1105 Comments

Google owns YouTube. Three of Google’s five significant shareholders are BlackRock, The Vanguard Group and T. Rowe Price. The Vanguard Group is Pfizer’s highest shareholder. BlackRock is a major shareholder as well. T. Rowe Price and BlackRock are top shareholders of BioNTECH. BlackRock and Vanguard are top shareholders of Moderna. The largest shareholders of the MSM are BlackRock and Vanguard. I believe they own four of the six corporations that own the media. Big Pharma is a huge contributor of the CDC and the WHO. And let’s not get into how entwined these banks/corporations are with our “public servants” in DC.

It seems to me the conflicts of interest are never-ending and it’s why I don’t trust the government, the media nor big pharma. There is just too much money (and power) on the line. Of course YouTube and the other platforms including the MSM are not going to allow the likes of Weinstein, Malone, and many others to hurt their bottom line.

It’s scary how much power and control the 1% has over everything we read, hear and see. This explains why so many people are acting the way they do. I’m grateful to all those like Weinstein, Malone, McCullough, Kory, and all the other doctors, scientists and independent reporters etc… for having the courage to risk it all to save humanity.

Expand full comment

@ Nomero

Kudos in Triplicate to YOU for the only research that *counts ........ let's all say it together now : "FOLLOW THE MONEY" ! Never fails, never lies. That is why persons of "questionable repute" struggle to make following the money as *impossible to do

as can be conceived !

Thank you again.

Expand full comment

So you are anti free market the ?

Expand full comment

@ Seamarsh

Not at all, no. I am just anti Corporate Crime the ....

Expand full comment
founding

So you support the Citizens United decision then?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yep. The rigging is a feature, not a bug.

Expand full comment

Interestingly, a free market is impossible without a government to enforce it.

Expand full comment

Great - though depressing point. It was nice to see Joe Rogan on Spotify run an "emergency" podcast last week to address this YouTube matter. Even nicer is that perhaps Spotify will take advantage of people like me who cancel their subscriptions to YouTube and will support democratic organizations committed to free speech. Fingers crossed that YouTube finally gets some real competition.

Expand full comment

The answer is the courts. Joe Rogan is not going to get any Monopoly to stop censoring. No public pressure is going to do it. Only a legal bitch-slapping will suffice. If the supreme's don't reject this censorship regime, then it is legal and should continue to its logical conclusion.

Expand full comment

And the magic word in any legal action, the thing that carries the weight of a nail-studded cricket bat, is "discovery".

Expand full comment

I use alternative sites like brandnewtube. I always look for Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a lawyer heading Nuremberg2 interviews doctors, scientists, financial experts like Catherine Austin Fitts, independent journalists like Whitney Webb and others regarding all things related to the jab.

Expand full comment
founding

Here's an interesting article on Blackrock's new activist approach to investing. The main topic is that they're coercing companies to staff diversity and inclusion departments, but it also mentions evaluating companies on how they responded to covid and various other sociopolitical issues.

Blackrock and Vanguard each hold trillions in assets, making them among the most powerful forces on earth.

You may have noticed how large corporations are increasingly marching in lockstep on certain sociopolitical issues. Think for example of the universal support for BLM last year. This is why.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/blackrock-plans-to-push-companies-on-racial-diversity-in-2021

Expand full comment

Look at the board of directors and senior leadership of all the organizations waving their BLM banners. There isn't a whiter group to be found in America. Racial diversity is a marketing campaign no one hands over power without a battle.

Expand full comment

Yes. Should the marketing department research reveal that BLM and CRT were merely passing fads, and now cross-burnings and cereal boxes with swastikas are the latest rage....

Expand full comment

This is nothing compared to Blackrock's Going Direct Reset plans. Catherine Austin Fitts explains it on the solari report. The woke bullshit is a distraction.

Expand full comment

Have you read cynical theories? I'm curious if you'd think think wokeness is being used as a tool or if its truly taken over institutions. Perhaps certain organizations have ceded territory (by refusing to pick a fight with the woke or actively going along with certain demands) of some institutions in favor of loftier goals.

Expand full comment

I have not read it. I think the woke/cancel culture might be another Operation Mockingbird. IMO, it serves the purpose of divide and conquer and it’s distracting. How convenient for our corporate overlords that the masses are not only justifying censorship (some of the comments on this thread alone give me the chills) but we the people’s national hobby now is to help promote censorship by ratting each other out. When I realized how much Silicon Valley (the epicenter of wokeness, cancel culture and censorship) is entwined with the deep state (for example Regina Dugans from DARPA works for Google and Facebook) I wouldn’t doubt everything happening right now is by design.

Expand full comment

I’m a shitty writer, but someone should pen a book called “Stasi on the Potomac.”

Expand full comment

It’s our very own Cultural Revolution.

Expand full comment

With Disney+!

Expand full comment

Hitler liked the Brownshirts, before they interfered with his real agenda.......

Expand full comment

Bingo.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

no because of the first mover advantage

https://vimeo.com/65731171

Expand full comment

I respectfully disagree. It seems more and more unlikely, but a conscientious society, as consumers and investors, can change everything rather quickly, simply by voting with their feet and money.

This is what's so compelling about the idea of capitalism and a "free" market. Unlike with our democracy, change can be affected at any time and rather quickly - no need to wait for an election.

Expand full comment

Yeah well, conscientiousness is one thing and consciousness is another.

Expand full comment

Alphabet Inc, Google’s parent company, through Google Ventures is highly invested in Vaccitech, the biotech startup behind the COVID 19 vaccine AstraZeneca. Seems to me that the same investors, or “banksters” that own BigPharma, the MSM, the social media platforms and our politicians are the same ones that are trying to take away our freedom of speech and our body sovereignty.

Expand full comment

We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not. That put a nice greasy stamp of ownership on all employees where your free time isn't really yours & it really isn't free.

Like the writer Charles Bukowski once said, “Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.”

My attitude towards any job I've ever had is one where I care about what I'm being paid to care about while I'm being paid to care about it. Once the time clock clicks as I exit, the company can go fuck itself sideways with a rusty nail studded 2x4 for all I care.

It's called being a professional.

I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business.

But then, the average American, for all of his/her/other yapping & blathering & fireworks watching about freedom, slowly, over time, gleefully whored that freedom away to a class of people who don't give a tinker's toot about them, let alone their illusory & compromised personal freedoms.

Removing Biden won't change that.

Reelecting Trump won't change that.

I'm not entirely sure that anything other than a total collapse will change anything.

Humans, for all of our narcissistic "gee ain't humanity great" backslapping bullshit are twisted little creatures that often don't appreciate what we have until we see it reflected in our rear view mirror.

Oh yeah, Happy Fireworks Day. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

Expand full comment

@Spiderbaby:

ITTA! Superb post; I cannot like it enough.

"We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not."

In some cases, this can include testing for Nicotine; asking perspective employees about their medical status; asking if their parents are still alive, and if not, what they died of; being forced to sign NDAs, NCAs, and "intellectual property" "agreements" (after the "vaccines" are "approved", employers will be able to legally fire any employee that doesn't comply, you know, for "health and safety reasons"; and worst of all:

The fact that my employer can legally fire me for something I said while NOT on company time, NOT using company resources, NOT mentioning my employment with the company, and NOT mentioning the company or using its logo.

Free country, my ass.

Expand full comment

Yeah, isn't it great how employers are exempt from HIPAA?

As far as speech issues, they always use the excuse that the employee, even though he isn't being paid by the employer at the moment he speaks, still somehow magically is "representing the company."

Fuck that noise.

If you're not paying me we're not affiliated. I won't even billboard my own employer. They had a big name change recently, primarily because they were busted defrauding the Feds about patients that didn't exist & doctors visits that weren't happening, so they were ducking bad press.

They gave us all t-shirts to wear with the new name on it. I refused it. Gave mine to a client. Told them they could rent my chest but I don't do freebies.

They weren't happy but tough shit.

It's a rule.

Like no Twitter or Facebook.

I don't billboard. Period.

Expand full comment

"I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business."

About 16 years ago now, I had a "manager" that just LOVED to give career advice during bi-annual "performance reviews". This consisted of "discussing" certain "behaviors" (i.e. things completely unrelated to your abilities on the job, including why he was a manager, why he was so much more successful at life than I was, and I would never amount to anything unless I changed my ways). He also just LOVED new technology, and "theories" on "scientific management" (i.e. what ever fad was being touted by those over him). We were forced to wear an everchanging series of electronic devices, and attend more and more courses (on our own time, though we sometimes got a meal) - all in the name of "improving communication" and making us more "productive", of course. Failing to respond to emails, pages and phone calls (at all hours of the day and night, 24/7, including holiday weekends, where I once told him I couldn't come in to work because I was sick from bad BBQ pork and had explosive diarrhea) was punishable by public shaming and private counseling. Things came to a head between us when I refused to attend a three-day "voluntary" seminar (off-site, unpaid, and we were told that we were NOT allowed to have any family or friends visit us at the hotel at any time). I was publicly shamed in front of the entire section for my refusal and called names by him and my coworkers, including being told that my refusal could be "career ending". He laid me off two months after that. I managed to get rehired at the same company, but in a different department.

Free country, my ass.

Expand full comment

Luckily my main source of income is my own business. As my own boss I try not to belittle myself too much. I do 4 shifts on the weekend in order to have healthcare for my family.

The managers there are incompetent & ineffectual which is probably why I get away with my non-compliance. I doubt that the lot of them could successfully run a McD's drive thru.

But since they're also a crew of unimaginative drones they will soon trot out the CRT unconscious race bias struggle sessions just like every other dipshit company in America.

I need moral guidance from my employer about as much as I need them to give me a daily enema. In fact, I suspect this will be one long verbal enema.

Anyone who thinks this country is free should buy a house, pay it off & then stop paying the property tax so they can see who really owns what here in America. Spoiler alert: It isn't them.

Expand full comment

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that “job” you had...? You were in a fucking cult...! 😳

Expand full comment

Damn straight. My first encounter with that was the first time I saw someone wearing clothes advertising the clothing brand. It was that most blatant of offenders, "Tommy Hilfiger". Went something like this:

"Oh, you like The Who?"

"Who?"

"Tommy. The Who's "Tommy", the rock oper..."

"Oh he's great! Love this shirt."

"Who's great?"

"Tommy. Tommy Hilfiger. This is one of his shirts."

"You should give it back."

Have since avoided branded clothing (okay, the little alligator was fine), which has saved me money and helped me avoid people who judge others by wardrobe branding. Fine example of a win/win.

Expand full comment

"Told them they could rent my chest but I don't do freebies."

As my dad used to say, "I don't mind if you f**k me, just wear a condom, buy me dinner, and try to remember my name come morning."

Expand full comment

Work isn’t supposed to always be “fulfilling”-that’s why they pay you to be there!

Expand full comment

Honestly if I needed my job to fulfill me I would be one sad & sorry little bunny who would probably be only one or two setbacks away from eating a bullet.

Or making everyone around me miserable with my constant whining.

Either way I can find better things to do with my time.

And they don't involve a boss.

Or an HR department.

Or a bogus, condescending seminar on Critical Race Theory & "Unconscious Racial Bias."

Expand full comment

On Marky Ramone’s Punk Rock Blitzkrieg SiriusXM station, he has a voiceover tag saying “If you have a job where you can listen to this station at work, you have a good gig!”. My job gets my attention but it doesn’t get my angst or my soul. Office Space got it right.

Expand full comment

Office Space brushed the sacred. Not even joking.

Expand full comment

You’re paid for what you endure

Expand full comment

Nothing short of a mass-extinction event will solve this little problem.

This is why I can still smile... I know it's all a wash and I'm still enjoying my ride in this meatbag.

Expand full comment

Daaamn! Happy 4th of the 5th of whatever to you too, and bravo. Keep fighting!

Expand full comment

I hear what you are saying. I wonder when we had sovereignty? Perhaps a persistent illusion of sovereignty.

Expand full comment

@Steven… I guess I too was under the illusion we had body sovereignty. All the tactics employed to try to force this experimental gene therapy on everyone has been eye-opening for sure.

Expand full comment

Save humanity? Jesus Christ..

Expand full comment

Yes. I said save humanity. We live in a world where the only “health” that matters is the FINANCIAL HEALTH of our ruling class.

Expand full comment

Yeah. "Save humanity". Via published Science. Great benefit in opening a map and attempting to count what remain of the Glaciers *anywhere that we had Fifty Years ago. You know, if we can find *valid maps that have not been altered by a then 74 year old child with a Sharpie.

Expand full comment

Does every conversation on this site center on President Trump? Or are there just a tiny handful of fanatics who are obsessed with the Man?

Expand full comment

@Charles Clemens

I am hoping that you are not surprised to learn that people in the U.S. still talk about Al Capone and Legs Diamond either ! Not, of course in "every conversation", but you are welcome to do your own statistical research.

Expand full comment

I am teaming up with Brian and I'm certain our Blue Ribbon Brain Trust will come up with some astounding results. These will, of course, be published as comments on Mr. Taibbi's substack.com page. I appreciate your interest, Atma. You have stimulated further research by one independent scientist and a struggling cunning linguist.

Expand full comment

@Charles Clemens

You do YOU, Charles ! I could not have wished for you a more discerning Partner, and "linguistics" become *ever so much more

"cunning" when we relax the epiglottal stop ! ;-D

Expand full comment

Are you talking about those glaciers that were supposed to melt by 2020 but didn't, and where the US government had to take down their signs that predicted doom?

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/

Or maybe the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro that Al Gore told us would be gone by 2016.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html

Expand full comment

Shhh…..the Climate Jehovahs believe what they are told by the “expert” class. Same “expert” class that is fleecing the planet through SARS2.0.

Expand full comment

Weather is not climate, but you knew that.

Expand full comment

July 4th in my neck of the woods was the coolest I can ever remember. Does that count, too?

Expand full comment

Amazing what happens to chunks of ice, post-Little Ice Age.

Expand full comment

@ Thomas Heath

Innit tho ? Yup, especially the BIG chunks of ice, like, you know .....

uh, Greenland. When I was growing up in Montana, my family took a trip to Glacier National Park. We saw around 143 Glaciers. I was 16 at the time.

I am now 73, and Glacier Park now has 26 Glaciers. Now, see, when these "chunks of ice" MELT the oceans RISE. When the oceans RISE, they change the WEATHER the world over. This is not a Chicken Little Idea, this is a "get off yer duff and look out a *WINDOW concept. Or, hire a small plane and fly over Glacier Park ! ONE of the things you will see, is that the curvature of the horizon alone will show you that the World is NOT FLAT. What we can call *that is "a good start" ...... then ....... ;-D

Expand full comment

Truth. I’m a die hard free marketer-if you can build a better mousetrap, you deserve every cent from it. If you manipulate markets and make money from shenanigans w/out adding tangible value-don’t be surprised when the people, as Corrosion of Conformity say “Vote With a Bullet”.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Interesting. Are you speaking in purity terms when you refer to a "free market", such as an anarcho-capitalist would, a la Spooner? Or are you just being nihilistic?

Expand full comment

Scarier still is how people only get "news-product" from one or two of their sources and think they know enough to make a decision. When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"

Expand full comment

Yeah, they become aghast. "but but.. podcasts are... DANGEROUS!" ooo spooky ideas are dangerous. I am so fed up with this crap. How about, "I don't trust corporate influenced institutions anymore than I trust any politician's words. Perhaps, I trust those with less incentives to push a narrative and primary sources above everyone else?"

Hopefully Matt doesn't mind me shilling in the comments, but I'm going to. I've revitalized by substack and wouldn't mind more input. josephc.substack.com

Expand full comment

"When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"

Wow, do you know my ex-"friend", Mark? Don't forget to add in not reading the NYT, not watching PBS, and not worshipping Elon Musk.

Expand full comment

One of the problems here is that Brett doesn't seem to provide links to any sources of his discussion, he should. I think that nobody should be allowed to post anything without a valid link to a source especially when it comes to science. In his interview, his guest states that there's a serious health concern related to the vaccine without any reference to any data. That shouldn't be allowed as it shouldn't be allowed with any anti-vaxxer post.

Expand full comment

You could read the scientific papers about the vaccines, drugs, viruses, Covid-19, etc. Valid information is out there and if you have problems understanding it you could watch or listen to scientific podcasts, such as microbe.tv/twiv, and contact real researchers.

I understand the complain, that you don't trust anyone, but there are ways of getting facts regardless of the power of the 1% and people need to start listening to experts and talking to experts.

Expand full comment

That's all very interesting, but my question was "How does all the money flow up to the top of the biggest corporations?"

Expand full comment

They say if we knew how our financial system worked, there would be a revolution. Can't remember if it was Ford. Anyway, I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air, giving big corporations and banks loans with close to 0% interests, having the taxpayers foot the bailouts. The taxpayers also pay for the research that bigpharma then patents and profits from and the taxpayers are paying bigpharma for the jab and the campaign promoting the jab. I mean,how are all these states able to pay for the coercion lotteries? But that's just my guess. If I understood how the elite control the money and the government, I wouldn't need to follow people like Taibbi.

Expand full comment

That was a bunch of information I was unaware of! Thanks.

Expand full comment

Great comment! There may occasionally be confounding factors, but in general connecting the monetary dots makes the world much easier to understand.

Expand full comment

It's a complicated web we are caught up in. Would we be the weavers? https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178486/democracy-incorporated

Expand full comment

"It's great to be the king."

Expand full comment

But the Vizier pulls the strings.....

Expand full comment

Ah, but Vizier's First Consort is controlling things...

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Well, conspicuous among the "we", who always respond first to emotional appeals, are those scientists etc. who tout themselves as being Above All That.

When I've had occasion to query them about non-scientific (e.g. political) matters, even if under the most relaxed of social etc. circumstances, I get quite "non-scientific" responses.

If I present a theory about, say, what I see as major prospects, of major Const. turmoil in the US w/in c. 30 years, the response I get is, not a "scientific" "*Why* do you think that?", but rather, an outburst of "That's ridiculous!!"

Expand full comment

And, I'm talking about scientists with major positions/ reps, e.g. at National Labs.

Expand full comment

Whether one agrees with the claims of these people or not, why would you agree with Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter censoring anyone’s opinions? I’m sick and tired of nameless, faceless “moderators” determining what all of us can read, hear, or see. That’s the point.

Expand full comment

The fact Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter can censor is very much in the same legalistic vein as the dismissal of Cosby's rape conviction. Power's lawyers find a way through a loophole...

Expand full comment

From an objective sort of perspective (i actually don't know if i agree or disagree at this point), these are private companies. What i think is two things at this point - one, i don't think out regulatory and legal system has quite caught up with the reality of platforms as publishers and responsibility for content or not. Also, it may not seem it, but we do have some choices. I, for one, choose not to participate on Facebook or Twitter. I (stupidly) choose to use Google instead of Duck Duck Go, Gmail, and i watch videos on youtube (but entertainment, not news or info.) I can choose which media i consume. I can cross check. I'm not hogtied to any of them. And neither is anyone else.

Expand full comment

The relationship between these powerful arbiters of information and the government officials responsible for regulating them creates an almost "quasi-government" action when they censor to please their regulators. We need a Teddy Roosevelt, breaking up monopolies needs to happen from the top.

Expand full comment

Between all the big tech companies they currently have about 1,000 job openings for “government relations” positions.

Expand full comment

aka androgynous blowjob givers.....

Expand full comment

Totally with you on breaking up monopolies. But all i can see happening is they get broken up, and you just get ghettoized tribal sites that break down like the media sites. Instead of ghettoized sections on the same site.

Expand full comment

MySpace was the biggest social platform in the world at one time. Make Facebook MySpace.

Expand full comment

I like this plan.

Step 1: Arrest Zuck for crimes against human consciousness and sanity, put him in ADX Supermax as Ted Kaczynski's cellmate

Step 2: Put "Tom" in charge of Facebook with the goal of making it MySpacier, e.g. any member can engineer their own interface

Step 3: Profit

Expand full comment

Maybe just send Zuck into space with Elon and Branson. We could get an awful lot of billionaires bumped off.

Expand full comment

Or just have Tom take over Bandcamp, but let them add pictures and stuff.

Expand full comment

Facebook going from suburban bs to a hive of Juggalos and face tattoo rappers lol....one can wish.....

Expand full comment

And after its heyday, someone (Justin Timberlake?) bought it, lost all of the sparkly glitter and ugly fonts and made it a rather nice looking music site for bands. But the ship had long sailed.

Expand full comment

I’ll give Timberlake credit-he keeps it real on the musical/thespian front

Expand full comment

I demand that the federal government, exercising dictatorial powers in this time of epistemic emergency, bans all social media platforms with the exception of message boards and funds the resuscitation of GeoCities.

We should still have a platform where we can see rock videos though.

Expand full comment

I trust Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Ice Cube, and Willie Dee way more than any current member of Congress

Expand full comment

Mark Sandman, Leonard Cohen, Frank Zappa...or did you want living ones?

Expand full comment

Bring back Vimeo.

Expand full comment

Make mix tapes great again.

Expand full comment

... did it go somewhere?

https://vimeo.com/

Expand full comment

If they are censoring to please anyone in the government, there are Supreme Court precedents that could be marshaled to sue even private corporations for violating the First Amendment. One would need a really good lawyer to make the case, but as a start on the brief, consider:

Norwood v. Harrison (a case about civil rights law, not the First Amendment, but note the principle enunciated) quotes the district court finding in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."

While Marsh v. Alabama required free speech on private land in company town, over the objection of the company.

Expand full comment

Modern caselaw treats monopolies mainly in terms of harm to the consumer. And this doesn't get to the problem we have. We can't break up companies just because they're too damn big even though that sort of accumulation of power is really what we are suffering with.

Expand full comment

Harm to Americans is not the problem we have here??

Wat? This very piece by Matt showcases one example. When SM, fully in bed with govt, shapes the narrative and then refuses counter-discussion, that is very, very problematic. It's literally authoritarianism.

Expand full comment

Yes, there is harm, but it's not consumers being harmed by monopolistic pricing, and that's where anti-trust law has drifted.

Tim Wu traces this caselaw in "The Curse of Bigness", but it's also all public record.

Expand full comment

"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace--both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace...In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy...The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist...Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men...That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 1948

Expand full comment
founding

Good points. We can and should all crosscheck infirmation ourselves. I'm like you. Over the ladt year, I have wound up poring over at least a dozen peer reviewed medical and Obama-issued policing studies to figure out who's telling the truth. My search has led me to trust a handful of reporters like Taibbi, Greenwald, Crytal and Saagar and podcasters like Weinstein and Rogan.

It took a lot of time though. I don't have kids and, for months, my job was half as demanding as usual. I know few people with so much time to spend searching for reliable media sources. But, if people understood they're being led around by the nose by corporate shills, I'm sure more of them would make a greater effort. People would probably talk more in person about whom they trust and why. So, you're right, but I can't bear how long it will take for people to sense the urgency of the moment.

Expand full comment

That's the thing, who has the time, or even the inclination. Not many. I feel like politics is kind of my duty, but it's not my passion. I skipped a lot of reporting over the last couple of years - Russiagate, Jan 6, most Trump hysteria, Jan 6, most Covid stuff - Fauci, Cuomo, etc. And i don't feel like i missed out on anything either.

Expand full comment
founding

Right. Politics and culture used to be a passion for me, but less since Trump was elected. I never came close to supporting him, but somehow couldn't hate him enough for my friends. No more sgarin articles as we used to, no more animated talks about policy or social trends. I've realized that, to whatever degree I care about what's really going on, I care alone, practically speaking. Sure, they're a few public personalities who share my perspectives, but almost no one I actually know or love. So I am beginning to follow your plan. I'll consume what I can bear to know alone and ignore the rest!

Expand full comment

I couldn't hate Trump enough either. Not that i didn't, but as a longtime former New Yorker, i was just used to ignoring him. We would have been a lot better off if everyone had ignored him. Instead of "elevating him" as drooling dumbass Robby Mook advised, because then Hillary would have had it in the bag. What could possibly go wrong. Bernie was and is my guy, the rest of them can all fuck off.

These days i just leave the Democratic media to the Democrats, and i'll hang with my Indie homies on these parts. I do like Politico though. They just did a nice little hit piece on Harris which had the Dem spin machine on full time damage control.

Expand full comment

I didn't pay much attention to journalism or politics prior to COVID. I did a little bit of activism against Trump when he was first elected, but after a few months I simply turned off "Trump TV" and tuned out. I didn't realize how bad journalism had gotten until lockdowns, when I had time to pay attention.

Expand full comment

That's a fine list of sources. Mirrors mine, though I also subscribe to John McWhorter.

Expand full comment

Your list could be mine, and I am in the same boat-- no kids, and the time to research this stuff, unlike most of my friends.

Expand full comment

As these web sights evolve to th point where they eventually become the de facto medium through which citizens communicate, they become part of the common space we all need to occupy to feel included in a society. They need to be made as much like 'normal interaction' as possible or folks will be left to find other means of communication that are not so beneficial to society as whole maybe(well, not as beneficial as the open sharing of ideas would be). When two people are talking in park and they disagree, either of the can leave them th conversation and find someone else in the park to talk to. Neither gets to go make th grounds keeper spray a hose on th other till they either leave or modify th words they will allow to leave their mouths

Expand full comment

Disagree. Just like someone can walk away from another in the park, we can walk away from one social media platform and move to another. People have already walked away and gone to other forums. Don't want to get involved with shitposting on FB or Twitter, then shitpost on TikTok, the MSM comment section of your choice. We're on one now, after shitposting on a comment section with Martians on the NTY, i'm shitposting here.

I have an online music group, have had various online art and photography groups, and a couple of political ones. I don't have to go into the Colosseum.

Expand full comment

People tried that - it was Parler....that didn't last too long now did it?

Expand full comment

My point is that i'm already using different platforms. I don't have jump in the big arena and watch the Christians and the lions go at it.

Expand full comment

But if everyone opted out, social media would cease to exist. The whole point is to make communication universal.

But you are right about it being the case that our laws/systems of governance haven't caught up to technical reality.

It looks like the only solutions involve either lots of regulation or lots of litigation.

Expand full comment

"But if everyone opted out, social media would cease to exist."

I'll give you the same reply i gave to Rick above.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

They don't gotta burn the urls they just remove um.

Also I'm sure this isn't a panacea for the above and likely problematic in its own right when you think too much about it, but aren't sites like the wayback machine something of a help for this problem (assuming it is beyond reproach, which of course it is not).

Expand full comment

It really feels like we're in a medieval/Inquisition-type of psychic atmosphere.

Expand full comment
founding

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Expand full comment

.... until it comes.

Expand full comment

Regardless of whether one disagrees with Brett and Heather, they should absolutely have the right to discuss the topics that have gotten them demonetized. I think they are both very careful reasoned people who's contents is always interesting and worthwhile. I followed them over to Odysee. YouTube can suck it!

Expand full comment

We should be thankful this Orwellian tactic by big tech wasn't available when blood letting and phrenology were "settled science."

Expand full comment

"Settled science" is your first clue that whatever follows will be political, and not scientific. NOTHING is ever settled in science. Its ALL subject to reexamination.

Expand full comment

Yup we would all have leech farms in our basements 🙄 and of course lead to purge ourselves of toxins 😳

Expand full comment

I prefer mercury, I wonder if utube will demonetize someone promoting mercury therapy

Expand full comment

I hear phrenology is making a comeback. You can Google that shit...

Expand full comment

Are modern medically-approved types of body-mutilation better?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Eugenics is what we get when public policy is directed by scientists. The subject itself was never a science.

Expand full comment
founding

How fascinating that Politifact has taken a position on whether the spike proteins are harmful. It's doubtful they similarly express positions for medical treatments for other illnesses.

It's an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political.

Expand full comment

Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute which receives funding from a number of sources (mostly left of center philanthropies) but very notably Bill Gates, who also contributes funds to Facebook's "fact-checking." In general, the entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism and cannot be trusted at all.

Expand full comment

"[T]he entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism..."

Agreed. The only way to "check facts" is to allow open debate on them, record those debates permanently, and allow any number of competing indexes on those (permanent) records.

Expand full comment

Here in FL the Poynter Institute has successfully infected the Tampa Bay Times with a neoliberal bent that becomes more pronounced with each passing day. They have for months now in 'news' articles been shaming people about not taking the vaccines, dumbing the discussion down to a vaccine-takers-good vs. vaccine-decliners-ignorant (-or black.) And the world view they describe in subtle and not so subtle ways is quite bleak...unless you are one of the 'smart' people they think themselves to be; apparently they and they alone, with their super smarts, will be able to survive the hellscape of ignorance and racism they are sure are the only causes of strife in the world. Deliberate acts of manufacturing consent masquerading as independent journalism. Much of this to see in our world today.

Expand full comment

Time to unsubscribe. Cannot kill the beast if you feed the beast.

Expand full comment

Gates does not "contribute funds to Facebook's fact-checking." The Gates Foundation donated 380 grand to the Poynter Institute, which is working in conjunction with Facebook on a global fact-checking project.

Expand full comment

Fair enough. Gates also contributed approximately $250M to the following

"the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups."

https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php

Expand full comment

Thanks for keeping up with Gates so I don't have to. No longer just the nerd from microsoft, more than a dabbler in ag real estate, and a tinkerer of nuclear power---a Goldfinger in a V-neck sweater.

Expand full comment

Goldie wasn't a serial shagger though, that was Bond.

Expand full comment

There would be a good book in debunking the 'fact checkers'. Assuming, of course, that you could find a publisher.

Expand full comment

Asking politifact about the efficacy of spike proteins is about as useful as asking PETA for their best bone morrow recipes.

Expand full comment

I wonder, is there anyone at politifact that even knows what a spike protein is?

Expand full comment

If not, they can always check out the comments here on TK---the majority of commenters here are all trained virologists, and up to date on all the latest science and research.

Expand full comment

I thought all the amateur medical harrrummpphhing by all the Ivermectin enthusiasts here on the TK threads was "an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political."

Expand full comment
founding

I've been reading the thread for half an hour and have yet to see any ivermectin enthusiasts. Just people who dislike abuse of power.

Expand full comment

I've been reading for weeks and I have.

Expand full comment
founding

Okie doke, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Always a pleasure.

Expand full comment

I watched Weinstein's Youtube discussion of the mRNA vaccine with Robert Malone. As a physician, I didn't find his discussion particularly convincing, nor that of Dr. Malone. Three or four hundred million people have now been vaccinated and we are not seeing a lot of serious side effects, which we would almost have certainly seen by now if there really was a problem. The issue, as I see it, is that Weinstein is making a living with his Youtube channel and obviously, he is motivated to increase his income by generating controversy. There's a heck of a lot of content on Youtube and careful, well-reasoned discussion probably would generate less income than outlandish claims. As a physician, I'm used to reading medical journals and I have enough statistical training to evaluate the evidence. That's not true for the majority of people exposed to this kind of programming. I'd have found Weinstein's program a lot more interesting if he had brought on an active mRNA researcher to debate Dr. Malone. (I don't think Dr. Malone is "in his dotage" at age 60, but he's clearly not involved with this kind of work anymore.) Weinstein is a smart guy, but he's not a physician, and not a virologist. His show needs to be a little more balanced if he wants to be taken seriously.

Expand full comment

The article is not about whether what he said was right or wrong, the article is whether he had the right to say it and keep his platform.

He is a scientist and the people he has on are scientists. You then get the right to think for yourself and decide whether or not you agree with him.

Expand full comment

How do people keep missing this central point?!

Expand full comment

Not understanding the links between government and business. Being a private company covers a multitude of sins, it seems.

Expand full comment

Under U.S. law, ALL the sins.

Expand full comment

That feeling when legal isn’t always the same thing as right.

Expand full comment

Exactly-- censorship

Expand full comment

I think that you have a good point about freedom of expression. But Youtube is a private platform and Weinstein and Malone are completely free to develop their own website and place their content on their own website. Nobody can force the NY Times to publish my scribblings, or CNN to broadcast my ravings, and most people would think it okay that I not be given those platforms. The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility.

Expand full comment

YouTube, etc. can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be immune from responsibility for content, like a common carrier, then exercise editorial control over that content like a newspaper. Sooner or later they’ll be made to pick one, or one will be picked for them.

Expand full comment

Exactly right. The basic fact that seems to be too difficult for Congress to grasp (except for Ted Cruz and a few allies).

Expand full comment

Clearly, they can.

Expand full comment

Parler would like a word.

Expand full comment

Mark Parler was a really good alternative to Youtube but unfortunately Youtube did what good monopolies did-- they paid off- sorry gave campaign contributions , called in favours etc of their paid stooges and had it tied up and squashed. Think 1940s.

Expand full comment

You beat me to it.

Expand full comment
founding

Power companies are private companies too. Should they be allowed to disconnect your power if they disagree with your politics?

Expand full comment

If the power company was also allowing you to transmit video/text through their power lines, sure. There was a method for using the power grid for data transmission created way back. It never got off the ground, but it worked. An example of something that could have been, would have changed how our world works, and everyone would think it was inevitable and the only obvious way.

Expand full comment

"The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility."

Whatever you think about YouTube's "journalism", the point is we need true common carriers. They don't exist online.

Expand full comment

Sure they do. What we don't have is "common carriers forced to pay you." I am certain that the only question in anyone's mind is what they do and don't want censored.

We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children,etc..

Expand full comment

"We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children"

Except for porn (the kinds that don't embody actual recorded crimes), all the others are incitement to commit crimes ... which itself is a crime. I wouldn't call prohibiting incitement "censorship".

Expand full comment

And if we dealt with the underlying causes of those issues, we might not have to.

Expand full comment
founding

I think it's also about whether YouTube is an extension of whatever corporate interest makes it worth their while... big pharma in this moment. Since there are no laws against 2 companies working together privately, we can't even demand an investigation.

Expand full comment

Public utility. Given current technology, no speech should be censored or deplatformed except in the very rare cases where it presents a clear and immediate danger. It does not matter whether the would-be censor is the government or a nearly monopolistic private corporation. In fact, the latter is worse, since government is at least somewhat democratic, whereas corporations, as Chomsky has rightly characterized them, are unaccountable private tyrannies.

Expand full comment

It’s the new “Public Square,” Mark.

Expand full comment

Nope. It's the new pub. A bar can refuse service to anyone and bounce you out as it likes.

Expand full comment

Social media is a primary means of discourse these days. That aside, your metaphor is especially stupid — unless and until Facebook starts serving alcohol. Your comments here are just laughable. But even taking up your bar example: have you ever been tossed from a bar for having discussions about subjects the bar owner didn’t want discussed? LOL.

Expand full comment

Let’s back it up a little.

Brian, have you ever been to a bar?

Expand full comment

Hilariously, if you bring topics that typically involve free speech discussions (religion and politics) to a bar it’s not unreasonable to remove you from the establishment.

It’s almost like you don’t know anything, Brian.

Expand full comment

A priest and a scientist walk into a bar. The priest orders a bourbon on the rocks and demands that the scientist accept the myth of a virgin birth and the scientist orders a Moscow Mule and insists that, although no cases have ever been documented of COVID-19 being transmitted to a human by an animal, we must all believe in the New Holy Trinity (Fauci, Daczak, and the Bat Lady). The bartender throws them both out and reminds them that there was once a time when they could freely debate these miracles on the worldwide Web.

Expand full comment

Assuming that Brian actually is a graduate of the UC...I weep uncontrollably for our future.

Expand full comment

Not quite true. I'm sure you can think of some counter examples......

Expand full comment

@Brian

"Nope. It's the new pub. A bar can refuse service to anyone and bounce you out as it likes."

It's a new day, and we see you still haven't received the professional help that you so desperately need.

Expand full comment

You Tube is a monopoly -- The NY Times is not. You tube is owned by Facebook. Guess who funded that after the twins took their money and ran. Wow you are comparing the business model/function of the NY Times with You Tube--really?

BTW both doctors do. One has a P-O-D-C-A-S-T-- listen to it sometime- great guests.

The bottom line is the issue is censorship. You seems very upset about the money issue-- nothing is stopping you from trying it.

Expand full comment

YouTube is owned by Google. But your point is valid.

Expand full comment

"The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility."

It's very tricky, i'd say neither of the above. Tough to have a public utility and with the copyright issues.

Expand full comment

You seem to have missed the entire point of the article, regarding state censorship.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yeah and when they do actually make a competitor that’s taking off, like Parler, the tech monopolies collude to remove it from the internet within 24 hours. Apple and Google removed it from their App Stores and Amazon removed its hosting within 24 hours, and it’s only now getting back online, several months later.

Expand full comment

You're assuming that most people are like you, a common failing among liberals. It appears to me that most are NOT discerning, they are NOT critical thinkers, they are NOT capable of making informed decisions...they ARE easily grifted, they ARE easily victimized by smooth talkers, and they mostly get their news from Facebook...need I say more?

Expand full comment

So we need a priestly class to tell the masses what they need to know.

Expand full comment

I never said that. But a private entity, such as YT, determines what's in their best interest to publish or not publish. People can then go say what they want somewhere else...maybe hop up on a milk crate on a street corner somewhere and say it. Don't get pissed at YT for looking out for themselves, not to mention calling it censorship.

Expand full comment

But legally they are not publishers. If they are publishers they are not protected by Section 230 and can be sued for what appears on their site.

Expand full comment

Let them eat cake, amirite?

Expand full comment

"But a private entity, such as YT, determines what's in their best interest to publish or not publish."

YouTube's lawyers: "WHOA, we never said anything about publishing! Easy there, fella!"

Expand full comment

YT's best financial interest is to let the batshit crazy roll, Alex Jones style. That sells, and the people it sells to are gullible and easy to target.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Fuck off with that shit.

We’re better than you know and can handle ourselves.

Pfft, when you criticized the state of my soul I should’ve guessed you were projecting your own weakness.

Expand full comment

Phisto...... Nicely worded sentiments.

Funny thing about folks like The Strongest... in their pecking order, they always see themselves on top. When you look closely, you see just another idiot with an opinion.

I'd trust a three hundred million retards over folks like that. How could it be worse than we have now? At least retards aren't clever enough to fuck us the way our oligarchs and politicians do.

Expand full comment

Will we have bright colors, explosions and Pr0n?

4k calories/day of sugar, fried food and delicious carbs?

Perfect safety?

Then we'll be living in the world the narcissists project other people wanting. It's selection bias. They think everyone is like the people they see on the internet, when that's the only people they see.

I think they're in for a shock, hopefully an entertaining one.

Expand full comment

Yes, easily grifted by the likes of Ibram Kendi, who thus far has not been censored.

Expand full comment

Folks of all stripes share these qualities, bruh.

Expand full comment

So democracy is a bad idea? Not that we have it, or have had for quite a long time. (Page and Siegel proved this with an elaborate study, som eyears ago now.)

Expand full comment

Who knows? I sure don't! But I will say it's turning out to be 'not as advertised', that's for certain. And I would argue the reason is because of too many uninformed dimwits that think Facebook and such are good sources of info. Democracy requires an educated discerning public, and trustworthy sources of info...we have neither of these.

Expand full comment

Ummm, must be why are very discerning forefathers founded a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy.

Expand full comment

I really wish we could correct typos on substack.

Expand full comment

Just fyi, "The major difference between a democracy and a republic is that a republic is a form of government whereas a democracy is an ideology that helps shape how a government is run. Put another way: a republic is the system of government that allows a country to be democratic!"

This is from the site that helps people study for the SAT. https://blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference

Expand full comment

I consent to no one’s rule and no one consents to mine. So, yes. It’s a bad idea.

Expand full comment

It really isn’t about whether you, after hearing the material and evaluating it, think it should be taken “seriously.” It’s about whether people should be able to hear and evaluate it as you have. As for your take that we ordinary people can’t be trusted to hear and evaluate the information — I don’t need you making those decisions for me. If you are so concerned, get on YouTube and air your concerns.

Expand full comment

When a journalist writes a story, if the professional standards include fact checking. Stories with "facts" that cannot be verified are not supposed to run. @matt taibbi knows this very well -- he has made reference to it in his stories. A journalist cannot run a story that says that Donald Trump is a cannibal, or that Nancy Pelosi makes child porn without having proof of that, and if they do, they can expect consequences.

Those who read or listen to media have an expectation that what they read has some basic soundness to it.

Matt Taibbi has made a name for himself debunking stories like Russiagate that are lies. But those stories did get created through channels (that should be cleaned out) which had those falsehoods represented as facts. And here he is defending a different kind of Russiagate when it is being (correctly) attacked as false and calling it "censorship". This implies that Matt thinks that the Russiagate story should have been run in the first place, and that all those involved in the machinations to create the Russiagate lies should be defended.

Here we have a "story" in which most of the facts do not check out. They are just false. That means that this journalist, Bret Weinstein did not bother to try to check them, and he has the nominal background to at least try to do so. Nor did Bret ask serious questions of his guests claims. That he did not do so, and that he has not done anything to listen to, nor give time to information that debunks what his guests were saying, violates basic standards of journalism. That is why I am saying that Matt is on the wrong side of this.

The above is also why I say that Bret Weinstein has no business calling foul, nor saying that he is being "censored". He is getting appropriate consequences for violating basic standards of journalism. Without those standards, the people cannot be informed, and democracy becomes ungovernable. We see this developing right before us.

Most people do not have the background, or skills/training, etc. to evaluate claims about vaccines, epidemiology, etc.. Given that this is something that causes mass death, it is important to make sure facts are checked.

Expand full comment

You have this comically wrong, Brian. Even as Matt was debunking “Russiagate” he never called for deplatforming voices reporting on Russiagate. He opposed information with information. The rest of what you get to here is a claim that YouTube or Facebook can determine which facts are “correct,” and should then take steps to keep “bad information” from us. It is f*cked up and decidedly illiberal.

Expand full comment

Did Matt ever call for Russiagaters to lose their jobs?

I feel like that’s pertinent.

Obviously, that’s not a matter of course.

Expand full comment

Not that I recall. Matt noted (lamented) repeatedly that there was no “accountability” for constantly misreporting on Russiagate, but I never took that to mean “firing.” I took it to mean reputationally.

Expand full comment

Sounds like we can say the Russiagate tangent is bullshit.

Expand full comment

Bret has not been "deplatformed". Bret had half his money taken away and stories left alone.

The bad information is still available. Bret is just being incentivized to apply journalistic standards of fact checking accuracy.

Expand full comment

False-- two of his most recent videos were removed. And "demonetization" is another tool of censorship.

Expand full comment

In a world where you have to work to eat, it sure is.

Expand full comment

"Just being incentivized."

You fucking boot licker.

Expand full comment</