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