E107: The Twitter Files Parts 1-2: shadow banning, story suppression, interference & more
01:13:50 Share

You were bloated last night.

What else is knew, said not load. My god.

you really are though. You look gloated.

Listen, that's coming for you. You started to look like bird and now you're back to earning your face is getting round again. All I have to say is, hold on a second, guys, I gotta drink. Is that okay?

You guys got a minute for .

me to get.

No, no, i'm i'm actually, you've been working on my way, so I just a pick your right. I think I have the moca lotte from super god. They also have the chocolate check. Do you have a recommendation here for me? Freed's ook.

because I am going to put IT in my coffee. Moko.

on a moko. You, you can go on. Thank double topic. Did to invest? No.

haven't invested yet. But use the promote code.

okay， it's been a big .

part of my weight loss journey. It's also been a big part of me and freedom, uh, becoming basis and creating a unified block for all in summer twenty twenty three. So i've got two solid votes.

I'll be very honest. You guys give me a credible plan where we can maintain the integrity.

好的。

好的。

continue. You two idiots.

i'm not involved.

Yes, you are .

involved with this. Just great.

important .

vote. Hold you, David. You two idiots need to .

come up with a plan .

where we can each make make four million box each net, then i'll do IT four million net.

Okay, great.

Look out if he respects a contract for jack.

the negotiation begins at the point where there's a sign contract. So okay, now no go, he was. we.

man.

We open sources to the fans and .

just got razing.

Everybody, the show has started. The four of us are still here by some miracle, we're still going after one hundred seven episodes is that it's Better than ever. Last week were a number twelve. So main tree media, we'll see you in the top .

ten main media.

Here we go. Twitter files. Part one to drive.

despite your oppressive conditions, are not spare .

conditions making you show up on time.

Yeah, if I would get five paid five box for this, i'd be on strike right now.

Guys, not all you getting five bux, you're getting a bill for the production.

Okay, here we go, right? How the beautiful is IT that the same importers who couldn't stop writing about the impressive working conditions that ellam was supposedly creating because he simply wanted the employees to go back to the office and work card. And if they didn't, he gave a general three months, several package. Yeah, the same reporters are now on strike because the souls burgers are running a click by farm over there.

With the press of working conditions, the intellectual dishonesty has never been higher in the world.

Looking honesty? yes. Will the publisher of the new york times agree that anybody who isn't happy there can have a voluntary three .

months seven package? Yeah, I click this link. And do you want to work hard? Or do you want three month seven?

If the new york times publisher did that, you know what would happen? Eight hundred and twelve hundred people would take the severs, of course, are, here we go. Twitter files have dropped.

Part one dropped with the legendary, award winning, highly respected journalist, matt tii. If you don't know who he is, he is a left leaning journalist who worked at rolling stone and did the best coverage, hands down, of the financial crisis and the sanctions. And he held truth to power to that group.

This is important to note. The second drop was given to borrow wise, who is of a right leaning independent. Journalists are both independent journalists.

SHE previously worked at the new york times itself. Now I think we should work backwards from two to one. Do you agree? Yes.

for sure. Let's start with the drop that just happened last night.

So last night, a drop happened. So here's what happens in twitter files. Part two, i'm going to give a basic summary, then i'm going to give IT to sex because he's chomping at the bit.

We now have confirmation that what the right thought was happening all along, which is a secret silencing system built into the software of blacklist, was tagging right wing conservative voices in the system. And these included people like dan, uh, bon ji o is that he pronounce IT? Yes, he was tagged with being on a search black.

What that means is you're a fan of dance who is a former secret service agent who is now a right wing conservative. I just A A conservative instead of wing, a conservative radio host, podcast host. He was not allowed to be found in search engine for some reason.

Charlie kirk, who is a conservative commentator he was tagging with, do not amplify. I guess that means you can't trend into people's feds even if they follow you. And then there were people who are banned from the trends blacklist, including a stanford professor, j. Bottle chara, did I get IT right?

Can I get rid? Safet will medicine.

And he was not allowed on the trend black list because he had its a sending opinion. A stanford professor had a the same .

uncover a that turned out to be true.

And this is where the danger comes in because all of these actions s were taken without any transparency, and they were taken on one side of the IO by people inside of twitter, essentially covertly, no ownership of who did IT. And they never told the people they guessed, let them. They could see their own tweet, they could use the service, but they couldn't be seen, even by their own fans, in many cases. Here, sax, when you look at that, let you start with that first peace, the shadow banning as is called uh in our industry where you can participate in a community but you can be seen or any is there any .

circumstances .

er which this tool would make sense for you to deploy and then which your general take on what we have been discovered last night?

Okay, look, yes, you may start with westmin discover here. Let me boiled IT down for you. This is an F, T, X level fraud. Except that what was stolen here was not customer funds. IT was their free speech rights, not just the rights of people like janti a and dam bonga to speak, but the right of the public to hear them in the way that they expected. okay.

And you had statement after a statement by twitter executives alike, jack or sea like vigia, god like you, U L and other other saying we do not shadow bin and then they also said, we certainly this is their emphasis, do not shut bear on the basis of political viewpoint. And what the twitter file show is, that is exactly what they were doing. They in the same way that S, P, F was using f, tx.

And customer funds as a personal piggy bank. They were using twitter as their personal ideological piggy bank. They were going in to the tools and using the content moderation system, these big brother like tools that were designed to basically put their thun on the scale of american democracy and suppress view points that they not agree with and they did not like, even when, even when they could not justify removing content based on their own rules.

So there are conversations in the slack that very wise exposed where, for example, lives live tiktok. They admit in the slack that we can't suppress libs PH tiktok based on our hey policy. Libs v tiktok isn't violated IT. We're going to suppress that.

And now it's important to note what lives of tiktok does. This is a great talking point. Libs of tiktok finds, uh, people who are trans, people who are, you know, maybe not L, G, B, T, Q. And they feature their tiktok and they mock them on twitter. Now there certainly is free speech, and the argument from the safety team was, by putting all of these together, your insight, violence towards those people, and they said they haven't broken a rule, but collectively they could be in some way targeting those people. Is there anything fair freeburg to that statement that .

they targeted them by collecting there.

let's say, views that are i'm i'm asking this question for discussion purposes. I'm not giving my check. Hold on.

I want freeburg h i'm going .

to go back to you spoke for two minutes.

That's why freeburg .

you turn down .

moderating .

S F analogy. Okay, then you, then you can both sides this.

your speaking s on you then yeah.

Why did people like got and U, L. Deny that they were engaged in shadow banning, even though that's clearly what they were doing? Because they knew that they had obligation to be stewards of the public trust.

They were custodians of public trust. They knew they were violated that trust the same way that sbf had a duty to be custodians of his customers funds. They did not implement their own policies that they said they are implementing.

why? Because they were suppressing accounts that personally offended them, that personally they disagreed with and they wanted to deprive the public of the right to here right now, the they're justifying this all on the way that the media is today. Justifying IT is their points of your provisions in the terms of use around spam accounts.

Things like that saying, oh, well, the terms of use show that they have the right to do this. This is like the margin account. okay? They do not have the right to use these tools in this way. okay? The jay bota was not posting spam.

Tell me much faster.

I dos IT doesn't.

And I here, radio, most of IT has been proven .

correct completely. He was opposed to lockdown. Wn, that was the great barrington declaration, and they suppressed IT.

What is the justification? Ation, so now you have to answer my question. Then things I want you to answer are so interesting to talking. I want him to answer one question, then it's going to your freezer sex.

Should lives of tiktok be able to collect, uh, trans people, uh, living their life, making tiktok put them into a group, feed, mark them. And if those people experience harassment because of IT, is that something that twitter should allow? I'm asking you this without giving my opinion. I'm curious your opinion specifically for the lives of tiktok. Since you open that door and you wanted to break up that very thorny, I should go listen.

So a list of tiktok. My understanding of that account is that they only take videos that have already been made public by another. They're all public.

They're all in the public domain, and then they repost them. Sometimes they make a snarky comment, but usually they just let them stand on their own. That is not a violation of free speech. Now, the way that I think these twitter executives have been interpreted is that they ve in such a bubble, and they live in IT with such privilege entitlement that they think that when their point of view gets criticize or chAllenge that that in and of itself is harassment, that's not, that is public debate. And they want to make themselves and their points of view immune to public debate in the way that they do that is that they claim that any critical is harassment.

It's not if an aggregate, final, final follow up, if an aggregate those people report being and have evidence of being. Her asked, what did twitter do?

Listen, if somebody is harass, i'm fine. We're taking that down. But being publicly criticized or simply retweeted is not harassment. okay? Harassment needs be targeted and IT needs be more than just public criticism or even a starkly comment .

here or there and so you don't consider a not know A A A daily feed of trans people being uh, mocked. You don't consider that target harassment. Got IT don't listen .

to me about IT listen to twitter own slack files about IT. They knew that the account that lives of tiktok was not violating the rules yet. They suppressed that they've suspended at six times. They knew they were on shaky ground.

They wanted to do IT anyway because it's harassment. That's why they did IT, but IT is a thorny freedom of speech. I should I .

agree with you, I think think I think sax has articulated a vision for the product he wanted twitter to be, but I don't think that's necessarily the product that they wanted to create. It's not that twitter set out at the time or stated clearly that they were going to be the harbinger of truth and the free speech platform for all.

I think they were really clear and they have been in their behavior and as you know, demonstrated through the stuff that came out, which to me feels a lot like a we already knew all this stuff. This is a bit of a nothing burger that they were creating and they were um editing and they were editorializing. Other people's content and the ranking of content in the same way that many other internet platforms do to create what they believe to be their best user experience for the users that they want to appeal to.

And i'll say like there's been this long debate uh and IT goes back twenty years at this point on how google does ranking, right? I mean, you guys may remember jermy stoppelman went to D. C, and he complained about how google was using his content and he wasn't being ranked higher enough as google's own content that was being shoved in the wrong place.

And there was a guy who ran kind of, he was a spokesperson for the S. O. The search engine optimization rules at google. And IT was always the secret of google.

How do the search results get ranked? And I can tell you, it's not just a pure algorithm. There was a lot of manual intervention, a lot of manual work.

In fact, the manual work gets to be the to the point that they said, there's so much stuff that we know is that is the best content and the best form of content for the user experience that they ranked IT IT all the way at the top and they called that the one box is the stuff that its above the primary search results and that editorializing ultimately LED to a product that they intended to make because they believe that was a Better user experience for the users that they wanted to service. And I don't think that that that this is any different than what's happened had twitter. Twitter is not a government agency.

They're not a free speech. They are not the internet. There are product and the product managers and the people that run that, that product team ultimately made some edits al decisions that said, this is the content we do want to show and this is the content we don't want to show.

And they certainly did wrap up um you know a bunch of rules that had a lot of a way for what they could or couldn't do or they gave themselves a lot of different excuses on how to do IT. I don't agree with IT. It's not the product I want.

It's not the product I think um should exist. I think elon also saw that and clearly, he stepped in and said, I want to make a product that is a different product than what is being created today. So none of this feels to me like these guys were the guardians of the internet and they came along and they were just crosser.

They did exactly what they what a lot of other companies have done and exactly what they set out to do. And the editorialized the product for a certain user group. And by the way, they never block, they never edited people's tweet.

They change how people's results were showing up in rankings. They showed how viral they were get in the trend box. Those were in APP features and in APP services. This was not about taking someone's tweet and changing IT.

And people may feel shamed and they may feel, you know uh upset about the fact that they were directed uh or they were kind of quote, shadow and but ultimately, um that's the product they chose to make and people have the choice of the option of going elsewhere. And I don't agree with IT and it's not the product I want. It's not a product I want to use. And I certainly don't feel happy in IT.

So you want to see the product in. You want free work to to summer. You want to see the free market do its job.

7 mah。 You worked at facebook. Facebook seems to have done, I would say, an excEllent job with content moderation. I think in large part crack me if I am wrong because of the real name's policy. Uh but you tell us what you think um you know when you look at this and the fifteen year history of social media and moderation.

I think moderation is incredibly difficult. And typically what happens is early on in a company's life cycle. And I am in a guess that twitter and youtube were very similar to what we did at facebook and it's very similar to probably what tiktok had to do in the early days, which is you have this massive title wave of usage.

And so you're always on a little bit of a hamster real. And so you build these very basic tools and you uncover problems along the way. And so I think it's important to humanize the people that are twitter because i'm not sure that there are these super nefarious actors persave.

I do think that they were conflicted. I do think that they made some very corrupting decisions, but I don't think that they were these evil actors OK. I think that they folks who, against the title wave of usage, built some brittle tools built on top of them, built on top of IT, some more and try to find a way of coping.

And as scale increased, they didn't have an opportunity to take a step back in recent. And I think that, that's true for all of these companies. And so you're just seeing IT out in the light what's happening at twitter, but don't for a second thing that any other company behaved any differently.

Google, facebook, twitter, bite dancing, tiktok, they're all the same. They're all dealing with this problem. They're all probably trying to do a decent job of IT as best as they know how.

So what do we do from here is the question, okay, the reason somebody needs to do something about this is summarized really allegedly in this jail butterfly, a tweet. So please, nick, just throw IT up yours so that we can just talk about this. This is why I think that this issue is important.

Critically.

this is a perfect twin. Still trying to process my emotions on learning that twitter blacklisted me. okay? Who cares about that? Cares what matters? The thought that will keep me up tonight, censorship of scientific discussion, permitted policies like school closures and the generation of children were heard.

Now just think about that. And the new child. What was jay butteridge to do? Maybe he was supposed to go on tiktok and try to sound the alarm bells through a tiktok. Maybe he was supposed to go on youtube and create a video. Maybe he was supposed to go on facebook and you post into a facebook group or do a new feed post the.

The problem is that, and the odds are reasonably likely that a lot of these companies had very similar policies in this example around covet misinformation because IT was the cdc and you know governor organizations directing you know information rules reaching out to all of these companies, right? So we're just seeing an insight to twitter. But the point is that happened everywhere. The implication of suppressing information like this is that a credible individual like that can't Spark a public debate and is not being able to Spark the debate. You have this building up of errors in the system.

And then who gets hurt in this example, which is true, is like you couldn't even talk about school closures and masking up front and early in the system, if you had scientists actually debated maybe what would have happened as we would have kept the schools open and you would have had less learning laws, and you'd have less depression and less over prescription of, you know, riddling natural, because those are all factual things we can measure today. So I think the important thing to take away from all of this is we've got confirmatory evidence that whether there you, these folks, under a tight wave of pressure, made some really bad decisions and the implications are pretty broad reaching. And now I do think governments have to step in and create Better guard rails.

So this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I don't buy the whole. It's if you know private company, they can do what they want. I think that that is too naive of an expectation for how important these three companies literally are to how americans consume and progress information to make decision.

Incredibly well said, such a reaction to your best is I largely go with what jo said.

but let's go back to what freeboard sex. I think what free birds point of view is is really what you're hearing now from the mainstream media today, which is, oh, nothing to see here. You know that they told us how long was happening.

This was just content moderation in the right to do this. You're making a big deal over nothing. No, that's not true.

Go back and look at the media cover. Starting in two thousand eighteen, article after article said that the idea of shadow banning was a right wing conspiracy theory. That's what they said.

Furthermore, jack dorsey denied the shadow beating was happening, including at a congressional hearing. I believe under oath. So either he lied or he was lied to by his supporting that I actually believe that the latter is possible.

I think I don't think true with sb. F, I might be true with jack, because you so checked out. Furthermore, you had people again, like vigia goi again tweet and repeatedly stating we do not chatto a band and we certainly don't chat band on the basis of political viewpoint.

So these people were denied exactly what their critics were saying. They were accusing their critics of being conspiracy theory. Now that the thing is proven, the mountain of evidence has dropped.

They're saying, oh, this is old news. This was not a long time ago. No, IT was not known a long time ago.

I was disputed by you. And now finally, it's proven and you're trying to say it's not a big deal. IT is a big deal. It's a violation of the public trust. And if you are so proud of your content moderation policies, why didn't you admit what you were doing in the first place?

It's like that you feel good that you, Lance, running this business. Now, I mean, like the things that you're concerned about as a user, as someone who cares about the public's access to knowledge, uh, to opinions, uh, to free speech, this is gotta a good change, right? Like this is come to light.

It's clearly going to a get resolved. Everyone's going to move forward. I mean, I think that there's penalties needed for the people that work there. Like what? What's the anger?

Because no, you want. Like, I think I look, I think we've got I think we basically got extremely lucky you that elon must happen to care about free speech and decided to do something about IT and actually had the means to do something about IT. He's just about the only billionaire who has that level of means who actually cared enough to take on this battle.

And I think you are I deserved place for that. But I mean, unless you on can buy every single tech company, which you clearly can't, I think you guys are right. This is in a of other are .

about to rewrite the government, the united city government is going to make an attempt to be right section to thirty. I think that what this does is put a very fine point on a comment that elon actually tweet out and nick, you could find that please. That's a very good tweet where he said going forward you will be able to see if you were shadow band, you are able to see if you are the boosted why and be able to appeal.

And I think that that concept, to be very honest with you, should be ensured in law. And I think that should be part of the section to thirty rewrite and all of these media companies and all of these social media companies should be subject to IT. And the reason is because IT tires a lot of these concepts together and says, look, you can build a service.

Your private company make as much money as you want, but we're going to have some connective tissue back to the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, which is the framework under which we all live. And we're gna transparently lie to understand that. And I think that's really reasonable.

Make that illegal expectation of all these organizations. Wait, the companies, the companies will love IT because I think it's super hard for you to be in these companies. And they probably, like, take this responsibility of my place.

This is very simple. This is a there's really four problems that occur red here. Number one, there was no transparency. The people who were shadow band taken out of search eeta, they did not know if they were told and IT was clear to users we could have a discussion about.

Was that a fair judgment or not in the cases we've seen so far from barry wise reporting in the twitter files part do? It's very clear that these were not justifiable. Number two, these were not evenly enforced.

It's very clear that one side, because we don't have one example of a person on the left being censored when we if we do, then we could put balls and strikes together and we can say how many people on one side versus how many than the other. It's pretty clear what happened here because these all occurred with a group of people working at twitter, which is ninety six or ninety per 7 percent left leaning。 The statistics are clear.

Number three, the shadow banning and the search banning. And I think this is something we talked about previously, chmagh. IT feels very underhanded. This is your point. If we're going to block people, they should be blocked and they should know why.

The fourth piece of this, which is absolutely infuriating, and this is a discussion that myself, sex and you all have had many times about this moderation and am not speaking at a school now because he is now very public with his position and and you know, his position he came to on his own. It's not like this is sax and I in coming of this position. This is why elon about the business if you really want to intellectually uh, test, you're thinking on this.

And I M A moderate whose left leaning, I can tell you there's a simple way for anybody who is debating the validity of the concern. Cy, imagine Rachel meta, or as a klein, whoever your favorite less leaning pundit is. Was shadow banned by a group of writing moderators who were acting covertly and without any transparency? How would you feel if metal reporting on, you know, uh, all the russian coordination with trumps campaign did this? Or as reclined with whatever topics sea covers, and you will very quickly find yourself inferiority.

And you should then intellectually, as we say on this program, steal manning. If you argue the other side, it's infuriating for either side to experience this. And that is what the two a thirty to change needs to batch him off your exactly correct.

If you make a an action, you should be listed on the person's profile page and on the tweet. And if you click on the question mark, you should see when the action was taken by who, you know, which department, maybe, maybe not the person. So they they get person attack.

And then what the resolution to IT is. This has been banned because it's targeted harassment. This can be resolved in this way.

Then everybody's behavior would steer towards whatever the stated purpose of that social network is. You can get Better behavior by making the rules clear. By making the rules unclear and making IT unfair.

You create this insane situation. Go ahead, you off. And that's why I am. If you did about IT.

I think you have to take IT one step further to really do justice to why this should be important to everybody. And I do think this school example IT really matters to me.

Like we have, like I don't know now we know what the count of factual is, which which is that we have I mean, we've relegated our children to a bunch of years of really complicated relearning and learning that they never had to go through because of all the learning laws they gave him. But what if j button charier, whose that mean? Like you can't be, you know have a higher sort of role in society in terms of popular credentials.

I mean, imagine if if you know there was a platform where he could have actually said this and that you know people would have climbed and said, you know what you and fought, you need to get to the bottom of this. Or where legislators could have seen IT and said, you know what, before we make a decision like this, maybe he fouche would go talk to jay because he's a stand for proof. He's probably not an idiot.

Why does he think that? Or maybe let's convene, you know, an actual group of twenty or thirty scientists. And the fact that this one version of thinking about things was deem so headover ical IT is just such a good example. They shut down an important conversation. You know, that the decision was so wrong and the damage was so severe. So we know what happened by surprising that speech and that's one ample, but it's in in my in my estimation that is the silver bullet example that cleaned through all of this other stuff because I don't really care if a Rachel matter as reclaiming who to help cares. This is important stuff because IT affects everybody, irrespective of your political and and what editorial you want to read to math.

What if the investigation into the catholic church and the abuses that occurred there? So we said this person, IT needs to be shut down, and then children are molested for another decade. By the way, we have an example of that.

Shane corner came out on sl. You can look IT up for if you're under forty years old. And that fight the real enemy.

SHE ripped up a picture of the pope because of the scandals there. SHE was excute iced. SHE was cancelled. At that time, one of the first people to be cancelled could SHE spoke through to power.

What if somebody, an investigative journalist at the new york times, the boston globes, are in the movie spotlight? Those are the people who broke the story of the cathode church. If somebody came in and the cathode church put pressure on a social that recent, hey, you can put the stuff up here.

You can have the discussion of the shutt. IT does not value transparency anymore. If you go back and look at the way that the media portrays itself, like in the movie the post, which is about the revelations about the catholic church, or you go back to all the president men, what the media prised and what they congratulate themselves on was, first of all, transparency and exposing the lies of powerful people.

Well, that is exactly what has happened here. The lies of the powerful group of people who are running twitter policy and suppressing one side of the debate has been exposed. And the media treated with the yang like there's nothing to see here.

why? Because they were complicit in this. They were complicit in suppressing the views of people I J, bottles a. They were complicit in choosing the views fouche and elite on cove IT. And so they have no interest now in bringing, in making, in making what happened here at twitter fully transparent.

I have to know that. I think, by the way, just just a quick correction there. I think sex, when you said the post .

washington post water.

but like, but the post is another example that that movie was about another event like this, which could have been easily pressed in today's world, are there, which is a pending gon papers. And in that world, you know, there was an immense amount of pressure that the government put on the washington post. But then they said, you know what, we're going with that.

And they still published IT, and he created a grounds of support to really reexamine the vietnam, and he had a huge impact. But could you imagine this time around, which is like, k guys, there's gonna some kind of misinformation. You these pentagon papers are not real. It's it's coming from the russian suppress IT, and nobody could. So much easier now.

right, to run this play. What journalists need to realize is that today's conspiracy theories are tomorrow's pull surprises onto you sex, not the current .

media environment. They work for these corporations and they don't get rewarded for telling the truth.

You know, they're going for polls. Trust me, they are. And what they need to do is start thinking short term and think long term. Anytime is a conspiracy theory. You must give IT some validity and say, is there any truth ier? Because IT could, in fact, be a scandal that's being covered up and take the .

proof recover up right now.

This is a cover I agree, I going to agree with .

with you that spring the first batch of twitter files into the conversation, the one that mata be exposed. What he did was confirmed that he completely true story by the new york post, about hundred biden that came out a month before the election was suppressed by twitter executives, including at the behest of of of FBI agents and former security state officials. So this is now being exposed.

There was no legitimate basis for surprising that story. IT was true. IT was a respective publication they did in anyway, this is election in reference.

You know, the same people who pride themselves on strengthen democracy are engaged in this wide scale censorship of one side of the political debate, including a true story, c foreign country. And then they puff out their chests and say, we're protecting democracy. They are not protecting democracy.

They're interfering with democracy. They're inferring with the public right to know. And then we look at a country like china, and we say, we are so much Better than them because they've got this problem over there where the state and big tech are colluding to create a brick brothers like system. Well, what is this? What are these tools that .

have been exposed?

One place is a big brother like system.

OK, yeah. But just you have to I know you want to make IT like an equivalency. It's less than a one percent equity because in our society, we can have moments like this and we can have investigation. So just to put in a yes.

I don't look and I don't think we're valid. What i'm saying is that this is very much like a big, so this be an .

alarm bell should be going off. This should .

be an alarm to decide this. We had this one indios syncrude billionaire who believes in free speech. If you didn't decided to take this on, we would never have known this stuff.

Okay, tell me what happened in between these two things there. Is there an attorney at, uh, twitter and all the details of this? I do not work for the twitter corporation.

I do not speak .

for the twitter corporation. Sex does not work for the twitter corporation and does not speak for IT. There was in between these two drops something that .

happened yes so basically what was discovered this all is publicly reported is that the former FBI lawyer named jim Baker had now become deputy general council um at twitter and this guy jean Baker, is like the zelig of the whole russian collusion hoax. He was involved in the in the fisa warrants that were that the FBI applied to the fisa courts that had all the ears and emissions. He was involved in the off bank hopes.

He was the guy that that perkin's coe lawyer assessment was feeding this like a phony, a phony scamp to. And he, I don't think he was officially sanctioned, but basically he was asked to leave the FBI. And then low and behold, where does he won at twitter? And he is involved in their constant moderation policies.

I think what IT shows is how deeply in her twin, our big tech companies, have become with the security stay. Now how did this get exposed? Well, barry wise was basically putting forward document request for this for the latest batched twitter files.

And SHE wasn't going anything back. And she's like, what's going on here and the guy was giving her the files. His name is jim.

And she's like, well way like what jim, jim hoo. And he finds out. Wait, jim Baker. Wait that jim Baker, york post had a long story about this guy. And so IT was discovered that the guy he was cheating the twitter files was this former Operative of the FBI who was involved in the russian collusion hoax and then was involved in their their blackness decisions. So in an event once this came out, twitter fired him and then, you know very apparently received all these files that that are now the the second batch of the twitter files.

And just to be clear, that's not James Baker of your you know .

thinking is the former .

right and cabinet member, not James Baker, jim berger, who is a different person.

A lot of people, I don't want .

to be found.

I mean, this is the permanent washington establishment. Some people call IT the deep state. The administrations come and go.

The people who work in washing stay there forever. And they can simply a factory policy by outlasting everybody else and plane design implementing what they believe. And they've become a constituency of their own that exercises power like a plutoria guard in washington. So in any event, this guy is an expert at bow, leveling himself into .

the democracy, a great talian guard. And finally .

rooted when they finally rooted this mall out of the FBI, he bowels himself into another powerful, real cracked. What is that word to like? Borrows like, borrows like that.

So he digs his way in to the twitter bio. Xy, to the point where he isn't even found. And then somehow he has put himself in the position to be intermediate the twitter files. Can you believe this? So once once was discovered.

a unit, the the roman army that served as personal bari guards and intelligence agents regard.

understand what happens is that pretorian guard originated because they were to defend the life, the, and then what happened then they became so powerful that that whoever bribe the pitti ans would come emperor. And then finally, the last step is that the patteran themself, elves would pick the emperor. And whoever basically LED the patterns, an guard would be the next at an event.

I mean, we're not we're not at that point yet. But the point, look, the point is that these security state officials have power that they should not have. Okay, that's the bottom.

They should not be involved in our elections in this way. They should be completely non partisan and non political. They should do their jobs as the enforcement officials.

But we know from one hundred biden story that a very important piece of this was the prebon ing, that the FBI went to facebook and twitter and social networks and said, beyond the lookout for a story about hand, biden IT is russian to information. And they prime these social networks to suppress that story. When I came out, that was something they never should have done.

And they knew, they knew the story was not fake. They knew was not russian to information because they had the laptop in their possession. This is two .

thousand and nineteen. Well, okay, that has not. The providence of the laptop is still being reviewed in fairness, and they're still an old.

And there is an investigation going on a front. You also have to put the context in here, and please let me finish. There is a context here of there was massive election interference going on.

Both sides of the al republicans, democrats all wanted to see the russian interference and the ukrainian interference, and trumps encouraging the ukraine and the republican russians to interfere elections. Everybody was on high alert and that happened to drop, uh, like IT was announced thirty days before and a drop ten days before election. So everybody was on high alert. And I agree, was not done something .

whole doesn't .

should have been done IT should have been done properly. They should have said they should have come. Republic ican say, we don't know the providence of this. We could be hacked.

IT might not be hacked. Js.

know that way and say, we have to reserve.

No, listen, let me tell you what happened. Let me tell you what happened .

OK so and make sure you stores this.

I will. So look at all in the new york post OK they've got how great? No IT nobody is refuted IT nobody is refuted IT me for find what happened. Now let just get to get this on the record here.

So from the post did fd.

I was given the laptop in two thousand and nineteen by the lapstone store owner. Those guys have forensics. They have cyber experts.

They knew the laptop was real. We know it's real. Now nobody questions that. In fact, the FBI has admitted that the laptop was real and that the hundred files are real. Nobody disputes that.

Okay, but what they did before the elections is they use the excuse of russian information to described the story before I even came out. But there are no business getting involved in the story that way. They simply didn't. They should state out of IT completely. I don't understand how you can possibly justify that.

Yeah, I mean, I think we do have to look at the context of that time period when Hillary emails were .

hacked and we had a Better excuse.

official sentence and we had a president which you will agree, our presidents and presidential candidate should not be encouraging foreign wars to hack their, uh, their adversity agree with you with that answer my question. Do you see that present to the question? Why do you know take this .

again but you can be .

intellectually onest the audience, you're not be intellectually .

honor king about .

if you could answer the simple question, should presidents encourage foreign wars to hack their adversaries that you would be being intellectually dishonest. I am absolutely disappointed that you will not answer that simple question. It's an obvious. It's an obviously .

we just cause but of course, I believe that happened. I because.

you know, trumps gonna win the primary. Let's keep going. Uh.

china said, I don't listen. I don't. I've said so many times in the show that he's not my canada. I don't know what you're talking about going .

to go wasn't you're going .

only what you're doing right now is like delusional. You're going back to some throw away comment. He made IT a rally in two thousand sixteen and has got nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the story and the fact, or you can bring IT up, is like pure TTS. And I always .

something time talking about IT. And instead of answering a question that your technique, your technique is to call me names. Instead .

of answering .

the question, I .

OK, i'll make a final point, a letter. Listen, there was a letter with another biden thing. This is two thousand and twenty election. But j, we're not going back two elections ago. I want to talk with the most recent one.

Okay, fine.

You had copper. You had, comme at fifty of the security state officials, they write a letter saying that the hundred bian story has all the hallMarks of russian disruption. They claimed that he was russian inspiration. When IT wasn't, they knew IT wasn't.

And IT was the same story that the FBI I was telling twitter, and IT was the same story that these twitter executions were indulging in, even though they all new or had reason to know IT wasn't true, and they suppressed in europe. St story. Anyway, I don't know why you're bring IT up this trump stuff. IT has nothing to do with the real issue here. The old second, the real issue is this, does social media have the right to suppress true stories put out by our media before the month before an election, yes or no?

I how do you decide that? I will answer your question yes to know, and you will not answer, mind, because you're being intellection dishonest. Yes, we should.

No, we should not suppress new stories if IT was, and I will argue both size, if I was snowed in, if I was the pentagon papers, if it's handbags, laptop taking out the sex stuff which we both agree on or if this is, uh, russia and, uh, ukraine, where your presidential candidate at the time, trump asked sileni to find dirt on biting before the election and he asked the russians to hacking your email and they did that and they released ten days before the election that, in fact, that happened. And that is, said you let me speak, said you would let me speak, and you will let me see money in the waters. No, stop, interrupt me and stop insulting me.

I will say my part. You said yours and then we will move on. The fact is trump encouraged hacking of other candidates, and he did IT twice in a four year period back to bc elections. We need to be on higher alert when you have a republican candidate, trump, doing something. So absolutely trees at this.

This is why is a perfect cover story. This is why is a perfect cover story.

is because but people, the trees in this behavior.

less, less. I don't think IT was a perfect phone call. I think IT against.

Position and against all not defined. I'm not defending anything trumped IT. Okay, I don't feel the need. Okay, I never defended IT. But but the deal is that you're letting your td S I justice, letting you're allowing this russian information to be a cover .

story no said I don't think post should have been .

blocked because even .

bring the shop the the reason i'm bringing IT.

I agree that the point of .

the cover story, that's your interpretation. The context also is everybody was on high alert waiting for a hack to drop and in fact a hacked drop ten days before you O K. We found out subsequently with a hack.

they at the time of point they knew at the point .

twitter and facebook did not know, twitter and facebook didn't know .

that the point no tie be and go back to the twitter files, the first drop, jim Baker hall, second, jim Baker and vaga god said, okay, that there were in a lot of internal questions about whether that that underlying story could be just fied under the hat policy. okay. And there were many legitimation tions raise internally about whether they could maintain that party line. And the emerging view is that they could no longer maintain that line and still godi. And jan Baker said, no, we will maintain the idea that this was hack information until prove in othe wise, even though was not hat IT was a .

new york post story winter. Great to just rip.

Let's why you bring up all like a real.

The audience in other best is want to move on. So let's move on. China ends most zero code rules, and iran might be abolishing its morality.

Police news broke in the past week. On wednesday, china's health, the story's overheard at zero coved policy and announced a ten point national plan. Scrap most health code tracking and also they're rolling back their mass testing.

And this allowed many uh, positive cases to just simply quarantine home like we were doing, I guess, a year ago now. And um they're limiting some of these lockdowns. This all comes from a fox con letter, which we don't know the cost causation here does does but we don't know. That's why I just said we don't know cause in correlation here, give give us some perspective here chema.

Well, I just think it's kind of ridiculous to assume that the second largest economy in the world pivots based on one letter from one CEO. So I know that that's how the western water well, apparently what happened was Terry grow, who's color kally known his uncle Terry, who's A C E O fox cn, wrote a letter that essentially said, you know, if we don't figure out a way to get out of this panda, this this lockdown process, we're going to lose um you know our leadership in the global supply chain and apparently that jousted the central planning commission to realize that they needed to, you know get out of these look, I think it's something different, which is I think this has been part and parcel of a very focused and dedicated plan by g. Face one was to consolidate power.

Face two was to get through november and to basically we get reappointed for life and dispell any other, you know, rivals that he actually had. And now face three is just to reopen the economy. Against that, this guy can basically sit on top of the second large economy in the world.

So I think this is sort of a natural a flow of things. The other part of IT, which I think is being underreported, is I think that the way in which they did IT was less responsive, in my opinion, to a letter for monkey Terry that was more responsible to the fact that there are people on the ground. And I think that these guys are getting very sophisticated and understanding how to give the chinese people some part of what they want so that they're roughly happy enough to keep moving forward.

And i'm not gna morally judge whether it's right, wrong, but it's just a comment on what the game play in. The game theory seems to be coming from the leadership of china. So this is I think this is it's it's it's good for the chinese people.

And the real question is what will I mean for the U. S. Economy if these guys get there um get there economy going again?

We talk about this previously, but this is a good example of the autocrat not necessarily being absolute in in their authority. And uh the sense that I think we get at this point coming out of china is that there was enough to sent from the populist on the lockdown and the experience of the lockdowns.

We can all go online and see the videos of steel bars being put on doors to keep people in their apartment buildings and people screaming and buildings being on fire. People can escape the buildings. How much of that was true or not? An and riots in the screen, people fighting with the covert testers.

How much of that is true or not, we don't really know, but IT certainly seems to indicate that there was enough dissent and enough unrest that in order to stay in power, the C C. P. Had to take action and they had to shift their position and shift their tone. And I think it's a really important moment to observe that sometimes the C C P um and you know perhaps even we can extend this into other autocratic regimes that we think our absolute in their authority and their own power and their power perhaps are necessarily influenced by the people that they are there, the governor and that they are you know uh, ruling over uh and that while we don't think about these places as democracies, perhaps they're not entirely the traditionally defined autocracy that there is the an influence that the people can have and maybe we see the same change happening in around with Young people and a population that's more modern, that's growing and swelling in size, that doesn't want to accept some of the traditional norms and the traditional laws. And you know, maybe that would kind of start to resonate around the world, that the internet is starting to do what everyone hopes and wanted to do, which is the democratization of information, the democracy of seeing other people's conditions and seeing what the rest of the world is and is like, gives the populist the ability to rise up. And to say, this is what we want, because we know that there are Better things out there and these other craic regimes have to start to shift slightly and over time, maybe that has .

the real impact. Here's a specific statistics and chart for everybody. The demographics of uh iran are incredibly um notable.

If you look at this uh chart for those of you listening IT just shows people by age and how many what percentage of the population they are are are actually the world numbers of the population. As you can see, it's basic like a pair. Uh, you have very few old people and you've have a lot of people in their twenties and .

Younger and so Young people s and thirties to thirties .

uh you don't have the geriatric population that you see in other countries like japan um and to the demographics of iran are extremely uh weighted towards Younger people milanese jan axes and Younger and that they have the P S virtual private networks. They can see everything happening uh in the free world uh versus h let's say close societies.

And so I think that's what gives me a lot of hope, is that these countries are going to have to evolve because Young people are seeing how the rest of the world lives. And I I think that's a big part of the change. Try out .

what you're about, a one specifically.

I think demographer change and then china and demographic change.

I I protest i've said this before and i've been tweet about this for years, but people so poor rely, understand demographic s everybody thinks that we have a care plus of people and we don't. And we need to have a positive birth rate in order to kind of continue to support the expansion of the world and GDP. And we need that.

And right now we're not in that situation. If you look at the country by country basis, a lot of these countries um are facing that a pretty categories make way. The most sensitive country to this is china.

I mean their population get current course and speed. I think the last numbers is it's going to have by twenty one hundred, you'll be about six hundred million people in china, which is unbelievably disruptive in a very negative way for them, right? Because you will have a lot of people who are entering the workforce having to support an entire code to people above them in terms of age, right, who are retired in seta.

So the states going to have to get much, much more actively involved over the next fifty years in china. And then you look at other countries like nigeria or india who are in a you know at the beginning of what could be a multiple cade boom because you have twenty old that will be entering the workforce. You know they're effectively work for less than their older counterparts rights and then they'll be an incentive than to bring work on shore into those countries.

And so it's gonna have huge impacts because then you have rising GDP. You will have rising expectations of living quality, you'll have rising expectations of how governments treat those people. So it's all kind of positive in general, but the world needs more people. That should be clear, especially in western countries, we are going to be not we're not as badly off as china.

but we're not far behind. Here's a quick view of china in japan. I don't know they exactly call these charts are vertical histogram, but if you start in again, you know data hard to come by in some countries, but you know china's starting to get top heavy uh when compared to iran.

And then if you look at japan, quite stunning. There's just no Young people left and um they live very uh too much older ages in japanese is longevity is one of their great strength as a population as a country. And so these demographics can be fought. You're going to have a contact constricting economy in japan and their place in the world is gonna very, very different. Okay.

where do we want to go to next?

I just talk so good, and I just think .

I have to fight to give my opinion.

Oh, here we go. Listen, cave agent called my age 全部 talk about OK.

we talk about that versa。 Different view of what's happy in china. Uh, Jason, which is know, I think that the people they are need to stop harassing the ccp.

You see the chinese coming is party. There are the elites. They've set things up for the benefit of the people. They are not engage in shadow banning. They're just, you know, they have a system there to know to enable and censorship p to prevent abuse and harm yeah right that's the system they've set up, right? And the people just need to understand that that when they say things like, when they oppose things like covet t lockdowns, like jay bottles a did they need understand that that is engaging and abuse and harm?

exactly. yes. And you know what provided reeducation camps for citizens who you need you know to uh maybe rethink their positions on freedom and their wages, the hours they work and their and their social conditions.

You you're actually correct. China really has built a perfect model for a society. Well, send sex .

right now. We can move forward. Let's go now looking for, but that's going to a get clipped .

according .

to our elites.

according to our elites, U L. Roth or tailor's, to criticize them is a form of harassment.

You understand that, right?

So therefore, what the people in china are doing, specifically by opposing lockdowns, you know they're taking the j potter chari a point of view. They're engaging in harm and abuse and harassment of their bets .

of their why won't .

they just submit to the social credit system that has been set up for them for their benefit IT for their .

benefit why question? Yeah, just accept except your fate and work hard for the good of the people.

Great, great points. Let's move forward talking about you.

Pretty it's it's pretty good. Sad tire. I agree. Alright, I think we have to talk about F, T, X. I.

I don't know if you saw, I like the people covering for S P F. A IT continues to be an absolute joke. The number of interviews that S P F is doing is absurd. But the people Carrying water for him is is, is even more offensive that, I mean, if you are a criminal trying to cover up your crime, okay, we get IT you're trying to cover up and say to jail uh but Kevin o.

Leary um who um IT calls himself mr wonderful was on C M B C trying to defend the fact that he was given, this is stunning, by the way, fifteen fucking million dollars to be a spokesperson for fifty x so the not only went to the press, politicians, uh, but now commentators on C N B C. Fifteen million dollars to put that in context, I mean, you're talking what an elite ite N B A player gets from nake. This does not exist in the world.

Uh, you know, Kevin ary might get, you know, fifty to two hundred k for speaking gigs, but nobody gets fifteen million dollars to show. Here's a seventy five second clip that I don't know if you've all have seen, but is unbelievably stunning. See another side, side of seven, five sets if you're a defensive tourney that represent someone that you know is guilty, that you gotta say, yeah, well, they're innocent.

You may know they're guilty. You may know they're guilty if you find someone, if you watch someone, kill someone. Yeah, there are.

There's only the murder of my money in this case. Okay.

it's murder of of fx is money.

Everybody, everybody is. Look.

if you got, I don't. I think you should be singing the blues right now at .

all in the blues.

why? Because your fifteen million didn't. That's a lot of money, a paid spokesperson.

a lot of money. You didn't have to do much for that. That's for that found decision.

As a different discussion know, you can make that decision on your own, but i'm going to this point of money. You want to say he's killed before he's tried. I just don't understand that.

but IT may end up posting of fifteen .

for everything else. That's why I stay on this pursuit. I'm very transparent about IT. I just lose everything I know about. I will find out more information.

If I make the created committee, I will act as a fillery for everybody involved. I will testify I am an advocate for this industry, and this changes nothing. Just look at the numbers that came out of a circle today. I'm an investor there too. You've got the I lost at all in ftc and we have a fantastic print cirl the promise of crypt l remains this .

will not change IT pretty crazy fifty million books any thoughts on the continuing S B F saga sex?

Well, I don't know why we should care so much about him. I mean, Kevin later but .

but creative.

it's indication .

of all these.

He's one of what he's on short .

tank and he's a contributor C M B C who's on multiple times a week. The point is like you've got the grist. I'm just trying to point out fifteen million dollars to A C M, B, C commentator is just an extraordinary pay off. I ve never heard of anything like that.

I don't think it's fair to pick on Kevin ali per say because there is a bunch of those guys that took money from him. You know, a bunch of athletes did body watch a movie stars? No, like everybody got sky K.

O O in the twitter .

example. I think it's important in this case to generalize, because the generalized thing is the real problem. Look, if you want to focus on the cracks of this, you have a concept in law that sx knows Better than the rest of us called fragile and convention. And we have example after example, where IT does not matter, whether is in the berny made off example, or for example, Jason, we talked about IT, the guy lay, that lost all the money, client funds, playing poker. You, you have to give the money back, especially if I was fragile amaker yed to you explain.

can you explain this in detail for second? So the audience understands well .

on my understanding, which is very basic. And I think David can probably do a much Better job is the following, which is if you get money some way, but IT comes from somebody who fragment AI acquire that money, you have to give the money back. So in this example, what that would mean is if that they can show that that fifteen million dollars of this guy got came from S, P, F, basically rating the piggy bank of user accounts, he's going to a, have to pay the money back.

Just like, for example, in the made of fraud, the the, the folks that went to find the money were able to go back to folks that actually redeemed, even the beginning, early ones, and said, I understand that you did know any Better, but this is fragile. Tly conveyed you. So we need the money back. And they got the money back.

And in that case, if they had put a million in and I grew to three million, they got their million principal back. But the two million and games which were ill .

gotten had to be returned to turn.

As I understand that based on just what i've read, that there is a ninety day rule around contributions, meaning that if I think this has to with the bankrupcy that that if he donated money within ninety days, then that can be unwilling so um yeah but I do think that creates potentially a powerful incentive here by politicians and various political groups for him not to be convicted of fraud, for him to be able to lead this out into some sort of negligence. Because they don't want us to give you the money back.

They keep the bag. What an incredible insight.

This is what I think so interesting about the very thing. It's not about Kevin lary, but it's about the fact that the money was spread around so widely and into such like deep trenches of the regulatory society, society like and basically, I think the guy like he thought that like, which which I think, by the way, is a really interesting product of the crypto ecosystem in the model that so many kind of cryo businesses have engaged in over the years, which is if you can fester the belief, then there is a business.

If you cannot fester the belief, there is no business that there isn't a fundamental productivity drivers about building a belief system. And you can buy a belief system. If you can take money that people have given you, you can embedded in influence and celebrity and politicians and regulators. And if you give IT to enough of these people and you give enough of IT to them, maybe the police system solidifies and your thing becomes real.

which is a class grief .

technique .

by way.

in the grifters.

Tina, and is this, uh, you know, you look like you're incredibly you rich. You know you you're going to fancy restaurants, you wearing expensive suit, you're getting in a sports car, and then you own some plots, whatever, and then some other rich person comes and you get up to invest in something. And then you have scored with the money, but they see all the accrual.

Mts, you check all the boxes, your parents or stanford, you went to MIT, and you are donating large sums of money. And you got this big table at the club, and you got a point house. Everybody starts to feel, well, my is right, you ve got the wealth.

That my how you guys how would you guys feel about ondly onely no backing A C E O of a growth stage company that you put your reforms money into who live a one hundred and thirty million dollar house and has not yet accepted the business?

Yeah, absolute alarm bells, everyone. This is why .

i'm not .

a fan.

Yeah, let me ask you ask a question. Do you think that a billion dollars of dark money could stop a red wave? Just asking for a friend.

Billion .

dollars. He was going to be honest.

Yes, his mother was a huge democratic bunder yeah and and moreover the the specific politicians he needed to influence there yes, there were some republicans, but by large, IT. Was the esc you .

the first person to make this car? I I want to say, did you hear? And here first .

on the old pod vid.

David x making the declaration PK question.

what do you think would have more impact on our election? Enormous amounts of dark money going to democrats or make sense of shadow binning of conservative informers? Which one you think would have a bigger impact on is in fifty, fifty country where I mean the scales are like baLance, where these elections are just a few thousand votes, what do you think the result is going na be if we actually have a level playing field with over to the swing dark money?

Yeah that's an interesting question. Um let me let me add something to that um what would have a bigger impact .

this um I think great guys I D like or taking away woman's right to .

choose after fifty years of giving into that, which would have .

a bigger impact on the red way I A impact I think great.

great, great strategic. What do you think about the cinema? Christian cinema, curson cinema? Flipping to independent? Do you think that's a big dealer?

I think I think it's really interesting. I think it's actually a very true move on. Her party is the first all. I think she's great.

Tell about .

her sex no, she's SHE is the center from arizona mally democrat now independent, who is in the mold of you know joh macan who was a former sener for marizano sort of this magic independent and he does not count out to her party orthodoxy Y.

And when biden wanted to pass three and half trillion of build back Better spending SHE, along with managing to post IT, and I think saved the administration from this giggle, I boon dogged that would manipulation much, much worse. Not mention all the credit, but he was equally responsible for putting a hold on that. And then as a result, they only did the seven and fifty billion inflation reductions acts. So she's willing to bucket around party.

Now as a result of that, I think they were planning on SHE was going to get primary, that the progressive of the party was planning on primary, her and by moving to an independent in a cent SHE, perhaps that because what she's now saying is she's now sort of like you know berny standards isn't an independent or this guy ah engles king from from main they still caucus with the democrats but their independence and and the democrats don't run candidates against them because they know that if they do is you'll have a republican, democrat, independent and the democrats in the independent will split the vote. The republican will win so basically she's now daring the democrats, hey, if you want to run a candidate against me, i'm not going to sit around and get primary by them. You go ahead and run somebody, but then we're gonna lose to the republican. That's what smart about is I think she's daring humor to run somebody against her.

It's also interesting he is she's the only member of congress of red that's not this uh which is kind of like eight is is talk about god doesn't believe in god and I think she's the first openly bay sexual member of congress. She's a average certainly .

sex dating SHE held up on making the decision till after that georgia senate election finished and giving that IT influence.

The decision. I don't know. I think that the key is yes. Well, imagine if SHE doesn't make this move now. okay.

And then in two years, well, I guess really next year, he gets primaried. okay. And then what does? He loses the primary. It's going to be very hard for her to run in as an independent. At that point, it'll look like sour grape sore loser, right? But if he goes independent now, SHE saying, listen, i'm really an dependent, no matter what the question you have to make the democratic party is whether to support me or basically took this .

election of, though we see more of this purple approach.

Is this going to ask you, what does this mean for joe? Manage .

well. I don't think you mention has this problem and i'll tell you why because west Virginia, like arizon is like a plus twenty two red state, joe mentioned, is the only politician in that state who could win that seat for the democrats when and retires. That sea is going republican and humor knows is the democracy know that they think they're lucky, starts every day that they got mention because of the wise there would be a republican seat. And so look, all this stuff about how the progresses were upset with mansion and all that baby got that may be, you know, that sort of progressive wing is going to say that publicly, but the smart democrats know that they're very lucky to have a politician. I mention on their .

side of the isle. I ask, questo you math? Why do democrats? why? Why are they IT IT seems to be so anti moderate democrats. Why are they so resistant to the concept of a moderate democrat, when obviously moderate democrats s seem to have an advantage in these elections?

Well, no, I think David described as well, which is that in many of the seats, this is both true for republicans. Zn, for democrats, you're not really competing in a general election. You're competing in a primary.

And if you win a primary, you're probably win. So like you know, if you're in mississippi, for example, you just have to in the republican primary, nothing else matters and then you're just onna skate to Victory. And so the real question is who votes in those are different often times and who votes in the general.

And this is why you get this dispersion that's happening, where folks seem to be getting more, more extreme. It's reflecting the sound bites that those primary voters wanted hear. And this is the big problem that we have. And that's why, like if you have a bunch of this, you know, rank choice voting or you know these other kinds of methods, IT starts to clean that up so that you move people more into the moderate middle. But that's why, that's why you have this crazy stop happening.

right everybody? This is a bit another amazing epo of the all in podcast for the dictator, the salt end of science and gave sex. I am jit out. I will see next time, bye ye.

your winter.

Light man.

To the fans. And we just .

got crazy with.

Like sexual attention .

to release B.

B.

we get.