and usually filled with a ra, a shape out disdain becomes the african and engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. these are the full people who pulled the trigger and survive something on survival . when hardest things that i had to face was not having a face at a low expectation of life,

i accepted the accept the fact that i made that work. we had no fears, general change, pre fashion, 4 shots, different stories behind the bullets. ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle can continue to internet censorship and freedom of speech co exist. this all important question is being tested. how should miss information be define who should be allowed to make this determination? today it's about vaccines. will it stop there? ah,

cross sucking our information dystopian, i'm joined by my guest, nathaniel bradley, new york. he is ceo of data vault holdings in phoenix. we have ryan hartwick. he is a free speech advocate. facebook whistleblower and co author of the book behind the mask of facebook and montreal. we cross today, but for a height he is a practicing attorney and youtube are, are a crosswalk rules in effect, that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate david, let me go to you 1st as a practicing attorney. and obviously, you know, the laws about freedom of speech. can this continued path of censorship. ok, right now it's about vaccines. i don't really want to talk about vaccines on this program. but are the fact that, you know, you are being told what we can say. what we can say of speech is being proscribed, okay? and that's a very different place than what we've been a only a few years ago here. so the fundamental question of this program is, can this censorship drive co exists way? what we understand as freedom of speech, go right ahead. it can't, and it doesn't,

but it didn't start with the vaccines. it started slowly but surely a while back. you know, jordan peterson was sounding the alarm with some legislation coming out of canada. bill c. 16. i think it was that was your in theory going to prescribe or forbid, certain language, a certain gen, you know, gendering people how you refer to them. the, the attack on free speech has been going on for a while. it's just been escalated. most recently, under the pandemic, and we've seen a most notably under the pandemic. but don't forget, it started with alex jones. this is nothing new. and i think alex jones was the test case as to see who you can silence under the pretext of protecting. and they got away with it with alex jones and it's only escalated since then. okay. same question to you nathaniel, i'm really glad i'm glad that alex jones was mentioned because we could look at the biter hunton hunter, a laptop. okay, that was a real amazing operation and they pulled it off. it's truly amazing. and now we have these test cases. and it seems to me that they,

they see that there's going to be very little resistance. only a small number of us are really going to fight back. that's a pretty depressing prognosis. go ahead. nathaniel new york. well yeah, we're dealing with quite a bit. and when you, when you sprinkle i, you know, robot pandemic. i think it gives precipice started to take actions that i think the larger companies like google and apple and others. i have a real conundrum on their hand with respect to survey their shareholders. but also having this oversight that they have to have to in this case, od prevent the distribution of formation. that is literally showing people a pandemic. is it from a death toll standpoint? you know, aside from all the politics and everything else on it, it's deadly serious. and so therefore it brought up a lot of this to the head. but to answer the question at the top of the show,

where is that, you know, is it, is it going to be a situation where freedom of speech in these technologies to co exist? and i think the answers, yes, on a quickly yes. but there is a growing pays that we're feeling right now. and this overreach, by the ceos in the, or it's, i think that there's a data revolution where we see a trillion dollar market chapter, you know, vampire out of our communities. when you look at just facebook and now we see the societal damage the platform does and also on the, our pockets. and these recent breaches and such. so i think, i think the key thing is, is this for, for the community of users to use data in a way where they recognized value behind the data and move forward in a strategy that, that allows freedom of speech to really shine through and,

and become a user of technology in the context of free speech. ok, i just hope that these technologies don't make pretty speech a victim here. ryan is one of the things that we're constantly warned about is misinformation and obviously on the internet. there's plenty of this misinformation i've, you know, ever since the advent of the internet, i recognize it. i know what it is. i know how to avoid. it actually keeps my mind shar, because i know it is december information, but right. i mean, why did some people at facebook think they know what misinformation is? because her go, they're saying they know what the truth is. and i have a hard time with that. and i will never except that these people know, quote unquote that truth. go ahead, right? yeah, we just had a whistleblower comfort yesterday. francis hogan wright who blew the whistle at facebook saying that they weren't assessing, they weren't censoring enough. and that is interesting because he talks about how she lost a friend to online conspiracies. now when i say i lost her friend easily,

it's when they, they die and they that pass away. and so she's using this phrase, ly lost her friend, and she says, she says, cry never wanted anyone to fill the pain that i felt i'd seen how high the stakes were in terms of making sure there was high quality information on facebook. so there she is admitting that facebook is breaking the law. they're violating section 230 because of in 26 to 30. they're supposed to be an interactive computer service, not a content provider, not an information content provider. so they're already breaking the rules on facebook and google. they have a monopoly or a do awfully on the internet right now. and on an internet traffic. so it's really frightening to see them pushing for more censorship and according to their definition of misinformation. so according to their term definition misinformation, you're not, you're not, you're not allowed to gather together for a mass protest if you're on the right. but if you're a leftist or you're and t f, our b l m, you're more than welcome to use facebook for those purposes. so it's, this is this double standard. this is characterized in my book behind the mask of

facebook, where these tech overlords basically can define and we of what is missing information, what is hate speech and use it for their own purposes. and we begin to think the thing, david, is it the it sees tech companies that have brought politics into it? they're the ones that make the decision, is what we heard from ryan. there is it, what is good? what is bad? what is at if you know what's good for society, what's bad for society? these are tech companies are not churches. maybe they want to be it. maybe they're acting like it. but i mean, i again, creighton the, they are creating these divisions. the a, i mean already had very divided society, they're just making it far, far worse. and if you're told you can say something well, there's people like us will say, well, why, ok, we're going to fight back that the instant inclination. go ahead david. i take issue with one thing and it's the, it's the term has been thrown around, misinformation kills people. i mean, that's the pretext for the censorship online. i, i tend to think that misinformation kills a lot fewer people than censorship. and what we've seen now in

a really time for people who have lived through it, is that the censorship that we've seen on youtube and facebook, i would argue, is probably killed, more people than any alleged misinformation out there. prohibiting discussion as to the origins of the virus because anybody who's been online remembers you got d platforms and ban a year ago for suggesting this originated in whoo. and now it's mainstream news. how much of the response was compromised by censorship and the free exchange of ideas at the time in terms of defined, identifying the origins of this virus. and i miss information. they give the classic example pizza gate. this guy got it inspired by misinformation and showed up to common pizza and fired around oh, that's there. that's there. a quintessential example of misinformation being dangerous. i would argue that the censorship is exponentially more dangerous on the one hand because it prevents people from doing proper research and exposing the truth. and on the other hand, the censorship itself is far more motivating and form or confirming of the truth of that which is being censored than the free exchange of ideas that follows from

allowing this information, even if it is that to flow it nathaniel is weak. that's a really good point. the david brings up here. i mean, right now, okay, we have a medical emergency, all of us accept that. and i think all of us want to be good citizens and, and have good behavior. by that mean, is this the litmus tests, you know, next you can talk about this topic and then another topic. and then you can in a while, you'll go from, you can talk about this to you need to talk about this and this and that, that's the pattern. that's the trajectory that we're on. go ahead, nathaniel. yeah. so that trajectory, right, is just right for an intervention. i think what's great about our systems is that we can adjust. i think again this, the community drives. and when you have our, our, our choice is being taken away. i mean, your face looks really grown. you know, without, without the idea of consumer sales, they simply take our, we're, we're the product in that environment and they monetize it. and i think that that's, that's more of the core issue than the censorship issue that you're discussing. you

know, you can, in a, in a theater yell fire, you can't walk into the public square and say certain things because they cost public safety concerns. so i think that that's really the test that, that's really the limit. that's really the, the only thing that we're looking at here, it's kind of the red exit door sign. we need a little bit of regulation and control around the safety of these platforms. i mean, innocent things turn into into devices, tools. and you know, people can use facebook to do all the things that they've done, but it's really under the purview of facebook not regulating themselves properly. so we can no longer get our pocket check and we can no longer sit idly by and let you know that money be really exercise against us in terms of our free speech. so our rights are, are, you know, born to us in america. and we have to simply put the state down and if it takes,

you know, take, you know, facebook all the way from there. mountaintop, i mean, this guy is buying hawaii. let's be clear. i mean, there's a trillion dollar market that we need to with. nathaniel, get us a saying, go yelling, fire in a theatre. that is, that's part of it is a commonly legally understood what bothers me is that i don't want to facebook or you tube to say you cannot say these things because they're what they, not only have they become the public square, they're making up the rules. now, i mean they're, they're creating their own parallel universe to our legal system, and that's what i'm, but everyone agrees you can't fire in, in a theater. but when i go ahead, well, that's a good one. you can't falsely yell, fly, there you go. to pay go and if you can yell fire heater if you think there's a fire in a feeder and when and now we've seen examples in real time where facebook is says no, you can't yell fire in a feeder and a year later we find out that the fire that they prevented us from yelling

a year ago, in fact, turned out to be true. so that's the risk. they already have immunity for user content under section $230.00. the fact that they go in now and editorialize the user content for which they have immunity, makes them a publisher and not just a platform anymore. or i gentlemen going to jump in here. we're going to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on our information dystopian stake with our team. ah ah, it's a but i think the most basic but i feel like beliefs go heated, who bought a border dial tamala, campbell, pretty than you are quite, but i know from politicians to athletes and movies, dentist. musicals does it seems a very big name in the world has been here this year. hope of miss you can check out this grassy school. ah, what are wish them budget when you get the national laughlin who doesn't give me

a glass of it? you school but she said basil makes dreams. come true that every one who falls in love with people threatening luke like ah ah ah,

policy makers, the veterans are bank and joe biden. the president thinks america is so freaking stupid, that they can make them believe that picking up a worthless, shiny round object and going focus focus over it magically turns it into a trillion dollars that they again can deposit at the, at the federal reserve, the treasury to somehow mitigate that $300000000.00 debt crisis. ah, welcome back. across stock were all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing our information dystopian. ah okay, let's go to ryan. i'm back to ryan in phoenix. i mean, i'm always very curious, ryan, i mean you were inside the beast at facebook. how are,

how aware are they that they are meet with them that they'd somehow they're becoming the mandarins of the university. they like kid, is it something they get off on or is it we have to do this to make money or we have to keep okay. will, will the, the authorities, you know, some congressman, some president wants us to get rid of this person. fine. we'll do it because we want to say bottom line or do they really get out of a kick out of, you know, man, i can just disappear this person. i mean can, can you give us a feel what that kind of mentality is at places like, flip our facebook? yeah, it is a power trip. so in a lot of my co workers, we would, you caught the ban hammer where it began. so one and ari delete their post and such subsequently be in that they would be banned from the platform. and so there is a lot of power involving a absolute power corrupts. absolutely. and so you have, you have, you know, the, this policy team at facebook and, and, ah, who makes these decisions on global basis? um, but i think it's, it's funny how, how yesterday francis hawkins,

she talked about how, you know, because of the facebook changing the algorithm. it forced politicians to change their, their policy positions to make it more divisive. i think that's kind of that kind of funny that, that politicians are being forced to change across positions because a facebook, i don't, i don't agree with that. i'll be going back to nathaniel's point about safety. you know, okay. case, we're deleting content or i, we're sensory content, but if it truly know they're talking about public safety, while it's public safety, then that makes the argument that they're no longer a private company. that they're a public forum, right? so that makes my argument for me, which means that we should have access to, to the public bus. you know, if there's a public transit isn't everyone should have access to asian, restrict people based on their political beliefs. or if they're, they have weird ideas. and so, but yet there, there is a, there's a certain amount of power, like up a eastern, my ego involved for zak gerberg and other people who can control the destiny of, of countries just by controlling the political discourse. and david, it really,

it seems to me slowly but surely, and it's being allowed to happen. is it? and we have these tech companies, redefining what freedom of speech is the 1st amendment, the, they're the ones that are determining what speech can be. and i find that really, i mean in my lifetime, i would that, that would never, would have thought and come to my mind. and we see this happening that because these companies say this here, i mean, why isn't there more of an intervention on the part of the authorities to protect the law? i mean, you're in a practicing attorney, go ahead and just a caveat that i want to practice any more than i have to inspect. but i've seen when it works, it, there is, there is, there is no check and balance anymore. and we've, you know, people have tried the arguments to hold facebook accountable as a publisher to, you know, strip them of their immunity. it hasn't gotten there yet because people still fall back on the, you know, facebook as the private company. and it has 1st amendment rights as well we're, we're, we're, i think we're going to get a stronger argument sooner than later. is the level of complicity this, between facebook and the government. and when you have gen saki coming out of the

press conference, effectively saying we tell facebook what to flag and what to take down. and we now know that the governor has back channels to twitter and facebook. you're gonna have a more compelling argument that these private companies are not so private anymore, and they might be something more akin to state actors carrying out the bidding at the request of the state. and therefore, subject to subs certain constitutional requirements well in, i think, well that's kind of a terrifying thought, because the fan you'll, all right, i think we could say the, you know, the white house, a gen saki, and these platforms, they're more or less aligned that might not always be the case here, and then who's got the power, who can turn people off? it's not the government, it's going to be these platforms. this is a very dangerous slippery slope. nathaniel several protections, anti trust being one. i mean, i, i really like what you're saying there about the mixing of our government with these companies on the saw with google in the obama administration. really doing

a ton of damage to the patent system, you know, and really boxing out the small entrepreneur. if you look at facebook, you're not going to, you start social media network and rival them. it's over same with search with google. and if you're going to rival them, you need to be a microsoft with your band and you're still going to get the badly. so there is a, there is a, there's a anti trust problem in our country. the discussion of busting these companies up, it may have political wins, but we're really talking about similarly on a micro we're talking about freedom of speech and consumers. but what we really need to realize as consumers that we drive these are public companies in terms of their, their, their private in terms of the right. but they're public in terms of their finance. and the finance side of it is where we strike back. we control these market cast through our buying there's, there's no difference in between what is been said on,

on financial networks and all these for. busy one case and everything that we buy into and we've been told to buy and to turn out to be false, that turned out not to have the yield that we were told. so there's been, i think misinformation is an issue across all media. it needs to be regulated, just like we regulate the towns where i get a physical space. we need to get over our understanding of what you know the men are said. but it's, it's essentially that our rules and laws and our ethics and everything must pertain cyber warfare is war. and in until we start to act like it and you know, we get, we get shots over the bow and we're sending out letters, you know, sorry, no, but no, but really what we, what we have to do is escalate online like we are in the real world and, and make that that can ruin the government and online the more

a natural to our democracy or systems, the stuff gotten obese. i would respectfully disagree that the cure to misinformation is censorship. i would argue that the cure of misinformation, putting in quotes is more discussion and more information and peter, to your point. facebook de platforms, a sitting president. yes, donald trump, they did when you d platform, the president, you are the president. and there's no other way to describe it when you the platform, the king. you are the king and facebook is thumbing its nose at the world saying, we don't care about your demo, your democracy's, we don't care about your leaders. we are the leader. we control everything and that's a very, very big problem. it, ryan, in one of the things i find really worrying about me about the possibility of regulating, which i think they should be on that my dilemma is, is that, you know, these as private actors. they have the, they're behaving very badly if they are government control,

it could be just as bad. okay. if not worse, so it's for me that's a real dilemma here. but ryan, one of the things is that if you look at all of the, the highest levels of the social platforms, there's a lot of former government officials there. there's a huge amount of co mingling here. i mean, i cannot see, you know, you go from a really lucrative job in the white house and you go to facebook. okay. i mean, they're all, they, everyone's watching each other's back here. okay. it's in, even though it is, quote, unquote, transparent though they don't deny their resume, but they, they're certainly in aligned interest here and that gives me less hope they'll, they'll be change, go ahead, right? yeah, no, i definitely think that, you know, especially during the above and ministration, there's that back and forth with, you know, top of on officials going to work for facebook for couple years and going back to the bomb and missed ministration. so it is dangerous when you have that much control over the internet and it goes against the fang principles of the internet. the internet was not supposed to design to be regulated by the government. and so,

you know, we have, we have a platform that, you know, we're, you know, we want people are saying, oh, we need a sense of where we need. we to save society. well, where, where are the families where the families to the parents of those teenage girls who are honest, your am 10 hours a day who have eating disorders where it, where is the family? so the, you know, facebook, we shouldn't trust them. the they're miss applying their policies. i've hard concrete examples of facebook giving, allowing exceptions for child child pornography in brazil. they also gave an accept . they are so loud for human smuggling that they'll allow yourself to volunteer to be a victim of human smuggling. so if i say i want to be a, i want to be smuggling that's allowed on facebook. so those are his basic things that facebook doesn't allow, that, that, that, that allows, that goes against the, the laws of our country. so we can share some of that basic stuff like, hey, let's not make it facebook. can you not make an exception to allow child pornography? and if the came into that then we can't trust them. um, that doesn't mean we should have more gun control. government control, i think if we could just like delete facebook of that but the company with through

anti trust, are you the best solution just i'll break it up because they've never stranglehold over over the are now. well ryan i, i can tell you, you know, when the everything was shut down for 6 hours, it was a wonderful 6 hours for the world. it was a wonderful die. it's 6 hours. okay. um, if i had my way, i delete them all to and start from scratch. okay. because its concentration of power in the marketplace is, is disastrous here. you know, nathaniel, you know, like they say go build your own. oh my goodness. they don't allow you to do that, okay? if they don't even give you the tools to do that right now, ok. not look, look at happened to parlor. not that i'm, you know, about back or a parlor. i mean, that was a pretty big platform and it's gone. you know, so you know, build your own doesn't. it doesn't have much traction with me. go ahead. nathaniel . yeah, i think that's really the key point is this, this began, you know, as

a new west way for us to prosper and create new opportunity. and when you look at the, the issue with these bullies and the big, the platforms, i'm not an advocate, you know, to be clear of censorship whatsoever. but there is a balance that needs to be strong if you have children or if you, if you have a household here in america, one, you don't want to spy on your kitchen table. in particular from china, in the case of 6 are. and you also, you don't want as a consumer to, to think that everything is going through some government filter. and we have the appropriate laws and foundation in this country. we simply just have to adjust and change and grow into this. i think we're dancing around the same, the same issue. you know, you talk about facebook making an exception to laws in our country with what they do on their platform. i think that that is the shame in it. it's also the shame

that are anti trust laws in other laws that simply get trampled upon, including our tax code, where you've got facebook off shoring this money, we don't really understand what's going on. and there's been a huge international leaks of this information where we in fact, could understand what is going on and how much our governments being really robbed of its capital at the same time be dragged into these companies to regulate them when they don't even understand they need to step away and really and really allow for our law enforcement of those laws and for our system here. okay. well, nathaniel, you, we've ended the program on a very pessimistic now, but we're going to keep, obviously, and i'm here with all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guest, new york, phoenix, and in montreal. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are the see you next time. remember, pop, stuck with

ah ah oh, the way of life of reindeer herders leading a traditionally nomadic lifestyle in the tundra is similar to a parallel reality. i'm with women, carry the weight of the household work on their shoulders and show them that she'd met with. however, in the vast expanse of russia, there is a spot where a housewife could secure

a regular income and it's in the final semester with oh, is your media a reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation or community? are you going the right way, or are you being led? direct? what is true was is great. in the world corrupted, you need to descend her join us in the depths

or remain in the shallows. ah, ah ah, the limit pigeon says russia will not stop pumping gas to europe through you cry, nodding, the ease decision to dish, the long term contracts was a cost with the state then a you itself fall, lines emerges. some number states are increasingly saying read over the eas determination to go green paris speaking out against things like critical race theory and mass squared, we could now be investigated by the f b i. after the national school boards association claim the threats received up front amount of domestic terrorism as well as the sun to marine faces

potential trial.