 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Iran Book Show on this Monday. I guess it's around noon afternoon here in Puerto Rico. Welcome. Wow. What a weekend. What a weekend. It's an exciting weekend primarily because of what we saw in the World Cup. What a game. Those of you who are not soccer fans, that is too bad because that was one of the great sporting events ever. It was, what a final. A fantastic game. A game where you really didn't know what was going to happen, who was going to win. Argentina played, I thought, brilliantly, but France had these flashes of brilliance. The two superstars, Messi and Umbapa, just rose to the occasion. I mean, often you get these great games that are hyped, that are supposed to be these amazing performances. And then it doesn't live up to it, or the stars don't play as well. But this game lived up to all expectations. Messi and Umbapa played brilliantly. I mean, Umbapa's goals were perfect. Messi got a score goal. He got to be involved in pretty much every play that was involved. Argentina generally played well. France generally played well, although Argentina, I think, played consistently better than the French did. And it was just fun, exciting. Edge of your seat, Argentina kept going ahead, and it kept getting tied. The first half, obviously, was dominated by Argentina, but then the French came rowing back within less than two minutes, scoring two goals, which is unusual. And then just the emotional aspect of Messi finally winning a World Cup after having maybe the greatest career any football player has ever had in the history of the game. Everybody is now declaring him the greatest of all time, and I think with plenty of justification, even though I'll never quite give up on Pele being that, and certainly beating, I think, his countrymen, Maradona, who had a World Cup title to his name in 1986. Here, Messi has won for himself now. But having a career unmatched by anybody, there's no question about that. And you watch him play, and if you go on YouTube and you get highlights from his play, it's just gorgeous and amazing and a phenomenal athlete. What he can do with his legs and a ball, nobody else has been able to do, I don't think, in the history of the game. So congratulations to Messi. Congratulations to Arizona. I think they've made a soccer fan of my wife, which is quite an achievement. So an exciting game, a thrilling game, a game in which the best athletes on the planet, in terms of soccer at least, rose to the occasion and played brilliantly. It's somewhat sad that a game like this is decided in penalty kicks, but it's also appropriate, given how well both teams played, and the fact that penalty kicks are so much of a psychological element, and that the goalie for Argentina played such a big role in winning this game is, I think, well deserved as well. So yeah, I loved it. It was fun. It was fun. I've watched World Cup games for a long, long time, since I was a kid. And this was definitely the most fun I've had at a World Cup game, and I think the best game World Cup game we've ever seen. And again, Messi deserves this. He has been the dominant football player in the world over the last, what is it, 15, 16, 17 years. And if you know his story about leaving home as a kid, about the fact that he had growth hormones to help him grow, because he was going to be really, really short. He's short as it is. The fact that Barcelona, as a child, was willing to pay for that treatment, that he had to leave home really young to go to Barcelona to train with them, and how well he did for Barcelona. What an investment that turned out for the Barcelona team, who then went on to win championship after championship with Messi. I mean, the whole game was excellent. I don't think the first 70 minutes were bad. I think the whole game was good. The first 70 minutes, Argentina played really, really well. The French were bad, but Argentina played really well. Anyway, loved it. It was great. And then as soon as the game ended, Twitter drama exploded. Just exploded. It's like Elon, I think, was in Qatar to watch the game, because he was showing videos of the game, plus there's pictures of him there. But as soon as the game ended, it was like, I don't know, if I say what I really think, I'm going to lose a bunch of subscribers. But it was like, I want the attention back on me. It was unbelievable what happened last night, and the pace at which things developed last night. So let's talk about that, because that is, I think, the number one use that we're coming out of this weekend, is Twitter. Is Twitter. So let's talk about it. So I also think I was tweeting about it a lot yesterday and last night, and the response of people is pretty amazing. So again, I've talked about this. Elon Musk can do no wrong. The Elon Musk is playing 4D chess, and you're an idiot you're on. That, right from Trump, all the people who said that about Trump now are saying it about Elon Musk. It is this personality worship that is very, very, very dangerous, and I think it's that mentality that so many people in the US have. And it's not just Trump and Elon Musk. It's also people on the left, I think, have it towards figures on the left. Certainly they have it towards Obama. And very authoritarian or very in line with authoritarianism and therefore very, very susceptible to authoritarianism. This I'll excuse everything, anything that they do. All right, so let's start. I'd be critical of Elon for using polls on Twitter to make decisions. I'd be critical about that for weeks now. I don't think it's an appropriate way to make decisions, even for a social network. I think it's not serious. It's not strategic. It doesn't convey a clear policy, a clear agenda. It doesn't convey a clear mission that he has. He's leaving it up to the masses to make crucial decisions. And this happened at the end of last week. It happened this is the 7th of 17th. So this is on Saturday. Elon Musk tweeted, the people have spoken. Accounts to ducks my location will have their suspension lifted now. Now, it wasn't accounts that doxxed his location. It was accounts of reporters who reported on the fact that he had banned the guy who doxxed his location. Their accounts were restored, at least most of them, not all of them. But that was like, why are you making that decision based on a poll? Why do people's views on this matter? Why don't you have a policy, stick to the policy, and convey that policy and run with the policy? This is my whole argument about needing objectivity on Twitter, on the management of Twitter, on the guidelines of Twitter, on the policy of Twitter. Anyway, instead of that, Elon Musk ran a poll. And that poll said he should return the journalists. So he did, for the most part. And he attributed the returning to the poll. So he's elevating now the polls as the way in which decisions are going to be made at Twitter. Then, I think sometime on Sunday. Not clear when exactly on Sunday, because he didn't tweet about this. Sometime on Sunday, another policy change at Twitter. And again, discovered because people were canceled suddenly on Twitter. Their accounts were suspended suddenly on Twitter. And then a policy came out explaining the suspension. And this new policy on Twitter was that you cannot use Twitter to advertise or to link. Not clear exactly. The terminology wasn't clear. And it's not clear who gets suspended and who doesn't. You cannot link it to, if you're linking to your other social media accounts. So if you say, hey, guys, you can also follow me on Facebook, MasterDone, YouTube. I don't know, other accounts like that, you are going to get delisted from Twitter if you do that. Now, nobody knew this beforehand. And some people got suspended. And then the policy got introduced. The policy came after the suspension, which is bizarre. Anyway, a number of people got suspended. Or their tweets got suspended as a consequence of this. Because they let people know about the fact that they are MasterDone accounts or they had these other accounts or not. Now, maybe this is a justifiable policy. I don't think so. And it scares me a little bit because I use Twitter to advertise my YouTube show is the fact that I use Twitter extensively to advertise my YouTube shows. And therefore, drive traffic towards YouTube going to create an issue for Twitter and ban me from Twitter. I mean, it's possible. Again, they can do whatever they want. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm saying it's fine for them to do it. I'm just saying I won't like it. And I don't think this is a good way to run a business where you start having these policies without warning people in advance and then delete them. I mean, let us know objectively what we can and cannot do. And we, if we want to stay on Twitter, we'll try to follow that. I mean, a good example of this was Paul Graham. I don't know how many of you know Paul Graham, but I've been following Paul Graham for, I don't know, a few years now. Paul Graham was one of the most thoughtful. And it turns out, respected veggie capitalists in Silicon Valley. He's also a huge supporter of Elon Musk, huge supporter of Elon Musk. And Paul Graham writes these blog posts, again, very thoughtful, very interesting. Don't always agree with them, but always interesting. Anyway, he tweeted yesterday that he was kind of, not yesterday, yesterday or Saturday. Why is this, I had this account, right? I said, I'll get it, I'll get the, I'll get the exact stuff in a minute. Here we go. Why is this all blanked out? Oh, cause fortune, it's a fortune article and I don't have a description. So they, they blanked out the text. All right, luckily, no, I read it earlier. So I know what's written there. I just can't access it again. Huh, interesting. All right, basically, basically what's happening is Paul Graham got suspended from Twitter for saying, look, I'm tired of all the drama on Twitter. I think he was upset at what happened with the doxing and all of that and the suspensions of the journalists. And he basically says, look, I'm a little tired of Twitter right now. I'm taking a break from Twitter. I'm over at Master Dome. Here's my link. And he got canceled. He got suspended. Now, when people let Twitter know that it was Paul Graham and Paul Graham's a big supporter of Elon Musk and after all, it's Paul Graham. He's a big shot. You don't want to do this. I guess his account was reinstated, but that's only because he's connected. My account wouldn't be suspended if I had anything like that. Anyway, so that happened like on, on, on Saturday, maybe Sunday morning, maybe during the game on Sunday. Not sure exactly when, but sometime on Sunday. And that's a big policy change and people were upset, including Paul Graham and including I think a lot of friends of Elon, Elon Musk. And we still don't know exactly what the policy is. So we're still trying to figure out what the policy is. And for example, can I advertise my shows that have been broadcast on YouTube on Twitter? Okay, and then at 7 p.m. Puerto Rican time at least, who knows what time, Qatar time, probably sometime in the morning or maybe from his private jet. I have no idea because I'm not tracking his private jets, I don't know where Elon Musk was at 7 o'clock p.m. Puerto Rican time yesterday. Elon Musk tweets, going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. My apologies won't happen again. Now I'm not sure my apologies refers to the doxing, my apologies, policy change, my apologies refers to the advertising of the social media, policy change. No idea what he's apologizing for exactly, but I'll repeat, going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. So now Twitter's a democracy. It's CEO is gonna make policy changes based on the votes of the masses. The reality is it seems that most people on Twitter are still maybe, we'll see in a minute, maybe not philosophically aligned with Elon Musk as you really wanna condemn the reins. Is it possible that maybe if you hand a majority of the reins, they would return Twitter to its old ways? Isn't the whole point here that Elon Musk is coming on to imprint his vision of quote, free speech onto Twitter? And that's what everybody is all excited about. Even I was excited about Elon Musk taking over Twitter. And now he's handing it over to the mob. Going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. That's Elon Musk, not me. And it's not just about one issue, about policy changes. Then that was at 7, 17 p.m. Then at 7, 20 p.m., three minutes later, he posts a poll, should I step down as head of Twitter? I will abide by the results of this poll. Well, I assume he'll abide by the results of any poll. He keeps saying he'll abide by the results. And he has, so far, at least to a large extent. He might have known the result in advance. And he wanted to, you know, this is Twitter's a headache. And Tesla stock is going down. And a lot of investors are complaining about he's not paying enough attention to Tesla. And maybe this is a way for his graciously to leave by popular consent. It's still stupid. It's still unprofessional. Is this how you make, again, make crucial, important decisions in Twitter, including whether you as CEO will remain or not? Is this fair to his investors? Is this fair to the bankers who gave him a lot of money? Is it fair to all of his supporters on Twitter who are being excited and thrilled and anticipating the massive changes he is gonna bring to Twitter? I mean, again, he has a right, a political right to do whatever the hell he wants. But is this moral? Is this rational? Is this just making any sense? From a business perspective or even from a personal perspective, is this how you manage your life? Now it turns out that 57.5% of the people who voted want him gone, want him to resign, to leave as head of Twitter. 57.5%. That's a pretty strong, I mean, presidents don't win by that margin. Even popular ones don't win by that margin. That's a big margin. Twitter is overwhelmingly wants Elon to leave. Now, not everybody in Twitter voted. Only 17 and a half million people voted. That's a lot, 17. Now it could be bots. Some of the speculation is it's bots. But again, why is Elon Musk putting his fate in bots? Now, he was gonna leave anyway. Maybe? I don't know. Nobody knows. I know his adoring fan crowd who think this is 4D chess, think he was gonna leave anyway. And he's just having fun. No, I mean, again, three minutes earlier, he said, going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. This is the way he believes Twitter should be run. Thank God, or thank Elon, that this is not the way he ran SpaceX. I'm so glad 99.9% of companies in the world don't function this way. And I'm so glad the great innovators in history do not function by vote in determining their fate. Imagine if Henry Ford has asked people if they wanted an automobile. Most of them would have said, no, we just wanna, you know, if you could improve the breeding of horses and get us a better buggy, that would be great. And I'm so glad Steve Jobs didn't ask the masses whether they wanted an iPhone or not. I don't know. I mean, this is sad. He then, by the way, at 7.43 tweets, again, this is all in sequence, right? As the saying goes, be careful what you wish as you might get it. Then more revelations about, you know, the Twitter files at 8.23 from Matt Tibi. And then as people are tweeting, oh, I'll be CEO, I'll be CEO, please have me a CEO. He writes, those who want power are the ones who least deserve it. Does that apply to Elon himself when he bought Twitter? It's just the inconsistency here, the flippancy, the flippancy is flippancy a word. I don't think flippancy is a word. The lack of seriousness given the importance that Elon Musk has said Twitter represents public square, in the square of idea, debate in the position where we discuss and debate. It's just disappointing, flippancy, flippant nature. Anyway, flippant nature is probably better. It's just unserious, it's flippant, it's Twitter. It's Twitter, this is why I don't think you should run a business on Twitter. I don't think you should make decisions about Twitter on Twitter, Twitter might be a good place to announce and then link to the document where you explain what you are actually doing. Twitter is a good marketing place, it's a good trolling place, it's a good poking people in the eye place. It's not a good place for intellectual debate, intellectual argument, it's not a good place for decision, for robust strategic decision making. There has to be a backup, there has to be documents and documentation, there has to be thinking. Twitter does not encourage thinking. Twitter encourages responding. I know from my own experience, somebody will post something on Twitter that I find offensive or stupid or rude or whatever, somebody did that today to me. And my immediate response is I gotta put them down, I gotta make them feel as small as possible. Now, mostly I resist that and maybe part of that resistance is I'm not very good at necessarily putting people down like that. But that's the instinct and some people can refrain from it and some people cannot, right? So, yep. Yeah, I was told today on Twitter that I have an incredibly narrow-minded and simplistic view of economic demand. All right. And then somebody wrote, well, anyway, I won't even read that. Let's see. All right, so that's the story of Twitter. I hope if he leaves that he has a succession plan in place that he has an idea of who he would like to be the CEO of Twitter, I hope he brings in somebody serious, somebody strong, somebody who has a real vision for how to creating a platform and how to change Twitter in a way that encourages real debate and discussion and conversation and who understands the role of Twitter as a platform for marketing, including marketing, your what do you call it, social media elsewhere. One other comment I wanna make is the other story that came out just this morning, just as I was starting the show, was another episode in the Twitter papers, in the Twitter files about the Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden files, which I think give another spin to the story. The more I read the Twitter papers, the more I read the Twitter papers, the less I blame Twitter for what happened and the more I blame the government for what happened. What the government has been doing and what the government is doing and what the government is involved in doing. I think this started with the Patriot Act. It probably started way before that. My guess is that the FBI and the Hoover got involved constantly in the media and in putting pressure and stories and tracking us and violating our privacy in a whole lots of ways. But what happened post Patriot Act in the US is I believe the government got involved significantly starting with the issue of terrorism in monitoring media, in monitoring social media and then in telling and then with the 2016 idea that the whole idea of fake news but the whole idea of a foreign power manipulating our election is I believe a bogus idea. If a foreign country creates bots that fill our news feeds with fake news, I mean, the only entity that should be in a position to stop them is you as a consumer of that news, the social media company, but the government has no business, there's no violation of rights here. Lying is not a violation of a right. Creating fake news is not a violation of anybody's rights. It's not fraud, because it's not clear what the value you're getting in return is. So I think Facebook and Twitter needed to do a much better job in screening out Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Iranian bots, but the government has no job here. And as soon as they took that responsibility on responsibility that both political parties embraced and both political parties thought was their responsibility. On both sides to screen out what news we get from where, once that happens, once that happens, it's a disaster because then they start, so what happened was that Twitter, the first thing that Twitter gets is the FBI or not the FBI even, the intelligence community, the amorphous intelligence community, telling them that Hunter Biden's laptop might be fake and might be a Russian thing, right, a Russian plant. So of course they hesitate. Of course they try to bury the story. Of course they're gonna act in that way, right? They get fake information from the intelligence community, they're gonna act on it. They don't know it's fake. And as the days evolve and they discover that maybe this is wrong, they are torn and they struggle to make a decision and they struggle to decide what to do, it's not easy. You've got the government breeding down your throat. And again, I go back to what I said the other day on my show. This is not Twitter's fault. This is the government's fault. This is not Twitter censoring by proxy. This is government censorship. It's the government censoring. It's the government censoring through threats. It's the government censoring through fake information. It's the government censoring through basically implicit threats. And that needs to be stopped. That needs to be canceled across the board. And that goes for the president of the United States not telling a businessman that he will go after his business if he doesn't get his newspaper to change his tune about him. Again, both parties are guilty here. Even if it's true, the FBI is dominated by people on the left and therefore the FBI is much more likely to be in favor of the Democrats and Republicans and use this power in favor of them versus the other party. That's a reality. But it's the government that needs to stop separation of government from media needs to happen. You think of free speech. It's not the company's responsibility to have a gun placed at its head and say, okay, but we're sticking to, no, I mean, why don't you have a gun placed at your head? You're not the one to blame. Somebody says the poll was for show. There's not such thing as polls for show when you say explicitly from now on, all decisions are gonna be made by poll. And 24 hours earlier, you use a poll to decide who to bring back onto Twitter. That concedes the whole idea of using a democratic means that ruled by masses for decision-making. And it is wrong, wrong for business to function this way. It's wrong for politics to function this way. Absolute democracy is wrong all the time and it is a sanction and a legitimization of that whether you know what the outcome's gonna be or not. It's wrong of him to do that. It doesn't even matter whether big media wants the separation from government or not, I think they do, I think they all do. I think Facebook would jump at the opportunity for the government to stop bringing them in front of Congress and harassing them. I think every big tech would love to get the antitrust threat off their back, every single one of them. So this is not, that's not the issue. The issue is who is to blame? And who is to blame here is government, not business. All right, I'm not gonna do the other topic about my good surge, we'll do that tomorrow, tomorrow morning, the, what do you call it? Title 42, I just don't have time. Elon Musk took up the whole show. All right, let's jump into, let's jump into super chat questions. I will remind everybody we do have a target for super chat, which is $250. We've raised 100 of the $250, it would be great if, like every other day, we make that target and hopefully you guys can come through. All right, Michael says, wait a minute. Yeah, looks like AOC is making at her mission to get rid of Puerto Rico's special tax status to prevent the island further colonization by white European hedge fund managers. If she succeeds, where would you move to, Texas? I don't think she can succeed. I think by federal law, I am grandfathered in until 2036. So I'm here, I'm here for another 10 years at least. So I don't think she can succeed even if they make Puerto Rico a state, it would take five to 10, I'm not sure what would happen to my status in that situation, but I think it would take five to 10 years for that to actually happen for it to become a state, and the same with independence. The separation would take years, I'll be here until that separation happens. Where would I move after that? I do not know, I have no idea. Maybe I'd move to Portugal, I don't know. Maybe Texas, I love Austin, so maybe Austin, Texas. I've actually got my eye on a condo in Austin, Texas. If I could afford it, maybe I would do that, but I'm not sure I can afford it. Is it legitimate for an employer to be able to see your criminal record? He can ask for your medical records. In many European countries, employers and landlords are prohibited from doing criminal background checks. I think in a free market, the employer can ask for whatever the hell he wants, and you can have every right to say, no, I'm not gonna give it to you and not take the job. So I think the employer can ask you to provide a background check, criminal record. Imagine you're a defense contractor and you're building super-secret stuff for the American military, yeah, then I think a background check, including a criminal background check is appropriate, or you wanna go into private security or something. So it depends on the circumstances, and it's a voluntary issue between the employer and the employee. I think it's legitimate for an employer to ask for whatever the hell they want. Legitimate legally, whether it's legitimate morally, whether it's legitimate good business practices that I leave for the marketplace to determine. Michael asks, Michael, H, different Michael. Obviously the government shouldn't be involved in the economy, however, someone doesn't like a company's values of practices. Is it immoral to hope a company goes out of business or to protest them? No, absolutely not immoral. You can protest them, you can wish them to go out of business. They might be doing things that you find offensive in spite of them being legal. I've often said, I don't know, I believe that beating your dog should be legal, but it's clearly immoral to just abuse an animal like that. And you could boycott your neighbor, you could protest your neighbor, you could do a lot of different things. If he's the guy beating up the dog, I think the same is true of a company. The government shouldn't get involved, but you as an individual should and can and should get involved in whatever way you see fit. Not doing business with that company, boycotting it, but also letting the world know about the bad behavior of the company. All right, Kenny, thank you for the support. Gail, thank you for the support. Right now, if everybody put in basically a buck, a buck 10, we would make our goal for the day. All right, Frank says I didn't answer a question. I think I actually did answer this question. Maybe I didn't do it explicitly maybe I didn't do it quite in the way Frank wanted, but here's the question. He says I said they shouldn't be, should not be freedom to follow your whims, but you do support legalizing drug when people and people to be free to use them. Yes, you're free to follow your whims, political freedom to follow your whims exists. Freedom is the purpose of freedom is not to allow you to follow your whims. The purpose of freedom is to allow good people to use their rational judgment to follow the reason in pursuit of their rational values. Freedom is a, the purpose of freedom is to enable the moral, the rational. But in doing so, it also enables the irrational. That's just an inevitable part of freedom. And it enables people to follow their whims. So freedom, you absolutely have the freedom to do stupid things, to do rational things as long as they don't violate other people's rights, you can do them. And as a consequence, and I've always said this, so this is not new, so for me to say the government should be involved in determining whether something's a whim or not, and you don't have the freedom to follow your whims is absurd, I never said something like that. Maybe slip of a tongue, but in the context, nobody could understand me as if I'm holding that kind of position. And in the consequence, absolutely you have a right to use any and all drugs, drugs that kill you, drugs that maim you, drugs that just give you a high, drugs that fry your brain. You have every right to commit suicide. You have every right to destroy your life. Every right to destroy your life. And they thought drugs should be absolutely legal. They should be traded. We would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives in the world if we actually legalize drugs. So that was my answer. I thought it was, okay, anyway. Have you read Paul Graham's essay, Mind the Gap? It pits some objective-ish idea in a contemporary tech context. I might have, I don't remember. It sounds familiar, but I don't remember. I read him on and off. Again, I think Paul Graham is very, very good. I mean, I would want to see Paul Graham run. I think Paul Graham would be an excellent CEO for Twitter. He's thoughtful. He's generally pro-freedom. He's not an objectivist, but he I think exhibits the kind of rationality that objectivists admire. And even when he's wrong, you can debate him because it's real ideas there. It's not just whims. All right, Fred Hopper. And I'm going fast because I have to end in eight minutes. Life is too short for many good books. There is out there, that is absolutely true. Not to mention the objectivist literature, absolutely true. I come recommending another book, Live Wire by David Engelman. All right, it's about neural networks and case studies. Cool. I'm writing it down. It's being added to my list of things that have been recommended to me. It's down. Thank you, Fred Hopper. All right, Michael H. Playing off what Frank said, since drug use possession isn't a violation of rights, if you owned a business, would you hire somebody convicted of nonviolent re-defense? Probably. It depends on the job. It depends on the job, depends on whether he's still using. So it depends on a lot of factors. But that in and of itself wouldn't rule somebody out if the job, for example, was, let's say, a manual labor job or a job that didn't require a huge amount of focus. And if he was not using anymore, it wouldn't affect the job at all. On why it says on sanction, if one contributes that, the Society of Objective Standard, Libertarian National Conservatives said, would you prefer they not contribute to you or ARI? You can do whatever you want in terms of contributing. That is passive. But let me know, and I will not, it's what I do with you. And I'm not gonna promote somebody who contributes to all these other places. Matthew, in the past, Alon has said the government of Mars should be a direct democracy. The way he is handling Twitter seems to be in line with that belief. If he said that that is terrible and unfortunate, he should read the history of direct democracies and what a disaster they actually become. And he should read the founding fathers like James Madison on direct democracies and how critical the founders were of direct democracies and why they structured America as an indirect democracy, as a Republican form of government, as a representational democracy, guided by, limited by a constitution, limited by a constitution. So you can't vote on certain things. So crucial that we learn from the founding fathers. They were brilliant. I mean, okay, friend Harper, thank you for the support. Colleen, thank you for the support. Jupiter, thank you for the support. We're like $48 away from reaching our goal. So we're really close. Everybody would have to just pitch in less than 50 cents to get us the goal. All right, philosophical zombie hunter, but we only have five minutes to get there. Would you say that Twitter's moderation would have benefited from a specific philosophy or a constitution? Yes. And what it needs is standards. What it needs is an objective presentation of what those standards are. Even if it was a bad philosophy, at least we knew what it was. I think both the previous system, which was all over the place, generally left leaning, but all over the place. And again, I think driven by, you can see in the exchanges, by more emotion than anything else. But even Elon, by being mostly Elon's whims, I think, is guiding the policy, that's the worst. The worst is uncertainty. Some form of acknowledgement, of presenting us with what the standards are, even if they're bad standards, is better than the haphazard way it's being done. Jupiter, Juniper Menace, thank you. Shalsbaugh, thank you. Juniper Menace, again, thank you. Jeffrey, thank you. And Marilyn, thank you. All contributing with stickers, just a little bit of money so that we can try to make our number. All right, if Twitter required a payment for accounts used for promoting your social media, would you pay? It's probably source of income is advertising so you should get that sort of fee. I'm fine with paying for it and indeed I bought the little check mark, that blue check mark in the hope that it would give my, in a sense, advertising greater visibility. I have no problem with paying for stuff. I do not think everything should just be provided for free. I think that creates a certain expectations from users and I just think, I think the free, getting everything for free model doesn't always apply. And certainly, if Twitter decides in order to advertise your social, you should pay. I pay, absolutely. I'd have to decide on what the value is from Twitter. I'd have to go into my analytics in YouTube and see how many people actually come from Twitter and decide exactly what I'm gonna do. All right, Michael says, post-January 6th, you discussed our Americans aren't ready to dig the trenches and engage in revolution when they know what they are fighting for, at what point is revolting justified? I think Iron Man gets three ideas. When freedom of speech is gone, when you don't really vote, there's no choice, and when we have political prisoners in America. I don't think any of those three exist today. We do vote, we don't have political prisoners for the, and I still think our freedom of speech is robustly protected right now, particularly if the Supreme Court has been, particularly non-commercial, certainly political speech. But I will also add to that that the only time to actually raise arms, weapons, is when you think you can win. There's no point in fighting when it's obvious you're gonna lose. And that requires a significant number, not a majority, but a significant number within a population agreeing with your goals. And you have to have a clear set of goals for which you are fighting. All right, Daniel, thanks for the top notch shows, appreciate it, and a drowsy Liam. Is that as compared to a regular Liam who's not drowsy? Listen to your rules of life series, help me take my sobriety more seriously and orient me in the right direction, love your work. Wow, thank you, drowsy Liam, that is phenomenal, that gives me all the motivation in the world. I am ending my rules for life series, we'll do a final show before the end of the year, one last show with the final rules for life. I mean, I'm just dragging them, so I felt like it was a little dragging and I was struggling to come up with new rules, so I'm gonna finalize that and then maybe start a new series about something else. But I will return to these principles, to these ideas periodically on the show that inspire, I think many of you that get many of you excited and I will do that periodically and remind you of the rules for life and hopefully viewers will be able to go back to my playlist and listen to those rules of life even though I won't be doing new ones. Didn't I cover friendship? I'm sure I covered friendship with love, I'm sure I talked about friendship and rules for life. Anyway, rule number 20 is don't watch idiocracy. Now, oh, by the way, show Tuesday night, I'm thinking Tuesday night of doing a show dedicated to James Cameron. I realized that I didn't really do a review of Avatar. I didn't explain why I hated it and I didn't really explain why what was good about his early movies. So I'm gonna do the best and worst movies of James Cameron on Tuesday night. I will talk about why I love aliens and Abyss and why I love the Terminator movies so much and why I despise and hate Titanic and Avatar so much. I won't be covering the new Avatar movie because I'm not going to see it but I will be covering all of James Cameron's old movies. So it should be a fun show, won't be as political as usual, maybe there won't be quite as many people watching but stay tuned for your on reviews, James Cameron's movies on Tuesday, 7 p.m. Eastern time. Tomorrow, there'll be a you on book show. I think it'll be news. I think it'll be an hour earlier than this one. Anyway, thank you. We made the 250. Kenny, thank you. Catherine, thank you. Jeffy, thank you. Themaster, thank you. And I have to run. I'll see you all tomorrow.