don't think I support that. No, I don't. I think, you know, again, I think that these companies should be able to run, you know, without governments kind of forcing their hand and stuff like that. But I'm not, you know, I think these companies and these websites should be protected because what's posted on their site isn't really like at the end of the day, their responsibility, they shouldn't be prosecuted for it. But at the same time, that's different from like advertisers, whether they choose to advertise or the company itself choosing whether they want a certain image, I guess, right? It's a little bit different. So. And finally, I was burdened with the doctor that was banned on Twitter, sued Twitter and got a discovery against Twitter. He found out that the officials from within the Biden administration were asking for his ban. So like, I don't understand why we don't, why we're pretending that this has been coordinating with the government to be a certain political ideology. Yeah, I don't know too much about that. I think the difference is if you nationalize an institution like Twitter, they're at least supposed to act within the confines of person in the law. Whether they do that is a much bigger question and they'd probably just deem anyone, they don't like a terrorist or something. But when it comes to a private institution, all you have to do is apply public pressure on the private institution and you can make a decision to ban someone like that without any sort of reprisal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that decision. And it's not just Alex Berenson. We learned from an intercept article about two weeks ago that the government literally has portals built into all these social media websites where if you have a .gov email address in a certain government department like the State Department, for example, you can just go in, log in and recommend that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Meta, whatever, ban a given individual. It's not that they'll do it, but I mean, I think nationalizing would solve some of those problems, potentially. Yeah, I mean, there's a reason why, you know, if you're like, you know, there's a reason if you're a teacher at like a Christian private school, you can get fired for believing in evolution, but if you're like a public school teacher, you can have some really offensive views and if they try to fire you, they'll get sued for it. It's because they have to abide by the First Amendment. So ironically, it seems as though the government is more able to get people banned if they don't own it than if they do, because if they don't own it, they don't have to abide by the First Amendment and their decisions. Can I just make a quick announcement? My mom just texted me and said that I should move away from the drunk guy on my left. I just thought you should don't have to. I don't even drink. I don't even drink. She just texted me, she's watching this live. Mom, it's crime time 99, I don't even drink. Don't worry, Stardust is in very good hands. I'm a pimp on a blimp. A lot of moms don't worry. She's gonna be very uncomfortable. When kids get around me, women, they'd definitely fall for my overwhelming romance. Yeah, I don't wanna. You're fucking creep. Hi, so this question is in two parts. First, I wanna know if you guys would agree that there is a kind of speech that can cause violence. There is speech that is so gross that it can cause hate which can cause violence. And two, should social media companies to be forced to platform that nation against their will? First and last, a very easy yes answer. Yeah. Second one has a very easy no answer. I'd love to hear some disagreement. No, I think I agree with Justin. I mean, is it impossible for a word? I mean, I don't think any word is necessarily violent, but I mean, I guess words can be put in combination to trick or convince somebody to do something, maybe even out of their will, thinking that they're doing something for good. So yeah, I mean, can you say words and convince somebody to do something? Is that possible? Yeah. Yeah, and there's a meaningful distinction between words that cause violence and words that like incite violence, right? Like if I told you, if I, you know, like let's say we're friends and I come up to you and I'm like, hey, you know, John is sleeping with your wife, go kill him. You should go kill him, right? That would be an incitement of violence. But if I just came up to you and said, hey, John is sleeping with your wife, I thought you should probably know that. And then you went and killed John. Both have that same causal relation between your speech and John killing. But John getting killed, but they're very different things and I think they should be treated differently. That's fair, yeah. And legally, last thing, legally already, we have the distinction of direct threats of violence. That's not protected by person in the law. So something that could, like whatever you said that could lead to violence, I think that they should be forced to keep that up. But saying that you would take Ivermectin is not violence. But saying that, like for example, Boston Children's Hospital is chopping the dicks off of children and you should go bomb them. No, not go bomb them. And you should go bomb them. Nobody says that today to say that. Nobody on the line. Well, okay, look, if somebody told me, I'll say there's a difference. What's the meaningful difference between that and maybe someone should do something about it? I think, yeah. It's tough to draw that line. Well, I agree those two things are different. Maybe somebody should do something and blow it up with a bomb, but. Well, but even saying somebody should do something about this is kind of like a called action, right? If I started saying, Alex Stein. Yeah, but that I think that they can have to be like. He just, he kills puppies every day. And he goes to the backyard and he stomps on them. Somebody should do something about it, you know? I will not stand by that at rescue animals. But yeah, no, I don't know. I don't know if that's the case. Like Kanye West or J.B. Morgan Chase. Yeah. Nick Quintas as well, you know, they're already doing that. I got my PayPal and Venmo permanently taken away as well. So they're already trying to go after that stuff. And in the cases of the most extreme examples, again, like Andrew Tate, Nick Quintas, and Kanye, they already are doing that. They took all my Kohl's cash. All your way. All my V-Box are gone. They took all my Kohl's cash, that's hatred. Flamma, cool guy. So J.B. was actually asking this question earlier. I thought it was a good question, but I kind of want to just do a little bit of a break on it. He asked, essentially, my mistake was, if a snake oil salesman is trying to sell you poison, you ban that guy. My follow-up to that is, the current president of the United States said, and I quote, if you take these vaccinations, you won't get Kohl's. Yep. Should we ban the 46th president of the United States because it put at risk people of possibly getting the Kohl's cash, killing the state, and then going to the United States to die? Was there a little bit more to what he said than that? No. No, I know. Yeah, I know. He said it clearly. Very clear. Very clear, but okay. Yep. So, okay, I would say that getting these vaccinations doesn't mean you won't get COVID, right? It means that your likelihood of getting it is reduced. And again, if he said that, then he shouldn't have said that. I'll agree with you on that. If he said that, oh, you definitely won't get COVID if you get these vaccinations, he shouldn't have said that. Should he have been banned for it though? I don't know. I feel like the other president, former president, has also said a whole bunch of stuff that he never got banned for, though he did get banned eventually. But yeah, I don't know. You two actually have that policy on the book. Bless you. Bless you. Excuse me. There's like nine masks behind you, could he use those? Bless you. Yeah, no, I'm monkey pox. YouTube has that policy already. They say YouTube says that if you claim that the jab will completely stop infection, then that's a strikeable offense. Despite the fact that that's the case, Rachel Maddow still has a clip up on MSNBC's YouTube channel in which she says that exact thing, yet they haven't taken the video down north, they've given them a strike because it's mainstream media. Okay, I just want to make this point. What do you want to say? Well, I made it earlier. I just want to say this, like, first of all, the vaccine and what Donald Trump did with Operation Warp Sheet was the greatest thing. Any human being has ever done getting a vaccine out that fast. So we do have to credit him. Yeah, I mean credit to him for, you know, doing that and helping us get that vaccine out. But I want to make one point, though, is you know, there's one thing, and they make it clear, and I tend to agree with them. I said it earlier that the vaccine is safe and effective. And of course it is. For all, I think they just announced, just last week and now there's eight billion people here on earth. But you know what is not safe and effective for eight billion people? Peanuts, almonds, shellfish, shrimp, garlic. People have allergies. Yeah. But not to the vaccine. So thank you Donald Trump for making the only thing that nobody's allergic to in the world. Thank you Donald Trump. He should be the platform should I hope they throw all the shoes in the trash. But I think he should be able to speak his mind. And I haven't really dived super deep into everything that he said. So I can't sit here and say I will agree with this or that. But I do think that he should be able to have a platform to speak his mind. And unless he is actually calling for violence, then he should be able to speak. He does have a platform. Should he have a specific platform? I mean, like I said, I don't know exactly why he was banned or what all. I'm going to go. What specific? Death con three on Jews. But like I said, I don't know what was exactly said or what wasn't. But I mean, if he broke it. Very funny joke. I haven't read Twitter TOS pretty carefully. I'm pretty sure doing going death con three on Jews isn't allowed. Yeah, I would say, you know, Kanye's kind of had erratic behavior for a while. He was talking about Pete Davidson, like killing him, alluding to killing him or something like that. He was harassing Kim at some point. So he already has some pretty, pretty sus behavior. I think we have a little saucy. But we forgave him for all of it. I don't know why, but when it comes to the stuff that he said about Jews, like he's basically said that Jews exploit black artists for financial gain. And he's also insinuated that Jews promote harmful and immoral behaviors. Which I think that secondary one is even more harmful. If you're saying that Jewish people specifically promote harmful and immoral behaviors, like saying that they put information, they put in our music, they put toxicity in our music. Okay, but my question is, was he saying Jews as a whole in this or was he speaking of particular people who just so happened to be Jews? I think he, well, I mean, he talks about like Jewish record label owners. Right. When you talk about individual people, you make individual people. But I don't know why we would bring up the Jewish part. Why don't we just say record label owners? Right, and I think that's fair. He doesn't have to mention that specific detail about that. But I'm just saying though, if what he said wasn't directed at Jews as a whole, and he may just be trying to call out specific people. But it was directed at Jews. I think he could have tactfully done that in a better way, but yeah, I'm just saying I don't know exactly what was said there, so. I don't think we would accept that sort of reasoning in most cases, right? If I just, if I said, wow, black people commit so much crime and then you were like, that's racist. And I was like, well, no, I just, I know these specific five black people and they commit a bunch of crime and that's who I was referring to. Like I think when people make statements where the only thing they mention about the people engaging in the activity and question is those people's race. I think it's pretty reasonable to take away that it's a racially charged or generalized statement. Kind of worms. Why can you say certain stuff like that though? Like why, I don't say that, but there's a lot of people who, they make that like their fundamental, one of their fundamental points of argument in their content is talking about black people in crime. I like to talk about how the British are a fucked country and they're satanic and they're ruining the world. Why can I talk poorly about the British? Why can certain people talk poorly about black people or in their view statistically? But you, Connie, you can't say that about... Well, because he's attributing, he's taking a group of album record label owners who happen to be Jewish and he's ascribing that to Jewish people. I attribute most of the pain in the world to the British. I mean, it seems like... I don't attribute it to British today. Both nuanced comments and some of the other comments just seem to rely on like a lack of ability to delineate like, okay, what is somebody literally saying? Like what are the literal truth conditions of what someone's saying? Versus like what are they implying and what attitudes are they sort of expressing and like unveiling? What can we learn about someone's psychology from not only what they say, but the way that they say it? I mean, okay, so there's this one quote from Connie in particular. It's genocide and population control that black people are in today in America that is promoted by the music and the media that black people make that Jewish record labels get paid off of. I feel like that's an insinuation that's pretty remarkable. Okay, same thing. British people are genociding the global south and they're exploiting their resources and they're making money off of it. I don't think they're doing that currently, but yeah. They are, of course they are. Of course they are. That's facts. So why can you say that? And then you're getting into the nitty gritty about how did he say we're gonna ban him based on his tone? Like that's just insane. It's like where you're talking about it, even on his tone. I was talking about what his tone tells us about what attitudes he holds. I don't think he should have been banned. I think that the handling of the Kanye West situation has been cool. I feel like it's been us making a massive spectacle about a mentally ill person having a mental breakdown. But I mean, yeah, I don't think he should have been banned. Well, yeah, again, I'm somebody who values like they're being that safe on mind for anybody to say whatever. You don't. I do, I do. The whole time you've been up here talking about how we should censor people misinformation, what not. You don't value that safe. No, I value that safe too with this. You value people on like some app that no one uses, which means you don't value it on the internet. Independently, I mean like, look man, everybody uses this for now. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. And you can say whatever you want. And you can say whatever you want. Just for. But then the whole argument you're putting forward is about how you wanna censor people. No, I don't wanna censor people. I specifically, did I not specifically bring up that I have a huge problem with people using deep platforming as a weapon against each other? I specifically brought that up. I do value. You don't want to be used maliciously, but if people say things that are wrong, you want them to do that. Here's the thing. I can value that and think that I want there to be a space for freedom of speech. I just don't know that me, myself, has any justification to enforce that on a larger company. You know, Kanye bought another social media company. He can say a bunch of shit. It's like if I walked into a store, so what's the problem? It's like if I walked into a store, right? If I walked into a store and the store owner was like, hey, you can't wear that shirt with all those obscenities on it. And I was like, yeah, well, I should be able to or whatever. Well, technically at the end of the day, it's their store. They can choose to kick me out if they want. But companies are liable to what people pose. They are to their advertisers? Yeah. And they may want to portray a certain type of brand. But again, Discord is used by everybody now. You can say whatever you want on Discord. So I mean, there's a space there for that, you know? Discord? Yeah. I'm not saying whatever you want. Okay, you can say, you can make whatever jokes you want on Discord. Trust me. What jokes do you make of me? I've tried them out. Wow. So we've got to go down the line. Lots of individuals are being pushed out of the sphere of being able to enter, I guess, the right of society at a level of certain historians. And when you just oppose this to an issue like free speech, for example, you see that kind of illustrated simply, you know, raises a whole lot of these thoughts to have the ability to access the electorate. At what point does this session of free speech stop and at what point do we start getting into this, you know, large discussion of these rights that are protected under, for example, protection of the people and their ability to access utilities? Well, those are some pretty different examples. Alex Jones wasn't censored, he broke the law and was sued in the United States court for it. That's a little bit different than being censored. In fact, he's still saying all of the things that he wants, but he broke the law. He, If you commit libel, if you commit libel, are you still allowed to run for political office or are you allowed to go on YouTube and serve YouTube channel or are you still allowed to do whatever you want? He still has his website. He's still saying everything. But he's censored from the internet. He's censored from the internet. Then why does he get millions of views? Where do they come from? They show up at his house? What? He's censored from almost every single institution. And he could do that. Because we still have free speech, nothing has been broken. He can make his own website and he's brought his audience with him. I will say that I don't think Kanye should have had his financial things taken away from him. I understand the reasoning why somebody may have looked at what he was saying and been like, ooh, that's like a, you know, a bit weird, but yeah, I don't think he should have had his finances messed with like that. But at the same time, you know, there are like, you know, on a very base level, there are social repercussions for acting like a jerk, right? So. I know. Yeah. What's your name? Yeah, good God. Justin, I pray to God we never have more than two brain cells to rub together so you challenge the establishment because you will face rigorous censorship and when you do, you're gonna be kicking yourself and I'm sure that I will. Okay. I love that. I cannot, I can't stop myself. You two need to be sitting closer, the energy's good. Yeah, I know, this is a sexual tension. I can't, you know. I don't wanna be in the middle of it. He's in the loving relationship with his husband so he wouldn't be having a sexual attraction to another man. He didn't mean to imply. You had some monogamous marriage, correct? Fangled, that is monogamous. Yep. Sometimes you wanna strangle it. Not all of us are doing the Pimp on a Blimp. Weird streamer stuff that every streamer seems to be doing. What is that? Every streamer, every streamer's like, oh yeah, I'm in an open relationship now. So. I don't know these friends that do that. Wait, no, I'm not talking about anybody specific. There's like, there's like five streamers that are all in open relationships. Like, good for them, you know, but. Is DSP in the open relationship? I do love the insinuation that if I grew a third brain cell, then I don't know. I guess I'm gonna start to like denying entire like massacres of children. Like I'm that close to doing it. You first saw all those people that were like, it was a Russian missile in Poland. It was. You were. You're wearing a tan suit. That happened like a week ago and it was. Wailedust, wailedust. What? Oh yeah, yeah, wailedust. Yeah, you wish you could be as fat as me. You wish. What did they call you? Wailedust? But the thing is. Haas came up with it one day or something. You know, I think Haas is just jealous of my arms. He wishes his arms were as girthy as mine. I think it's better since it is than I can. They say, how would those on the panel who claim that the DOS bans equal censorship when association rights equal speech via constitution? You're talking to yourself? Oh, good God. Or corporations have a right to associate or disassociate from you, hence not platforming. This guy was talking to himself the entire time as I didn't hear any of that. I'm so sorry. I think that they're saying if the constitution says that you can separate yourself from anybody, you can disassociate, then how do those on the panel claim that the DOS bans are infringing on free speech? Has anybody claimed, so I know I have and I think probably the people I was supposed to be in opposition with have also said that tech companies censoring people violates free speech in like a moral sense, right? Like we all have a moral right to free speech and when big tech companies start censoring people to the extent that they have, that sort of wrongly infringes on this moral right, we have to free speech. I don't know if anybody's claimed that it actually infringes on our legal right to free speech in terms laid out by the constitution. I think that would be a pretty radical claim to say that Twitter bannings, andrutate or something actually violates like the constitution or infringes on free speech. I believe in the case of Alex Berenson, that was a legal infringement, right? Didn't he get his account reinstated because of his legal challenge? Was it to Twitter, right? Sure, but the guy asking the question said to people who think that Twitter enforcing TOS is like a free speech, so sure, maybe there are specific cases, but if the idea that the person who asked the question was getting at is he was attacking the view that sort of legal free speech in the constitutional sense, and also like Twitter guideline enforcements are sort of like the same thing, right? Or that one violation of one always violates the other. I think Alex's case proves that if you have enough money and time to challenge one of the largest social media companies in the world, which 99.99% of people don't, you're going up against not only Twitter or YouTube, but YouTube's worth like 10 times more than Twitter. You're also going up against like the CIA, the State Department, the NSA, the Pentagon, all these institutions that are backing the banning of individuals who are calling out war crimes or whatever. Most people don't have the time or money to go up against these institutions, so when I get permanently demonetized, I just say whatever, you know? I don't have Alan Dershowitz on my hotline call to say come help me. Yeah, no, I mean, I agree that in most cases where people get deplatformed by a big tech company, they probably don't have the recourse to retaliate, yeah. Yeah, and we kind of already agreed that really actually sucks. I'm not meaning, I'm not like, that actually does fucking suck when you build a living off of a social media platform, and then all of a sudden they take it away from you. But at the same time, but at the same time, but at the same time, remember that double ed sword. No, don't ask that for me, and then the rest of the time you're gonna say. Do you remember that double ed sword I talked? The reason that you got that money in the first place because YouTube provided a platform for you to use. You didn't build YouTube. You have no ownership of YouTube. They don't owe you anything other than you're gonna make content and they're gonna make money off of it. And that sucks again, that's that double ed sword. So the solution you seem to have is to help force them legally to show the things, whatever I wanna say, I would get to say it and force them to do that. I don't see that as a reasonable solution. I think the reasonable solution is naturalize them. And kick out each and every one of those fucks that was sincering all of us. I want them to be crying alone for the rest of their life. Like you would do, right? Yeah, like I do. Yeah. Time for maybe one or two more questions. Oh, this question's for Jackson directly. I'm hoping that you can just, don't reflect this answer directly. Should Alex Jones be allowed to defame people and not pay a cent for it? If it's legal. You think it's legal to defame people? If it's illegal what he's doing, then he shouldn't be allowed to do it. Okay. It's not legal, right? So let's say we were to naturalize Twitter, YouTube, but these are all like government naturalizing these. Like wouldn't that just be more into like the ideology that like the government's like controlling the narrative? Yep. Yep. I think so. Well, the problem is. I disagree. So why would you want to nationalize them? Well, because they already do do it. So now it's kind of like, well, no, no, no, no, the point is that you, if the government, the point is that if the government took over Facebook, right, you could, people could say they're controlling the narrative, but like legally they would not be allowed to, right? If like the government nationalizes social media and then they start trying to censor certain speech, that's a violation of the First Amendment. They will literally get sued for that and they'll probably lose, right? So it's not like the government out of the goodness of their hearts just would never censor people. It's like they're just legally not allowed to. It's more advantageous for the government right now to have the private public partnership because they can still influence all these institutions, private institutions, without the potential of the legal ramifications, you know? So they would prefer to be with the structure than having nationalize. What do you think about the idea instead of a hostile takeover, the government taking over a business that it really, really wants? Why doesn't the government just make its own social media platform? I think the government has a long history of taking over private companies for ulterior motives sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Yeah, but why not make it a pure good and just make their own? Now they have a hold of it in a business. That's fun. That's what I like to use. Nuance, bro, in the back. Nuance. I think that's kind of funny, like calling somebody rat-faced, yeah. That's why Ax Jones got banned. Well, I don't know, man. Ax Jones was talking, saying that the Sandy Hook thing. Yeah, well, I mean, if that's why, if he got banned for that, obviously that's a stupid reason, yeah. Yeah, like. Oh, he showed us who was right. What did I tell you about talking? I don't know. I don't know. Unbelievable. I think with that, we're going to just have a like a few of our friends to freak out, okay?