or serve us, they actually control us. is there a way out from this growing dystopian? in the cross talking tech control, i'm joined by my guess, zach war. he's in san francisco. he's a google whistleblower, a tech entrepreneur and co author of the book. google leaks and whistleblowers ex was a big tech censorship and in phoenix across to ryan hardwig, he is a free speech advocate. facebook whistleblower and co author of the book behind the mask of facebook. current settlement cross talk rules and effects. that means it can jump in anytime you want, and i appreciate your both whistleblowers from some of the most tyrannical organizations that have ever existed on this planet. i feel very strongly about that. so i can ryan, i'd like you to give us a thumbnail sketch of your whistleblower experience that these tech corporations you 1st back in san francisco. well, google was

a really great company all the way up until 2016 when donald trump, when the election. and then they decided that they were going to go to a hard authoritarian company. and they changed all their policies and they started to classify things like big news with a program called machine learning fairness. they had all their evil plans on designed documents inside the company and as a full time employee, i had access to these documents. i copied them ah, and realised that this was something that the public needed to know about because it really is going to be the end of democracy. if google is not put a stop to and so i released these documents 950 pages to project bear toss and really the rest is history. and now we know how google does their censorship and pretty much everything that i was predicting and 2019 has come true. in fact, it's even worse now and you see things like i ever met him being heavily censored.

and now that's, you know, there's questions about whether this pandemic had to be as bad as it could have been because of certain censorship that big tech has done not just on the president, but also non political things that impact everyday people like you and me. well, you know exactly a lot of the things that i had suspicions about people like you have actually confirmed that you've done an amazing public service. ryan, your story will quickly to go ahead. yes. so i started as a content moderator for facebook in 2018 and i was there for 2 years. so my job was to study facebook's policy and apply it to to post comments pages on facebook and instagram. and so what i saw was clear bias. a slanted plan towards the left where, you know, facebook was actively censoring post about trump actively having us delete your viral videos. it would,

which creates empathy for trump. so these were all examples of things that i saw. and so after a year there i started, i decided enough was enough and i reached out to a few journalists and they referred me to project curtis. i found with a camera at work for about 9 months straight. and so i covered all these exceptions in bias and you know, went public with project fer task where there are so much more in the, in what i had uncovered. so i decided to write a book about it behind the mass, your facebook, and yeah that, so that's my story. i was a constant moderator content sensor, working for facebook and instagram. well the 2nd ryan, i mean, i don't know, maybe i've been gone a long time or i'm just getting too old. but i mean, i think we're all kind of brought up. the censorship is a dirty word. and, and you're telling our audience that this is something that was proactively a conscious we done is to warp the public sphere in one direction back 1st in san francisco. yeah, well,

it wasn't just google that bought this project up. machine learning fairness was a project that was developed in stanford, an academic institution, and then brought into google deliberately and then systematically released into all of the different products they have google search, google news, youtube, this machine learning furnace infected all the company. and i was brought in by academia. and that's a question we have to ask ourselves. why was freedom dismantled by a program from stanford? well, that's right. that's just it just absolutely extraordinary here. i mean, i mean, let's put it kind of real world conditions. i mean, they do this for profit, do they do it to hinge or competition? or they just ideological fanatics because i'm worried that it's the last one. go ahead. ryan. yeah, i think the last one is the most accurate and obviously they are business. so they have to make a profit and, and they've done so,

but they've gone above and beyond what a normal business would do as far as the this idea, logical war that we're in. so i mean, they, yes me. so they have their policy rules which i am an expert on cuz i started it for 2 years. but anytime they wanted to, they could just make an exception to that rule. so if there's a left left, a celebrity, pushing a pro abortion agenda and alabama even if they break the speech rules, facebook can give them news or the exceptions to allow them allow their people to, to break the rules. so it really is, you know, that this, this censorship regime as we call it, it does shape public opinion and i can't find any other reason for them to do it other than they're being influenced or being controlled. and they really are pushing this ideological war and it's put case one is pushing one direction, you know exactly me. you want to jump in there. so i go ahead. i do want to jump in . what really surprised me is i had this assumption that google had a share responsibility to maximize shareholder value. but what i found is that

a through all that a way to engage this ideological and political battle against a democratically elected president of the united states. it's absolutely crazy. why would they sabotaged their own revenue? i mean, when i was working at youtube, we were having a certain goals out like 4000000000 watch hours in a month. and we realized that we could hit that because of all the censorship that we were doing driving customers off of the platform. so this has nothing to do about maximizing shareholder value impact is destroying shareholder value at these companies. and these companies are okay with that because the power systems at their time trying to grab are actually more valuable than their ability to make money. well, the ryan, that this is really quite extraordinary, mean for companies that are designed to generate revenue and profit for their shareholders. here it seems to me, the way things are being played out is that they don't really want the businesses

half the country. they just don't care. i mean, that isn't extraordinary thought to do and to contemplate go ahead ride. yeah, i mean you see them alienate from folders. i multiple examples where facebook's rules, you know, basically yet alienated trent border. so we, there's a viral video, a trump support being attacked in summer of 2018, and facebook gave a flimsy excuse to delete it. they said because there was cursing at the minor who was being attacked. but you know, this was viral and they told us to delete the video across the board. so that's millions and millions of people who could have seen that video but could not. and when trump gave his state of the union speech, facebook told us to look for hate speech coming from a state of the union. and they taught look out for dog whistles. when trump mentioned south africa land grabs. and in and so there's multiple examples of yeah, so anytime trump, i mean there was a, me, me about reagan, the, the person who shot wrong, reagan, he got out of the hospital, check it,

the secretary, the, and the psychiatric hospital. and there was a mean about it and facebook told us that it wasn't clear enough that he was implying that he should be shot. and so multiple examples like that, i mean, they give an exception to allow attacks against straight white males. when don lemons is dominant, so they're white, males are cherry threats. facebook to us to ignore ignore that. so yeah, every chance they had it was just her man. bad. yeah. yeah, but i mean, but if i can say with you ryan here, i mean you, your, you were asked to act as a publisher. so what about section 230? i mean, everything you said is a publisher's job. i mean, this is outrageous here and they put us all into a dilemma because it acts like a utility, but i don't want the government. i think the government would be just as bad as the current ownership. ok, depending on who's in power is like, how do you react to that?

i mean, you know, we, the hunter by new story is one of the great examples right there where you could get that for me. it was interesting that they, they actually got away with a, they disappeared, a major story. and the majority, huge number of voters had no idea. but when they went to the polls, i mean, this is tyranny, but nothing less. go ahead. zach. i mean, it is tyranny and they're putting the scales on the elections and they're meddling, and they're not just meddling in the united states elections. they're meddling in elections across the world and the evidence i have, but this is a blacklist that google testify didn't exist, but i was able to find it as an internal employee using the search term blacklist. they literally had a blacklist blacklist. ok. and if you look at this blacklist, what you will see is that google actually blacklisted the term, the 8th amendment to the constitution of irelands in order to reg that referendum

against abortion. and the question is, why is google trying to implement a new world order agenda across the world? what country is safe from this agenda? and, you know, my answer is that none of them are and that if we don't put a stop to this, if nations don't wake up and put the clamps on big tech, then they are not going to be able to run a legitimate election in their country. without google putting their finger on the scales. ok, ryan, really one minute left in this part of the program. but i have to ask the obvious question. i mean, are the politicians just in the pocket of these people? i mean, you know, you know, we need free speech areas. we need to, we need to more censorship of, of conservative. but, you know, i mean, collectively these people, the left and right, they could claim to use as x words clamping 30 seconds before we go to the break ahead. yeah, politicians are definitely in the pocket of, of, of big tech. and yes,

it's a huge problem. and hopefully we can talk more about global elections as well, because i saw some of that in south america, mexico. but yeah, there, these politicians are definitely in the text pocket. i mean, there's so much a lot of money it's, it's and saying, well, i'm not going to name names, but some major figures in congress are complaining about big tax. but it's obvious . and it's been publicly known that they take money from, from google and facebook publicly known. and they, they, they put, they, they may make a virtue gesture and then they leave it at that are going to jump in here. gentlemen, we're going to go to a short break and out about short break. we'll continue our discussion on tech control, stay with r t the the me only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking, that is a nation's allowed to do anything. all the races and then you have the mind,

the nation. so the slave, the americans, brock obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians enter this dangerous man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy. so them walk into a new one. i english v i. b, i not leashed off in one tablet, block, nato, to it's our we move east. the reason us hedge emily, some dangerous is the lie, the sovereignty of other countries. the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is founded, shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large companies would lose

millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fascist. join me every thursday on the alex simon show. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport, business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me the earth still large enough to satisfy the ambitions of jeff bezos. you know, it's got its tentacles in so many aspects of the economy. there's nothing that amazon isn't trying to get into to step by step. the amazon empire has extended its grip on the world that was like an inquiry like a dog. so amazon looks like monopoly trays like a monopoly makes money like monopoly behaves like monopoly, like amazon essentially controlled the marketplace. it's not really a market, it's

a private arena world where a single company controls the distribution of daily products. and the infrastructure of our economy is the, according to amazon. ah, welcome back, the cross talk, we're all things are considered. i'm peter liberal to remind you we're discussing tech control. mm. okay, go back to is i can san francisco. i've always wanted to ask people on the inside the following question factored, do they like playing god? yes. they feel like they're playing god and that can be their finger on the scale. and yeah, and that's actually can the dividing line that i see between the people that are good and the people that are evil is that the people that are evil are sort of like

atheists. and it kind of blew my mind once i realized this. and the people that wouldn't do such things. i have a belief in god and don't ask me why that is. it just is what it is. right? and same question to you. i mean to is, is this a, an ego trip? i mean, you know, they do it because they can do it. i mean, i sometimes, because i look at, you know, dorothy over at twitter. i mean, he's obviously not a very bright guy. okay. but he kind of exudes, you know, there's nothing you can do to me and my everything i said is gospel and, and he knows he can get away with it at the arrogance a so irritating. go ahead, right? yeah. i mean, there definitely is the influence of like group think and there's kind of a bubble in that san francisco area that can probably test to that. but even at our level, i was an entry level content moderator. and we even even felt kind of some of that ego and power. and we would have like, what we call the ban hammer. we were you, you'd band someone in that mean where, you know, there's

a content facebook person doing laughing. you mean before you delete it? that's actually true. we would have it. yeah. but i mean, let me go back to you, but they don't have any inkling. but this is authoritarian thinking and behavior. do they? i mean, is there any, you know, self reflection, they said, you know, this going down this path here of destroying the public sphere. because if you do that, you alienate people. and then people come up with their alternative theories. their alternative news, you know, with this go think what it does is it creates chaos. ok. because when i was 1st introduced to these platforms, i know we thought they were like, even playing fields. okay. and you know that you could get, you could find what you wanted and it wasn't biased but, and now even i can see that with the suggestions that they give you and whatnot. here don't, don't they see that it could be. it's what you laugh at me, me and deleted, but don't they understand that they're playing with fire?

go ahead, suck. what's really interesting is that i would have expected that these people were normal, that these people that were in charge of google would have a shred of human remorse and would believe in the us constitution the pre in the speech. but well, it turned out is that none of these people had any breaks whatsoever in rolling out an authoritarian regime online. and i'm specifically talking about center shy and susan, which is sky ceo of youtube. she produced talk after talk, talking about the clamp down of youtube and how that they were going to push down the quote trashy news content and boost the authoritative contacts. and she said that without a shred of irony on her face at all. and she was talking about how they were going to become a authoritarian video platform. and it was,

it was mind blowing. and there's other examples that are exactly like this. but every single time they advanced forward, they had no irony they, they, you know, they even talk to how they want to still preserve freedom of speech. and i'm not exactly sure what's going on in their mind that allows them to do this. but they did it and they systematically did it. and the thing that i want to know is, what does someone have over these people or the black belt? are they forced to do this? like, how can they go from being advocates, a free speech and do a complete 1? 80 in one year. this happened that you to, they did a complete 1. 80, it was mind blowing. and, you know, we have to ask whether they're legitimate people or whether they've been placed by a highly organized group that's, you know, holding the funding strength. so i think it might actually be the ladder. yeah, i mean a ryan. i mean this is confirmation biased. all, all the time. i mean,

you could, given what exactly said here, you know, i mean, i guess, you know, person supporting authoritative new news outlets like the new york times, which i can't remember the last time they got a major story right. seriously. i can't remember pushing up cnn, which nobody watches unless you visit an airport, but they keep pushing them up. ok. i mean, is it because they want it, this is in group they, they want to feel that they are part of this elite here that you know, new york times mean something to them must be only people in silicon valley, you know, see it in an emerson b, c, things like that when all of their ratings are going down, but they're being supported. i mean, don't they, don't they see this here, or is a distinct all of us are just a bunch of rubes that can be easily ignored. go ahead, ryan. yeah, that's good question. so my co author can't heck and lively he did a great job helped me with a book. and his perspective is kind of like, you know, the, the iron curtain, so know, run reagan,

he's able to reach out to the russians in the eighty's and, you know, the russians that we were the bad guys. so i think, i think we need to work with them. kind of that with that approach may be the big tech ceos think that, you know, they really think that christian, conservative right wing people are evil or the enemy. so maybe need to bridge that divide as possible but, but yeah, going back to was ex said, i mean, yeah. who is controlling these people? how the me effected i. i worked for about 3 months of the contractor for over corporate, doing account security and the ceo of hoover, the time travis colonic at one point he said, you know, all lives matter and they forced him to retract that. and i still, i see a lot of influence when i was there, when we had a speech from someone from black lives matter, a group club meeting and they were bragging about how they course to the c e o to retraction statement. so i think there's a lot of influence from the organizations like that. but yeah, i think that i'm not sure if they're there,

they themselves are brainwashed or just once again because of that group think effect. but they always see, think that the, you know, the new york times these major publications are correct, but we know that these organizations are, you know, get their funding or washington post. they get their money from amazon. so, you know, jeff pays us. yeah. so i think they're all just buddies. yeah. okay. well is that come in when we ball paid it a very dismal picture? this is a dis topiary here. i mean, mural we were an insider. i mean, is there a way out of this year the, the cost of entry is just an unimaginable now. okay. we have a monopolized economy when it comes to information and so many other sectors. i mean, how do we, how do we get out of this here? because there's enough people like ourselves and people watching this program are aware of the problem. but the problem is so immense. how do we address it? go ahead. zach. so in my book, i talk most of the book about the whistle blowing experience,

but the final chapter i talk about the solution for big tech censorship in news and media and the solution to that will actually be released on october. 3rd, i've got a new web site, it's basically the drudge report for video, and it's going to launch on august 3rd, i can't tell you what the name of it is because it's some bar go. but if after the show you would like to check it out, i would love to show you. but the key idea here is that aggregation defeats censorship. ok? yes, you tube may pan you. yes, you know, that may happen, but there are other video services that are out there now that you rumble, odyssey righty on that will host contexts. and so what needs to happen is that we need to be able to take this data of sensible public opinion. we need to be able to open source it into the internet, and then we need to allow websites to be able to take that content from across to

internet and combine it in a single website that is on sensible. this is something that i've done. this is, i've never worked very hard on, i'm going to release it on august 3rd. and i believe that once people see this website, they're going to copy me and they're going to be able to launch other services that do the same thing. and i believe that this is going to bypass big tech censorship and restore the 1st amendment and the freedom of speech for americans and other people across the world. right. zach you sign me up. i'm fascinated with that. i mean, i, i, i'm on locals now. i, i like they are kind of friendliness ok. they're very attentive and all that, but it's very difficult to build up a follow. it's a lot of work. ok. and it goes to for everyone to know. i have my own podcasts on youtube, but they don't let me make any money, but they take money that, that the videos generate for themselves. ok. i mean, what di abbas my uncle business model?

i mean i do the work, they take all the money. what are your solutions and dealing with some of this here? go ahead, go ahead, right? yes. so i think the solution there, we try to see some legal solutions. we see the anti trust approach and we just saw that the anti trust lawsuit from the d. o, j got shut down by a judge in washington saying there wasn't enough evidence of that. facebook is a monopoly and which is bogus. but i think one solution would be, you know, section reforming section 230. i know it's been said a lot, but we need to understand about section 230. it's been interpreted incorrectly by the 9th circuit court surprised surprise. and so we need to have it written by the supreme court. they had a chance to in january. they chose not to, so it is kind of tough because if the supreme court declining these important cases, then what, whether a solution that we have, we can do, you know, as we can as a country and says, and sue the united states government itself under the 5th amendment for due process,

because basically what facebook is, has been given from the communications decency act. second to 30, it's called the delegation doctrine. and there's another rule called avoid. the vagueness that has to do with this, but we basically facebook ac is acting as a defacto government agency. so that's, that's the issue here. so they, they should not be acting, and that's unconstitutional. so we should sue the united states government for delegating their authority. well, in these companies and congress is abrogated. its responsibility is i'll give you the last minute here. they're letting these big tech companies actually become the government itself. they don't need the 1st amendment, they don't need the constitution. it's really quite terrifying and it's happening very, very quickly. 40 seconds me as act so we can finish up. yeah, this was a skate actor. saying that it tech is becoming, is a very big problem. you know, there, there's the court way of dealing with that, which hasn't really gone anywhere with

a lawsuit that come out. i don't think one has one. and then there's the judicial system or the legislature system to create new laws which is happening now. and actually they've got some pretty good laws coming out. and then the 3rd one is we just got to make them irrelevant. make them be like by space in the fact that, hey, do you want to go on the sensor? the sensor platform or do you want to go this platform where people have the freedom of speech and really people are flocking to all these other platforms that have diverse opinion and they're not censoring. and with a free market competition, i think it's going to solve the well, i love it, make them irrelevant. that's the best way to end this program here. i want to, that's all the time we have gentlemen. many thanks my guess in san francisco and in phoenix. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are to see you next time. remember across the

ah or military mission against dam. we'll conclude on august 31st. i was going to who did a good to us all the quote unquote a young girl. and i really improved so much. you've got to be southern company, southern the cut cut all the month. i think that was the place to get a quote to show me that this was the right weapon against the right hon bought it from but it was filled out through z o o z the the signing of the us to all about agreement. and i laid the groundwork for the road ahead toward

a lasting peace in afghanistan. and i know we still need that mcdonalds. and as i have the a, i the mark,

mark your function, you go with a good way to check the me to do all you. i'm done on the how did i put it on the top limit and i wanted them off. you're gonna go back to the work for me about the less about i've been up there for me and ah

ah ah, pulling a 100 dead 1300 inches and the tragic aftermath of a terrorist attack that should call black pulls were crowds of people both off guns and foreigners were crumb together waiting to be evacuated from the country in atlantic state facility and gotten a sun k says it carried out the bombing experts revealed to us more about the group . this group actually is

a direct byproduct of the us invasion and occupation of afghanistan. they.