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