Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:03.680]  Warning, the following show contains explicit language.
[00:03.680 --> 00:07.800]  Certain people should not listen to this show, such as children and panty waste adults who
[00:07.800 --> 00:15.400]  cry like 12-year-old little girls when they hear profanity.
[00:15.400 --> 00:17.200]  Welcome to the Dr. Reality Podcast.
[00:17.200 --> 00:28.760]  I'm Dave Champion, and it is so incredibly easy to stop social media platform censorship
[00:28.760 --> 00:31.920]  if we want it to end.
[00:31.920 --> 00:37.700]  Let's begin with the current legislative landscape that's found in Title 47 of the United States
[00:37.700 --> 00:43.200]  Code, Section 230C2A, which reads,
[00:43.200 --> 00:44.580]  Civil liability.
[00:44.580 --> 00:50.160]  No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
[00:50.160 --> 00:56.640]  any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material
[00:56.640 --> 01:03.600]  that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
[01:03.600 --> 01:10.880]  violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally
[01:10.880 --> 01:12.480]  protected.
[01:12.480 --> 01:20.280]  The real problem with the language of that statute is the two words, otherwise objectionable.
[01:20.280 --> 01:25.400]  What I mean by that is I don't think the vast majority of Americans care if a platform says,
[01:25.800 --> 01:29.160]  We don't want to have live sex acts on our platform.
[01:29.160 --> 01:31.700]  We don't want things that are incredibly lascivious or lewd.
[01:31.700 --> 01:35.280]  Some people may want that, but there's other places you can go to get that, right?
[01:35.280 --> 01:43.160]  The problem is the words otherwise objectionable seem to have ballooned to include statements
[01:43.160 --> 01:47.300]  which simply oppose the establishment narrative.
[01:47.300 --> 01:54.360]  It impacts political free speech, which is a huge, huge problem.
[01:55.240 --> 01:56.480]  Otherwise objectionable.
[01:56.480 --> 02:03.200]  That phrase recently, a couple months back, caused Facebook to change its terms of service
[02:03.200 --> 02:14.480]  so that if any, they can remove any post if not removing it would perhaps impact regulatory
[02:14.480 --> 02:17.040]  action against Facebook.
[02:17.040 --> 02:22.880]  So clearly what Facebook was saying when they changed that language, they're saying, We
[02:22.880 --> 02:24.080]  are concerned.
[02:24.080 --> 02:29.200]  We feel intimidated by Congress potentially regulating us to what they would perceive
[02:29.200 --> 02:30.600]  as our disadvantage.
[02:30.600 --> 02:36.680]  So if you put anything that perhaps Congress doesn't like, and so then we would be regulated,
[02:36.680 --> 02:37.680]  we're taking it down.
[02:37.680 --> 02:45.920]  Man, you can't get any more line blurring between a private company censorship and government
[02:45.920 --> 02:50.760]  censorship than the private company saying readily in its terms and conditions, We're
[02:51.600 --> 02:56.400]  If we don't take down your stuff, Congress is going to screw us via regulation.
[02:56.400 --> 03:01.080]  That is an out and out admission that they are acting out of fear of government action.
[03:01.080 --> 03:06.480]  In other words, the censorship is really not private, it's government censorship.
[03:06.480 --> 03:10.480]  The private platform feels threatened by government.
[03:10.480 --> 03:15.620]  As I sit here speaking to you in late July of 2021, that phrase otherwise objectionable
[03:15.860 --> 03:21.300]  seems to now have in a practical sense as far as how the social media platforms cast
[03:21.300 --> 03:27.020]  it to the user is under the umbrella of the word misinformation.
[03:27.020 --> 03:29.260]  So is misinformation a problem?
[03:29.260 --> 03:31.260]  Yes, it absolutely is.
[03:31.260 --> 03:34.540]  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not feathering the bed for censorship here at all.
[03:34.540 --> 03:35.980]  I totally oppose censorship.
[03:35.980 --> 03:37.660]  But misinformation is a problem.
[03:37.660 --> 03:40.060]  Let me give you some examples of misinformation.
[03:40.060 --> 03:44.740]  You may remember not too long ago, a couple months back now as I'm sitting here, there
[03:44.740 --> 03:51.460]  was a hearing, a Senate hearing, and Senator Rand Paul was questioning Anthony Fauci.
[03:51.460 --> 03:57.820]  And Rand Paul was questioning whether Fauci's recommendations, his public recommendations
[03:57.820 --> 03:59.820]  were backed up by the science.
[03:59.820 --> 04:05.780]  Responding to that point, Fauci cited a UK study that said the UK variant, which was
[04:05.780 --> 04:11.260]  the variant of concern at that moment in US history of the outbreak here in the United
[04:11.580 --> 04:16.180]  States, he said that there was a study out of the UK showing that it was, I think, if
[04:16.180 --> 04:23.180]  I remember correctly, 50 percent more transmissible and 65 percent more lethal, the UK variant.
[04:23.180 --> 04:27.940]  But here's the problem, Fauci was putting out gross misinformation, and here's why,
[04:27.940 --> 04:31.540]  and I talked about this in a previous video.
[04:31.540 --> 04:38.540]  In the 11 weeks between the UK variant becoming dominant in the UK and Fauci becoming dominant
[04:41.580 --> 04:47.460]  offering that study to Rand Paul in rebuttal, here's what had happened.
[04:47.460 --> 04:53.820]  Shortly after it became the dominant variant in the UK, new daily infections over eight
[04:53.820 --> 05:01.320]  weeks plunged 92 percent, and over 10 weeks, deaths plunged 88 percent.
[05:01.320 --> 05:07.140]  So by the time Fauci sat there before Rand Paul, he had that data, so he knew the study
[05:07.180 --> 05:09.460]  was absolute nonsense.
[05:09.460 --> 05:14.780]  The facts, the data, the evidence, the science on the ground showed that that study was complete
[05:14.780 --> 05:20.660]  nonsense, because once the UK variant became dominant, cases plunged and deaths plunged.
[05:20.660 --> 05:27.660]  So he knew the study that he was sharing with Rand Paul on national television was misinformation,
[05:28.100 --> 05:32.780]  and yet it went, oh, those people who either were supporting Rand Paul saying, look what
[05:32.780 --> 05:37.100]  a great job he did, or those supporting Anthony Fauci, oh, look what a great job he did, oh,
[05:37.100 --> 05:41.180]  he offered this study to Rand Paul, he beat Rand Paul down with the facts.
[05:41.180 --> 05:44.460]  It was all over social media, no matter which side of the aisle people were on, and it was
[05:44.460 --> 05:46.620]  complete misinformation.
[05:46.620 --> 05:53.360]  Donald Trump, I think maybe, possibly, even Trump supporters realize a lot of what he
[05:53.360 --> 05:57.680]  says is non-factual, but yet there's a lot of Trump worship going on.
[05:57.680 --> 06:04.620]  So if Trump was still able to tweet, and he were to tweet that eating your own poop was
[06:04.700 --> 06:10.460]  very helpful, and he said, and I do it, and you should do it, the next day millions of
[06:10.460 --> 06:17.460]  Americans would be trying to eat their own poop, because sorry, Americans are just, yeah,
[06:17.540 --> 06:18.660]  they're like that.
[06:18.660 --> 06:22.980]  So misinformation is a huge problem.
[06:22.980 --> 06:29.980]  However, we don't solve a misinformation problem, we don't solve a public stupidity problem
[06:30.340 --> 06:31.920]  by censorship.
[06:31.920 --> 06:36.180]  We have, in America, that has been against our ethos of freedom and liberty since the
[06:36.180 --> 06:37.600]  founding of this nation.
[06:37.600 --> 06:42.820]  We do not engage in censorship, until recently on social media.
[06:42.820 --> 06:44.280]  So how do we solve that?
[06:44.280 --> 06:48.200]  A few minutes ago I shared with you section 230, and of course that's bandied about all
[06:48.200 --> 06:53.680]  the time, as protecting platforms such as Facebook, and then other people say they're
[06:53.680 --> 06:56.640]  not platforms, they're publishers, and so forth, but that's really, in terms of solving
[06:56.640 --> 07:00.120]  the problem, 230 is a red herring, because 230 is just a statute.
[07:00.120 --> 07:03.840]  All they have to do is repeal it, or a judge says for one reason or another it's unconstitutional,
[07:03.840 --> 07:05.200]  either way, and it's gone.
[07:05.200 --> 07:11.000]  So that's really not authoritative in terms of solving the problem.
[07:11.000 --> 07:14.160]  It is only the current statutory landscape.
[07:14.160 --> 07:19.360]  The basis for the federal government regulating any enterprise in the United States, the first
[07:19.360 --> 07:24.840]  one, the preeminent reason, constitutionally, is that that entity is involved in interstate
[07:24.840 --> 07:28.600]  commerce, commerce between the states of the union, or between the states of the union,
[07:29.600 --> 07:35.800]  Okay, so, based on that, does Congress regulate the nuclear power industry?
[07:35.800 --> 07:38.520]  Well, yeah, I think everybody's aware of that.
[07:38.520 --> 07:43.280]  And also based on that, does Congress regulate the forestry business, logging?
[07:43.280 --> 07:48.920]  Yes, and I think everybody's aware of that, yet those are two completely disparate enterprises.
[07:48.920 --> 07:52.080]  They are regulated differently.
[07:52.080 --> 07:57.600]  Congress has dubbed that, what we commonly refer to as logging, forestry, and Congress
[07:57.600 --> 08:02.520]  regulates forestry in one way, because that's the forestry industry.
[08:02.520 --> 08:06.280]  And then Congress regulates, as an example, the nuclear power industry as the nuclear
[08:06.280 --> 08:10.240]  power industry, because that's different than, say, forestry, right?
[08:10.240 --> 08:15.200]  So Congress says, hey, we're calling your industry this, and we're going to regulate
[08:15.200 --> 08:19.000]  that industry in this way, and we're going to regulate this industry, that industry,
[08:19.000 --> 08:22.300]  the other industry, all in different ways because they're different industries, right?
[08:22.300 --> 08:29.460]  So all Congress has to do is say, we are going to regulate social media.
[08:29.460 --> 08:34.640]  Boom, get rid of this platform crap, get rid of this publisher crap, we're going to define
[08:34.640 --> 08:39.900]  an industry called social media, and we're going to regulate that.
[08:39.900 --> 08:46.220]  Why does Congress regulate things like the forestry industry and the nuclear power industry?
[08:46.220 --> 08:50.840]  Well, because it is perceived, whether you agree with it or not, it is perceived to be
[08:50.840 --> 08:52.360]  in the public interest.
[08:52.360 --> 08:56.400]  The American, it is perceived that the American people have insisted, through their elected
[08:56.400 --> 08:59.860]  representatives in Congress, that industry must be regulated because if they're left
[08:59.860 --> 09:03.680]  unregulated, they're going to tear shit up, and we're going to be in trouble in the long
[09:03.680 --> 09:05.460]  run, or the nuclear power industry.
[09:05.460 --> 09:09.760]  If they're not regulated, it's a for-profit industry, they're going to cut corners, they're
[09:09.760 --> 09:14.340]  nuclear, they're running nuclear power, this could be a disaster.
[09:14.340 --> 09:17.980]  So in the interest of the American people, Congress regulates them.
[09:17.980 --> 09:23.400]  So in the same vein, Congress can, in the interest of the American people, regulate
[09:23.400 --> 09:24.820]  social media.
[09:24.820 --> 09:28.500]  What might be one of the things that would be in the public interest?
[09:28.500 --> 09:33.840]  Yeah, no more fucking censorship, because we don't do that in America.
[09:33.840 --> 09:40.000]  So what are the legal obstacles to Congress moving forward with this?
[09:40.000 --> 09:41.000]  Legal obstacles?
[09:41.000 --> 09:42.000]  None.
[09:42.000 --> 09:43.000]  Zero.
[09:43.000 --> 09:46.640]  Congress could do this tomorrow if it wanted to.
[09:46.640 --> 09:50.480]  You'll note, Congress hasn't done anything about this.
[09:50.480 --> 09:55.820]  There is not a single representative or a single senator who has even introduced legislation
[09:55.820 --> 09:57.420]  along the lines that I've shared with you today.
[09:57.420 --> 09:58.420]  Not one.
[09:58.420 --> 10:00.580]  I wonder why that is.
[10:00.580 --> 10:05.280]  There are quite a number of reasons why senators and congressmen, not on a legal basis but
[10:05.280 --> 10:11.220]  on a self-interest basis, are not offering this kind of legislation.
[10:11.220 --> 10:13.400]  They're not doing that for quite a number of self-interests.
[10:14.000 --> 10:19.780]  One of them is they want to control social media.
[10:19.780 --> 10:25.200]  They want to be able to call up the attorneys for companies like Facebook.
[10:25.200 --> 10:31.680]  By the way, I'm not using Facebook because they are the sole entity being pressured like
[10:31.680 --> 10:32.680]  this.
[10:32.680 --> 10:34.680]  They are just probably the biggest name.
[10:34.680 --> 10:40.600]  Discrete call is made to an attorney that the government works with at Facebook and
[10:40.600 --> 10:43.320]  says, hey, man, this has got to go.
[10:43.320 --> 10:47.640]  If you guys don't want anti-trust actions, if you guys don't want future legislation,
[10:47.640 --> 10:51.000]  we need you to get rid of this stuff that's appearing on your website.
[10:51.000 --> 10:54.360]  Then the Facebook attorneys sit down with their leadership.
[10:54.360 --> 10:59.560]  They sit down with the operations people and they say, okay, the government wants this
[10:59.560 --> 11:00.560]  gone.
[11:00.560 --> 11:01.560]  What do we want to do?
[11:01.560 --> 11:07.800]  Usually, all the top executives go, unless it's somehow critical to our operation, unless
[11:07.800 --> 11:12.240]  getting rid of it is going to adversely affect our revenue, yeah, let's get rid of it.
[11:12.240 --> 11:17.520]  We don't need problems from Congress, yeah, and that's government censorship conducted
[11:17.520 --> 11:21.960]  by a private platform, but initiated by government.
[11:21.960 --> 11:23.440]  My point is this.
[11:23.440 --> 11:28.220]  Whether it's some hard leftist or some hard right person or somebody in the middle, none
[11:28.220 --> 11:36.080]  of them, except perhaps libertarians, want to get rid of this dynamic where they can
[11:36.800 --> 11:44.040]  call and content that is disadvantageous to their agenda can be disappeared.
[11:44.040 --> 11:47.280]  The solution is very, very simple.
[11:47.280 --> 11:52.080]  Share just one reason why it hasn't been done.
[11:52.080 --> 11:59.480]  What is the large scale picture of the difference between Congress doing something on this and
[11:59.480 --> 12:00.480]  not doing something?
[12:00.480 --> 12:03.800]  Well, in the macro theme, it goes like this.
[12:03.800 --> 12:04.800]  You're not doing your job.
[12:04.800 --> 12:05.800]  Sorry.
[12:06.520 --> 12:07.520]  That's the truth.
[12:07.520 --> 12:08.520]  I don't mean you personally.
[12:08.520 --> 12:09.520]  I mean the American people are not doing their job.
[12:09.520 --> 12:13.160]  They whine and bitch and complain, which is the American way, but they don't do anything
[12:13.160 --> 12:14.520]  about it.
[12:14.520 --> 12:20.960]  The way it looks to congressional representatives and senators is they hear just the slightest
[12:20.960 --> 12:25.480]  little bit, just the tiniest little bit of people calling their office and saying, man,
[12:25.480 --> 12:28.160]  this social media censorship sucks.
[12:28.160 --> 12:36.240]  In contrast to that, they're facing a trillion dollar industry, all of the various platforms
[12:36.240 --> 12:44.500]  combined, so Congress has a trillion dollar industry in their ear, and they're not hearing
[12:44.500 --> 12:46.200]  jack shit from the American people.
[12:46.200 --> 12:50.360]  They're going to look at this and say, we have this giant market segment of our economy
[12:50.360 --> 12:54.760]  that's very powerful and, in fact, can do really bad things to us if we go against it.
[12:54.760 --> 13:01.120]  In comparison to that, they're not hearing shit from the American people, so why would
[13:01.120 --> 13:02.120]  they act?
[13:02.120 --> 13:06.360]  I mean, if you think about it, the fact that you may be annoyed and you would like them
[13:06.360 --> 13:10.560]  to act, but as I described the equation, why would they?
[13:10.560 --> 13:13.800]  In conclusion, what are my thoughts about what the American people are going to do about
[13:13.800 --> 13:14.800]  this?
[13:14.800 --> 13:15.800]  Not a thing.
[13:15.800 --> 13:19.760]  That's the American way, bitch whining and complaining, but never actually get in the
[13:19.760 --> 13:24.720]  fight, never actually get active, never actually go to Congress in mass numbers.
[13:25.680 --> 13:31.480]  That almost never happens, and it's certainly not going to happen over social media censorship,
[13:31.480 --> 13:35.840]  though in my opinion, that is one of the gravest threats to our liberty that exists in this
[13:35.840 --> 13:40.440]  country right now, but yeah.
[13:40.440 --> 13:41.440]  Americans care about liberty?
[13:41.440 --> 13:43.800]  Yeah, it's a buzzword, that's all.
[13:43.800 --> 13:49.360]  On the other hand, if you are one of the small percentage of Americans that actually does
[13:49.360 --> 13:57.120]  care about liberty and freedom, personal rights, unalienable rights, government corruption,
[13:57.120 --> 14:02.280]  and government misinformation, which of course we know is absolutely rampant, I'm well known
[14:02.280 --> 14:04.680]  for the phrase, the government lies, lies all the time, and lies even when the truth
[14:04.680 --> 14:12.000]  would serve it well, so if you are somebody to whom those problems matter, I want to encourage
[14:12.000 --> 14:18.120]  you to go to DrReality.News, take a look at Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[14:18.120 --> 14:21.360]  Please do read the reviews while you're there if you want to look at body science, that's
[14:21.360 --> 14:25.080]  great, but if we're talking about liberty, I really want you to look at Income Tax Shattering
[14:25.080 --> 14:34.560]  the Mist because I want you to experience a lot greater personal liberty, including
[14:34.560 --> 14:39.800]  keeping what you earn, because despite what Americans have been socialized to believe
[14:39.800 --> 14:43.000]  that misinformation we're talking about, when you actually see the law with your own two
[14:43.000 --> 14:45.900]  eyes, rather than believing everything that everybody says around you, and they've never
[14:46.900 --> 14:50.860]  When you actually see the law and it's broken down and explained easily, what you see is
[14:50.860 --> 14:57.860]  Congress has never, I think that's a critical phrase, has never imposed the Income Tax on
[14:57.860 --> 14:59.020]  the average American.
[14:59.020 --> 15:01.860]  The average American believes so, and the average American does a lot of things by which
[15:01.860 --> 15:05.180]  they raise their hand and say, oh me, me, me, me, I'm the guy upon whom Congress has
[15:05.180 --> 15:10.820]  imposed the tax, but they're not really, they've just been bamboozled, so I want you to go
[15:10.820 --> 15:16.180]  Go to DrReality.News, get yourself a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, and man,
[15:16.180 --> 15:27.420]  it will, I promise you, blow your mind.