Latest / Elon Musk Thinking / Elon Musk Latest Interview About The Government!

Transcript

Elon Musk Latest Interview About The Government! · Elon Musk Thinking

0:00
Yeah, we've we've seen all of that and at at scale with with the
0:06
Twitter files, I mean, we we try to basically come clean and you
0:12
know, publish just how much coersion had happened. And I think there's there's
0:20
probably more that we just haven't uncovered yet. But you know, there was
0:26
and this is coming from multiple parts of the government, from the State Department,
0:31
the FBI, Homeland Security, from really many many parts of the government.
0:37
Wasn't wasn't just one arm of the government. There was this FBI portal
0:43
that order deleted all communications after two weeks, so we actually don't know what
0:47
what what what was said there. In fact, that does strike me as
0:50
a Foyer violation Freedom of Information Act violation, because you shouldn't be able to
0:56
delete order de lead things after two weeks. There was There's a little known
1:00
agency in the State Department called the Global Engagement Center, which most people have
1:06
never heard of, but they might have been the single worst defender because they
1:11
demanded the suspension of at one point over two hundred and fifty thousand accounts,
1:17
which I think all Twitter largely complied with, but they did. Their suspension
1:25
demands were so broad that they accidentally demanded a suspension of a journalist on CNN
1:30
and an elected Canadian politician. It was just incredibly a broad swath. And
1:36
then of course has to be careful of things that constraints on speech that may
1:45
be dressed up as one thing, but in fact are political in nature.
1:49
And if one looks at the suspensions and the visibility suppression that happened at Twitter,
1:56
it was overwhelmingly like ten to one in favor of Democrats. Like basically,
2:02
there will be like ten voices on the rights suppressed for everyone on the
2:07
left. Even if there was someone suppressed on the left, it would usually
2:10
because of an argument of two people on the left. So it was a
2:17
very big thumb on the political scale. And you know, so I think
2:24
that that there's a reason that we have the First Amendment, and that's important
2:30
to think about that why does it exist? And it exists because our people
2:37
came from countries where they could not speak freely, where if they if they
2:40
did, if they did speak their mind, they would be imprisoned or killed.
2:46
That's that's why they were so concerned about freedom of speech, is because
2:51
they didn't have it in the countries they came from, and in many places
2:53
in the world, maybe most places you don't have freedom of speech. And
2:59
you know, there's certainly no country has the protection of speech that the United
3:04
States do, is not even not even in Canada. So that's uh,
3:08
it's something we should really uh take pride in and uh and seek to preserve.
3:17
It's I mean, I think that the bedrock of democracy is freedom of
3:21
speech because if you can't if you can't say what you want to say,
3:29
then I think that's essentially put up political coercion, if you you know so.
3:36
Anyway, there's there's reason why it's there was a high urgency to amend
3:39
the Constitution with the First Amendment. It was because if you don't have freedom
3:46
of speech, you got nothing. So thank thank you for pursuing this case.
3:51
I think this is and I hope, I hope the Supreme Court takes
3:53
action. And I think it's better to be overzealous in protection of protecting free
4:00
speech than to allow it to be eroded. Yeah. No, I appreciate
4:05
that, and I appreciate you everything you've done in this market to expose some
4:12
of the wrongdoing. And it does appear that so much that you've uncovered is
4:16
corroborative of the evidence we've obtained through the discovery process. And again, look,
4:21
we're in the preliminary phases of this litigation. We did preliminary discovery to
4:27
get a preliminary injunction, but this isn't over yet. And I couldn't agree
4:30
with you more that you know. I think it was Thomas Jefferson, and
4:33
I'm paraphrasing, but essentially he said, in reference to the rights free speech,
4:38
that it is safe to tolerate error of opinion when reason is left free
4:43
to combat it. I mean, the whole idea here is that the truth
4:46
will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse. And
4:51
when you get the government censoring viewpoints, especially in the name of trying to
4:57
quote unquote protect the public from untruthed it taints that market. In this country,
5:03
the remedy for disfavored speech has always been counter speech, not so it
5:09
seems like a real betrayal of this legacy of freedom in embodied in the First
5:15
Amendment for the Biden administration to have undertaken this vast censorship enterprise. Yeah,
5:21
as I really can't emphasize enough. I think what like it's it is essential
5:28
to a functioning democracy to have freedom of speech, and it is and once
5:33
it is lost, I don't think it ever comes back. So it's it's
5:39
that's I mean, that's why it's in the constitution, that the whole point
5:44
of constitutions is to It seems like there's something wrong with this, and I
5:59
want to I want to point out too that some of the evidence going back
6:01
to this idea that the censorship was really targeted at one viewpoint, and I
6:06
think you talked about it being ten to one that conservative Republicans were targeted for
6:12
censorship as opposed to the occasional left leaning Democrat, and oftentimes it is only
6:17
because two progressives too liberals, two Democrats were arguing with one another that would
6:23
result in one of them being censored. But you know, the evidence that
6:26
we uncovered. Not only can I show you actual emails from the White House
6:30
Communications Office saying, hey, take down that Tucker Carlson video, take down
6:34
that Tommy Laren post deplatform RFK, but we can also show you that,
6:41
for instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency SISA, which we've identified as
6:46
the nerve center of this vast censorship enterprise, maintains a spreadsheet of targets for
6:55
government censorship, and I see a lot of parallels between the Global Engagement Center
7:00
and SISSA and this orchestrated campaign to eliminate one viewpoint from public discourse. This
7:06
wasn't a one off, this wasn't an isolated incident. And I think it's
7:10
really disturbing that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency was intended to protect bridges and
7:17
computer databases, and yet the director of SISSA has said publicly like that she
7:24
also is dedicated to protecting neurological infrastructure. I mean, it could not get
7:29
more or willy and and what's even more frightening is that SISA is within the
7:32
Department of Homeland Security. This is a federal agency created in the wake of
7:36
nine to eleven to protect Americans from foreign attack, and yet here it's been
7:41
weaponized against American citizens to violate our right to free speech. But you know,
7:49
yeah, I mean, I can't speak to SISS specifically, except that
7:55
there were a lot of of course, from Homeland Security, the Global Engagement
8:01
Center in the State Department, and the FBI, and that there was a
8:05
lot. I think it's unequivocented, big coersion at scale and from the White
8:09
House. So really it's it's over the top, and I really hope and
8:15
I hope the Supreme Court takes an action that gives, you know, govern
8:20
pause and it does not give them encouragement in the diminishment of free speech.
8:28
So, you know, it dawns on me too that the legacy media has
8:31
largely failed to cover so many of these stories. And it was telling it
8:37
at the Supreme Court today because Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh both latched onto this
8:41
idea that you know, the government were demanding that the print media remove certain
8:48
content or face legal repercussions. No one would tolerate that. And yet here
8:52
the legacy media is almost like an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand,
8:56
ignoring what's going on on big tech. Why is the legacy media why
9:01
do they ignore this issue? Well, I think that's that's a good question.
9:07
I mean, they're almost in unison supporting and not questioning the government.
9:13
And this is but this is a fairly new development. I mean, in
9:16
times past, the media, the legacy media, when it wasn't the legacy
9:20
media, would question the government very strongly and wouldn't trust the government. And
9:26
now we're being told to trust the government. I mean, there was a
9:31
whole, the whole sort of COVID debacle, you know, where there was
9:35
a lot of key data points on COVID that were suppressed and and and the
9:41
public was just told to trust the government and there was no questioning of the
9:46
government by by the legacy media. So I don't know, I mean,
9:52
the the sort of legacy or formerly mainstream media really seems to be largely a
10:01
chearing squad for the far left and for the government, which is is tragic.
10:07
But I mean the relevance is the declining over time. And what matters
10:13
is that, you know, for electronic media, that there is freedom of
10:18
speech because that's where people are. I mean, print newspapers are a dinosaur
10:24
and they're they're going away. And but I think that's therefore all the more
10:31
important that on what's called social media, but which is really just electronic media,
10:37
that that there not be constraints from the government and on on what people
10:45
can say. So one of the really interesting comments I heard at the Supreme
10:50
Court today was from Associate Justice Kintaji Brown Jackson when she said that it appeared
10:56
that the First Amendment was hamstringing the Government's response to an emergency, and it
11:01
kind of dawned on me that I'm not sure that Justice Jackson and I share
11:05
the same view of the purpose of the Constitution broadly. In other words,
11:11
my view of the Constitution is that it exists to protect us from the government,
11:16
and absolutely so the fact that it is hamstringing the First Amendment hamstrings the
11:22
government's ability to censor free speech is a good thing. And she she almost
11:26
characterized it as a bad thing. And yet the legacy ignores that headline altogether
11:31
in favor of talking about how skeptical the justices were of this coercion argument.
11:37
Yeah, the exactly the whole point of the Constitution is to constrain the power
11:41
of government and so that it does not tuning against the people. And that's
11:46
also something where you know, people come here from other countries where they were
11:50
used to an extremely coursive government, where then just lack freedom of speech.
11:54
They lacked many freedoms, and that's why they have the second the right to
12:00
bear arms, because one of the other things that people have in the countries
12:05
that came from is that they weren't allowed to have guns. Because the way
12:07
to suppress the population is to control the news and make sure that the population
12:13
has no guns. And the point in which you control the plow of information
12:16
and you have the weapons, you control the people. So I think both
12:24
the First and Second Amendment are actually very important, certainly, and you know,
12:31
at the end of the day, I think you're spot on that our
12:35
culture, our society has evolved to the point that electronic media has completely eclipsed
12:43
legacy print media. Certainly, you know, the way in which we receive
12:48
information has changed so much in the past ten twenty years. Give us some
12:54
context there, I mean, what is the order of magnitude in this fight?
12:58
What is truly at stake when you look at just the sheer quantity of
13:03
individuals impacted who interact and receive information from social media? Well, I think
13:11
I think at this point almost everyone is on what is called social media.
13:16
So it is it is the it is the fundamental way that most people have
13:22
any voice at all, because your alternative would be to talk to a reporter
13:28
and get an article written. And there's only you know, like, how
13:31
many articles is do the New York Times or journal watching the posts actually produced
13:35
per day? It's you know, it's a tiny number. So just getting
13:39
any voice at all, it can be difficult or impossible. So it's overwhelmingly
13:46
electronic media or social media, and social media it makes sound like a group
13:52
chat. Well, I guess maybe it is kind of a group chat.
13:54
I mean, what is X well as to kind of a group chat for
13:58
Earth. But yeah, it's uh, you know, like I mean,
14:03
there's this five hundred million posts per day something like that on on the X
14:11
platform. That's globally, so you can compare that to I don't know whether
14:16
five hundred articles uh in major newspapers less than that, So it's like a
14:22
million times it's like a million times less so. And in fact, i've
14:31
I said, one of my sons had some learning difficulties. It's kind of
14:33
kind of autistic and credit card for me. But I he he literally had
14:41
not noticed a newspaper until we were walking through an airport and he saw I
14:46
think it was Wall Street Journal or something, and he looked at the paper
14:48
and said, how did they know it was today? And I was like,
14:50
I was like, no, no, some they actually they print that
14:54
thing out every day. And he says, what they printed out every day?
15:00
What a sure? And and then he said followed up with oh,
15:05
they probably just read the Internet and print it out. I'm like, yes,
15:07
that's what they do. They almost no reporters are actually on the scene.
15:13
They literally just read the Internet and print it out. So a massive
15:16
number of the articles that are written are written as because of posts on the
15:22
X platform or posts on you know, Facebook or you know somewhere else.
15:26
But actually it seems I think overwhelmingly on the X platform, at least,
15:31
I don't see a lot of Facebook stuff based stuff, so, you know,
15:37
and Instagram is basically just an online modeling agency, so the contentions stuff
15:43
is is uh, generally on the X platform. You know, it does
15:48
seem like the newspapers, telephones, I mean, these kind of quaint historical
15:52
anachronisms that were president when I was a child, and and and you're right,
15:56
my children have no concept of what these these things are. But at
16:00
the same time, you know, and I know there's been a lot of
16:03
comparisons about certainly I think that you know, so many of these technologies like
16:10
telephone or print media, you know, these quaint historical anachronisms and the things
16:15
that I grew up with, and yet my children, like like you said,
16:18
just have no concept of what they are or the you know, the
16:21
role that they used to play in our society. But at the same time,
16:23
you know that the social media as a marketplace is different from distinguishable from
16:30
some of these past marketplaces, at least in part because of Section two thirty
16:36
of the Communications Decency Act. You know, what, what role do you
16:40
think, uh, Section two thirty of the CDA plays in making it potentially
16:45
easier for the government to make censorship demands on social media. Actually, I'm
16:52
not sure. I'm not sure I've got a good answer to that. As
16:57
a matter of law, I do think that there needs to be there does
17:03
need to be a protection of the social media companies from lawsuits for for stuff
17:10
that's on the platform. Otherwise the social media companies will be sued into oblivion.
17:15
So we have we do have a very litigious society. So I think
17:23
that it is important to have protection from being sued into oblivion or this will
17:27
simply be ceased to exist, cease to exist, or or be forced to
17:32
engage into draconian censorship out of fear of legal work percussions. So, you
17:38
know, I think we're just we need to kind of let people say what
17:41
they want to say and and I do think it's important to tap transparency and
17:48
like how the sort of recommendation altgroth works and if accounts have been suppressed in
17:56
any way, so we're actually just rolling out up so that if if someone
18:03
knows that they've they've been uh, you know, have a search ban or
18:06
whatever, or they've been incorrectly identified as not safe for work, or if
18:11
there's any kind of visibility suppression, it needs to be surfaced to the to
18:15
the account holder so they know that it's there. They shouldn't have to try
18:18
to use third parties to figure it out. Like we just we're just trying
18:22
to be as open and transparent as possible. And it's difficult to do that
18:26
because there's so many layers of code in the system. But I think we're
18:32
making steady progress and and with things like community notes, I think is a
18:36
fundamentally good thing. I really encourage people to community contribute to community notes because
18:42
that's I think that's maybe the best source of truth that I've seen on the
18:47
on the internet. Because if there's a post content on on the X platform,
18:55
in order for a community note to surface, we don't we don't delete
18:57
that content, but the community note say that that that post is false and
19:03
here's why, or it could say that post is missing important context. Here's
19:06
the added context. In order for that community note to be shown, people
19:11
who have historically disagreed must agree that the note is good in order for it
19:15
to be shown, and that that's the That's just sort of the the key
19:19
magic there with community notes, and also important to emphasize community notes, the
19:25
software is completely open source. There's no there's there's nothing hidden, and the
19:30
data is completely open source, so you can recreate independently exactly how a note
19:34
was written and and how it was surfaced, so you know that. Yeah,
19:40
so that's I think really pretty helpful. Yeah. I mean, I
19:45
again, in keeping with your history and legacy of innovation, I mean,
19:49
you're the what you've done with X is truly innovative. I mean in the
19:55
way in which you're both balancing what you're balancing the protection of consumers and customers
20:00
while simultaneously promoting freefare and open debate. Are these best practices that you feel
20:07
like other social media companies could adopt or I mean, are some of the
20:11
transplannable Yeah? I mean, actually, I think what what what we the
20:17
government should be trying to do is insist that social media companies UH make their
20:22
recommendation algorithm transparent, open source, and that they that there'll be no hidden
20:30
censorship. So like any censorship actions, like in any suppression of an account
20:37
or a suspension of account, should be visible to that account and be visible
20:41
to like public, like you can actually find out that this has happened.
20:45
Like there's currently a massive amount of hidden censorship that that is done by by
20:49
Google and by frankly also by Facebook and Instagram and and so then people have
20:59
no idea about by the the Google censorship might be the most pernicious because it's
21:03
very easy for them to just nudge a link onto the second page. And
21:06
there's that old joke of what's the best place to you know, hide a
21:11
dead body, Well it's the second page at Google search results, because nobody
21:14
ever looks there. So that's that's pretty important to you know, say hey,
21:18
to Google, nudge a search result to the second page, because that'll
21:23
drop how many people see it by factor of ten or more, maybe one
21:27
hundred. So there's a whole bunch of that happening. It's very subtle,
21:32
and so you can't it's it's it's much harder to detect than say, account
21:34
suspension. So I think that's what the government should be fighting for. Should
21:38
be fighting for transparency. It should be fighting for individual rights and allowing people
21:45
to say what they want to say within as the law and as opposed to
21:48
trying to center and suppress people's opinions. Yeah what, And you know,
21:56
I think that the opening Twitter and releasing the Twitter files and again so much
22:03
of it corroborates what we've learned through the discovery process and our lawsuit Missouri v.
22:08
Biden that the Supreme Court is is you know, it's been submitted at
22:12
this point to the Supreme Court after oral argument today. But you know,
22:15
this is just one fight, one front in the fight for free speech.
22:19
Do you see other fronts opening out there? I mean, certainly we've seen
22:23
corporate pressure campaigns to try to eliminate safe spaces for freefare and open debate.
22:30
I mean, what else in the fight there is? There's a bit of
22:34
a challenge with advertisers where pressure groups will, you know, like various non
22:45
sort of charities and NGOs, non governmental entities, organizations will get together and
22:51
then they will attack advertisers who advertise on say the X platform or some other
22:56
platform in order to starve the company's revenue and actually Facebook, you know,
23:03
to give like some credit. He did try to actually fight off the advertise
23:08
advertisers censorship, but I think he ultimately did give in. They loss of
23:14
billions of dollars in revenue. So, you know, advertisers, if you're
23:18
like a you know, sort of household name brand, you really just you
23:23
just really don't want to have any strife. So, uh, they tend
23:29
to freak out if some activist organizations get some article written about how they're advertising
23:34
nextra content that's bad, and then that tends that tends to kind of panic
23:40
and then and poors they're advertising. So we had a lot of that on
23:45
the X platform. You know, about two thirds of our US advertising was
23:51
suspended or it just went on pours. They we said, it's a boycott
23:56
that I don't want to say this boycott. It is just pours, except
23:57
the poors never ends. So if we had not been able to reduce our
24:03
costs dramatically, the X would have, you know, formally, Twitter would
24:07
have gone bankrupt. And that's fully what they were trying to do. They
24:11
were trying to drive the company to bankruptcy, which obviously is major suppression of
24:15
free speech. So so basically chain of events is like these, like the
24:22
so called charities and angios that pressure that the pressure advertises via the legacy media,
24:30
and the advertisers gets kiddish and suspend their advertising and effectively it becomes a
24:37
boycott. So that's that's a pretty big deal. Actually, that's something that
24:40
should be dealt with. So there might be some Rico Act violations there,
24:48
Yeah, certainly. And you know, one of the other ways I've looked
24:49
at it is from the standpoint of, you know, a potential anti trust
24:55
issue where you've got this market manipulation at you know what level of coordination and
25:00
whom does that benefit. So certainly you know that these are new experiences in
25:06
an evolving marketplace. But you know, I think I wanted to go back
25:11
to one of the things he said that I think really struck a chord with
25:14
me, and it's that it dawns on me that the First Amendment protects not
25:18
only speakers but listeners. So like our right to free speech, it's not
25:22
just our right to say something, but the right of the people to hear
25:26
something. And so when you get speech suppressed on x or on Facebook.
25:30
You know, not only are the people making the posts their rights are violated,
25:34
but anyone who would have reviewed that information. It's almost when you look
25:37
at Google and the deep platforming de emphasizing shadow banning, like like you said,
25:44
hiding things on the second page of the Google search. I mean it's
25:48
a shadowy suppression of ideas. Yeah. Absolutely, you could drive an entire
25:53
viewpoint from public discourse and the world may never know. Yes, exactly it
26:02
might be with having some people say if your words, I see Mike Ben's
26:07
is there and he's got lots to say about this sort of stuff. Maybe
26:11
we could have Mike say a few words, Hey, how you doing.
26:15
Thanks for having me on and I appreciate. Uh, this is a fascinating
26:19
conversation. And Andrew, thank you so much for spearheading this fight. You
26:25
know, this is I hope the entire galactic universe is sending their spirit energy
26:30
to you this week. You are the tip of the spear and this I
26:33
think if if this action had been brought years ago, we might not be
26:37
in the position we're in. There's a few things that I just wanted to
26:41
maybe relay for your sort of strategic consideration and for the education of the audience,
26:47
and that is, you know, with respect. You know, I
26:49
heard the dialogue about the role of the media in this and questions about why
26:53
the media is not, you know, taking up the issue, and that
26:57
gets to another another thing that I think would be really helpful to be able
27:03
to stress with respect to convincing justices. If you agree with this strategic assessment,
27:08
which is the whole of society model that the government set up, is
27:14
definitive proof of coercion and collusion, and it's the government's own words, so
27:21
you don't even need to establish it as some novel theory. So El was
27:30
speaking about the State Department's Global Engagement Center, which was created in twenty fourteen,
27:34
initially to take on ISIS, to give the State Department a way to
27:41
censor ISIS recruiters on Facebook and Twitter. It was really the first ever formal
27:45
government censorship office, but it was supposed to be foreign facing. And then
27:48
after the twenty sixteen election, that same network around the State Department's Global Engagement
27:52
Center. This is basically a group called the Atlantic Council, which is a
27:56
big backer of Biden World. Not to make things political but this is what
28:00
they did. They had these planning documents with how to set up a censorship
28:03
office within the Department of Homeland Security, and they proposed first putting at the
28:07
State Department's Global Engagement Center, but said, hey, that's too far in
28:11
facing. Maybe we could park it an intelligence agency like the CIA or the
28:15
FBI. They ultimately decided on DHS, which would combine essentially this foreign facing
28:21
media power that the CIA has with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI, with
28:26
DHS being the only other domestic intelligence equity besides the FBI that would be able
28:32
to take on speech. And because the FBI is the intelligence arm of the
28:36
Justice Department, they didn't think the FBI was the appropriate place to park this
28:40
SISA operation because it's not illegal to tweet about mail in ballots or vaccine negative
28:48
efficacy or whatnot. And so they created this very deliberately. Now DHS documents,
28:53
starting in late twenty eighteen contemplated the construction. Not just contemplated, they
29:00
planned, and they held entire meetings to create this whole of society model,
29:04
which in their view, fuses together the government, the private sector, civil
29:10
society, and media. In four quadrants to act in unison for censorship activity.
29:15
That is, the government would provide funding and coordination the civil society institutions
29:22
like the university centers which function as these sort of mercenary firms. These are
29:26
places like the Stanford Airne Observatory and the University of Washington and MIT and Harvard,
29:32
that they would put pressure on the private sector institutions, that is the
29:36
platforms. And this is what Twitter one point zero. We saw this in
29:38
the Twitter files. In many other cases, they were complaining about all the
29:41
pressure from civil society, from the universities, from the NGOs, from the
29:45
nonprofits, from the community leaders and activist groups. But the fourth quadrant was
29:49
the media. In twenty sixteen, when the censorship industry was getting constructed,
29:55
the media was facing two sources of pressure. One is, their revenues were
29:59
being squeezed by online media. They were being out competed by citizen journalism.
30:03
And because citizen journalists don't have to pay these vast staffs and the content was
30:08
free and even more popular, they faced a commercial threat from these, you
30:14
know, from alternative news. At the same time, forces within the US
30:18
government, through this whole society society model, were onboarding these media organizations to
30:25
join the whole society censorship alliance, so they had both a commercial and a
30:29
political impetus to engage in, not just engage in, but to actively support
30:36
at all measures these censorship activities. And the government even contemplated how the media
30:41
could be used as another source of pressure to induce criseses on the platforms and
30:48
that might could contribute to advertiser boycotts. In fact, there's a September twenty
30:52
eighteen DHS document that specifically talked about how these kind of advertiser boycotts might be
31:00
marshaled by supporting institutions like NewsGuard, when when it was just in its infancy,
31:04
NewsGuard is a professional advertiser boycotting company. So you have this whole society
31:11
model, which which by itself, you know, establishes the censorship laundering process.
31:18
And you know, if you go to the top of my timeline right
31:19
now at Mike ben Cyber for anyone listening, you'll see at the very top
31:25
of it, I have a two and a half minute supercut of government officials
31:29
from DHS, from the State Department, from the Pentagon, from USAID,
31:33
one by one, all the different because the formal title is whole society,
31:37
whole of government. This is when Elon was referring to the you know,
31:41
to the fact that it's bigger than just DHS, and it's bigger than just
31:44
the State Department's Flow of Engagement Center. It was because after DHS established this
31:48
office, as you know ag Bailey laid out, DHS did serve as that
31:53
nerve center from from twenty nineteen through twenty twenty two. But they you know,
31:59
the former title was whole society, whole of government, being every government
32:01
institution was tasked to lend its own proprietary resources, whether that's in censorship funding
32:07
like the National Science Foundation, censorship pressure like the FBI, censorship a policy
32:14
coordination like DHS, or censorship outsourcing like the Pentagon in the State Department.
32:19
So this is now a whole you know, what's an issue here in terms
32:22
of censorship laundering in this case is whether this whole society model is valid.
32:30
And one thing that I would just propose another thing strategically is you know,
32:34
I heard this argument today in the oral argument about narrow tailoring. Another video
32:37
I just put at the top of my timeline is a proposal. And again
32:40
this is just for your consideration, you know, Andrew and everyone else on
32:45
your team. One way that you can slice through that narrow tailoring question is
32:50
to look at the propaganda versus censorship model or dichotomy as being knob upturning and
32:58
knob downturning and proposing a constitutional limit on the ability to act as essentially a
33:05
hedge fund, if you will, and the analogy that I draw here,
33:07
And this will be the last thing I'll say, because thank you for your
33:08
time. I appreciate you letting me speak here. But you know, there
33:12
are financial there are limits on financial institutions around mutual funds. For example,
33:15
mutual funds are these huge, huge endowments of money, and because of their
33:20
size and the nature of what they're entrusted to protect, they're limited from short
33:23
selling. You know, mutual funds can only go long. They are barred
33:28
by law from engaging in short selling because of what would happen to the market
33:31
if that much money, with that many people's pension funds were to go short
33:37
and attack a stock to a Baar rate on a stock. Now, hedge
33:42
funds have more flexibility. The US government always had a sort of mutual fund
33:46
model when it comes to propaganda, they're going to argue, well, we're
33:51
going to the government needs to be able to get its message out. If
33:54
they think that vaccines are safe and effective, they need to be able to
33:57
get their message out. If they think, you know, creation of an
34:00
election mail and ballots are safe and secuity, they need to get the message
34:02
out. If they want a message on the Ukraine War, they need to
34:05
get the message out. You can leave that intact by saying yes, okay,
34:09
the mutual fund model is sufficient not upturning. You know, there may
34:15
be some room there, but when it comes to knob downturning, they can't
34:17
act as essentially a sort of hedge fund and solve their problem with respect to
34:24
coordinating with government officials by short selling or by laundering short selling, laundering censorship,
34:31
downturning through the whole society, whether that's the private sector of the civil
34:36
society or the media allies. All right, I mean, if I could
34:44
just hope one thing with respect to the Supreme Court decision is that they err
34:47
on the side of free speech. It's really that it's not going to be
34:51
a clean cut thing either way, but it's just if you've got to make
34:53
you know, give one thing, the benefit of the doubt. I think
34:57
we've got to give benefit of the doubt. Benefit of the doubt has got
34:59
to go to more freedom of speech, not less, because there's there's a
35:05
steady encroachment on freedom of speech as it is, and so and we have
35:10
we they certainly even if if there's if some people think there isn't any fire,
35:15
there's certainly a lot of smoke, and I think there is fire actually
35:20
with respect to impunishment our free speech. So I just hope that the Supreme
35:25
Court comes down with with erring on the side of freedom of speech. This
35:30
is really, I think the right move for the future. I think we
35:35
can't have a functioning democracy if people can't speak their mind. And so I
35:39
sure hope that happened. Let's see this. There's a few others maybe that
35:43
are worth going from. I don't think we've got time for for everyone,
35:46
but let's see. Uh, I guess Alex at Alex and Brian and uh,
35:59
let's see if that's what Sorry, guys, I think Alex and Brian,
36:05
I think both of you guys were at some point suspended. Yep,
36:08
yeah, is that accurate. Yes, we both were in April of twenty
36:15
twenty. Never got a real clear answer on that one, but it came
36:20
suspiciously after I posted a Joe Biden meme where it was, you know,
36:27
one of those generated things where people would say like I support Joe Biden and
36:30
it would be their profile picture. So I made it into a meme and
36:34
say supports Joe Biden for president. And then twenty minutes later I was suspended,
36:38
and suspiciously when the Twitter files came out, it was the same sort
36:44
of meme that someone else was targeted. It wasn't my post, but somebody
36:49
else. I think James Woods had his requested the DNC. Yeah exactly.
36:57
It's fun, which accounts a getting suspended for me? You know you've got
37:00
a problem, Yeah exactly. And then and then we had somebody actually be
37:04
arrested for for memes at the behest of the Biden do OJ But I know
37:07
that's an entirely different issue, but still, yeah, memes are criminal these
37:13
days. It's worth you're you're generally on your Democrat and outspoken Democrats, so
37:20
it's helpful for people to know that my my band was kind of unique.
37:27
So they said that I was banned for buying my account and ed was two.
37:34
We didn't actually buy our accounts though, and it would be interesting if
37:37
you have actual documentation on this that you could go back and actually view.
37:42
We contacted x or Twitter at the time through our legal team, which was
37:49
just two lawyers that we hired, UH and we we considered suing Twitter for
37:53
defamation. Do they put out a statement saying that'll be we were buying interactions
37:58
and faking our engage. And when we contacted Twitter, they basically told us
38:05
that they thought that we bought our account and they made a sign like a
38:10
non disclosure agreement saying that we can't share anything in which I have since after
38:15
you purchased the company. I was like, Elon's not going to sue me
38:20
for this, but I have. I hope you don't at least, so
38:28
we did find out that they thought we actually purchased our accounts. We showed
38:32
them the emails from twenty ten from when we actually registered the accounts. But
38:37
the reason they thought we purchased the accounts was because we had the accounts in
38:44
twenty ten and we changed the names a couple of times, like various things
38:47
that were totally off topic from what we eventually used them for and before we
38:52
changed them to our name currently, so they had reason to believe it it
38:57
wasn't worth a lawsuit because they does public figures, and our lawyer tended to
39:02
agree that we probably would be a public figure, and we have to prove
39:06
malice. I don't think it was malicious, but but yeah, I mean,
39:12
I think Twitter was heavy handed. I disagree with them banning so many
39:17
right leaning accounts. Even though I disagree with those accounts, I'm happy that
39:22
you took over and you straighten that out. Of course, I don't agree
39:25
with everything everybody says, but I also don't think that a company should be
39:31
the one deciding what's right to be posted and what's not. Yeah, absolutely
39:37
exactly. It's I mean, the you know, situation with access often characterized
39:44
as sort of a right wing takeover, but really it's out characterized as a
39:46
moderate wing takeover in that there's, like the best of my knowledge, no
39:53
no prominent democrat account or you know, left leaning account has been suspended or
40:00
if there is a happy to you know, happy to fix that. But
40:05
I don't think that's the case. Just that it's that that we we did
40:07
not suspend voices on the right, and we allow those accounts to come back
40:15
on. So but it's it's gonna bee. It will it will be seen
40:21
as a move to the right because it was so far left. If you
40:23
moved, if you moved to the center from the far left, it will
40:25
look it is I guess I moved to the right, but it's really just
40:29
moved to the center. At least that's that's the aspiration. Now, now
40:31
I have my you know, my own my own views, which personal views
40:36
on cuffect, which you know, I'll continue to speak in my mind as
40:39
I sort of see if the independent of the the platform, but the platform
40:44
with itself is intended to be fair and even handed and not biased towards any
40:51
one account or any any viewpoint