Episode 1207 Scott Adams: Let Me Explain the GA Ballot-Suitcase Video Fake, Why it Looks Compelling

Hey, everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time. Time for coffee with Scott Adams. The best time of the day, every single time. No exceptions. And to make it complete, what do you need? Well, you need a cup of mug or glass of dagger Chelsea Dynacantine Jugger flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I'm partial to coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's a simultaneous sip. Go. Well, we are entering the transition phase. The transition phase. Do I mean the administration? No, I don't. There might be a transition there, too, but I'm talking about the fake news transition. You may remember that it was not that long ago I told you that for four years. I think it is unambiguously true that the vast majority of fake news came from the left. Does anybody disagree with that statement? That the vast amount of fake news came from the left for the past four years? Maybe 80, 20. It's not like. It's not like. There isn't, you know, mistakes and fake news and misinterpretations and bias on both sides. But it seemed to me deeply weighted against the Republicans and against Trump. Now, is that just because of Trump? I would say no. It's because the group that's in power has the advantage of actually doing things. For example, Joe Biden can appoint people to. To the. To the government, right? Put them in the. What do you call it? The Cabinet. And that's news. And then the news that's friendly to Joe Biden, they've got a good content. They can say, ah, look at the good picks this Joe Biden's making. Let's do a segment about how wise and brilliant his picks are. Now, you could agree or disagree whether they're wise or brilliant, but. But it's not really fake news, right? They're not just making something up because they've got something real to talk about. They don't need to make anything up. Joe Biden did his job today. There it is. There's our story. But if you're on the side whose president is not in power, what do you have? You're not going to run the same stories about all the good things he did, and he's doing his job today, and he cut a ribbon. It's kind of boring for your audience. So the side that's out of power ends up, whether intentionally or it just goes that way, making up most of the fake news. You. You should be experiencing. If this pattern follows, and I'm pretty sure it will, you should be watching a reversal of the proportion of fake news. So you're going to go from 80% of it being coming from the left, you know, like the president drinks bleach and he's calling racist. Fine people. I mean it's all just made up stuff. But you're going to see that reverse now. Same as with Obama. During the Obama years, Fox News was basically a dumpster fire of fake news. And CNN probably had their share, but not as much, not even close. So beware and just be informed that that ratio is in the process of reversing if Biden takes office, which is by no means guaranteed. All right, so let's talk about some of that. All right. How many of you saw the video out of Georgia, the security video that showed poll workers dismissing some number of people who had been working for the night. And some people left. And then after those people left, the remaining people took these suitcase looking things out from underneath tables where it appears they had been hiding and then they processed many thousands of votes from those hidden suitcases. Hidden suitcases. Looks pretty sketchy, doesn't it? Pretty sketchy. After they let the witnesses go home and then the hidden suitcases come out and then there's a gigantic spike for Biden. Pretty suspicious, except almost certainly fake. Sorry. It's going to hurt for the next few months until you realize that most of your news has turned fake. Because when it first happens, you're not going to believe any of it. You're going to be. You will. Meaning that you're still going to believe that you're hearing real news, but it just won't be for a while. So here are the questions that people gave me because I know you're thinking the same thing. By the way, here's a persuasion technique, a good persuasion technique, whether it's sales or just presenting to tell people what they're thinking the moment they're thinking it. Because if you can hit the thought, you know, and call it out the moment they're thinking it, you kind of, you kind of come, become connected and you become more influential. So I'm going to do that with you by anticipating your objections to be saying a fake. Number one, is the video manipulated? Does anybody think it's manipulated digitally? I don't think so. I don't believe it's manipulated digitally. So that's not the claim. I don't believe anybody's made that claim. So let's say that we all agree that the video captures exactly what happened, that what you see is exactly what was happening. Do we all agree on that so far? So that there's nothing, there's nothing in the video production that different. Now, Here are the questions that people ask me, Scott. They let the witnesses go. There's testimony that the witnesses were told they were done for the night, Scott. They were done for the night. And by the way, I was making lots of jokes about this video and I've deleted them all because I was waiting for the debunk. And I thought, if I get up early, I can make a bunch of jokes about this suitcase, suitcases in the video. And I thought, I better hurry because I know this thing's going to get debunked pretty quickly. And it didn't take long, it only took a few hours. Now you're going to say it's not debunked, but let me go through the argument. So the first question is, why would they send those witnesses home, tell them, and tell them that they were done for the night? And here's the answer. That never happened. That's the whole answer. You think you heard that fact just never happened. So here's what did happen, allegedly. Now compare the debunk to the story you thought was real when you first saw it. Doesn't mean the debunk is real, right? Can you allow that? It's possible that the debunk is fake, right? We can't rule that out. But let me tell you what it is, and then you just compare it and see for yourself. So the debunk says that the only people who were sent home were the envelope cutters. So one part of the job was some people would just open all the envelopes and put the ballots in these containers, and then that was their job. They were not witnesses. They were not ballot counters. They were simply envelope cutters. Now, what do you do with the envelope cutters when you've reached the end of all your ballots? In other words, everything that needs to be cut is cut. And that's the only thing they're there for because people are trained for specific jobs. So what would you do when all the envelope cutters are done cutting and there's nothing left to cut? Would you say to them, looks like we're done for the night, you can go home? And if you were an envelope cutter and somebody walked up to you and said, hey, good job, looks like we're done for the night, you can go home, how would you interpret that? Would you interpret it that the ballot counting was Done for the night, or would you interpret it as only you ballot cutters are done for the night? Do you see how easily you could have somebody who is a witness to say, look, they told me we were done for the night, but how exactly did they word it? Did they say, you're done for the night? Did they talk to the three people who were cutting envelopes and say, it looks like we're done for the night, as in we envelope cutters? How easily could somebody quite honestly think that they heard somebody say they were done for the night, but simply misinterpreted it? Now, we did see a number of people leave, and the story is that they were envelope cutters. The story is also that there was one state witness who remained. But there is no story that says anybody was denied witnessing. So I don't believe there is any claim that there was any Republican witness who didn't have access to the room if they wanted it. So is every election witnessed by both a Republican and a Democrat in every part of the process? I think the answer is no. Right? I believe the rule is that you're allowed to witness. Being allowed to witness is quite different from the sworn. By the way, the sworn affidavits are what people heard and saw. So somebody saying they're sworn affidavits, a sworn affidavit is what they honestly think happened. That's not exactly the same as what happened. That's somebody's interpretation of what happened. And like I said, if somebody honestly thought the supervisor told them the counting was done, but it was just a misinterpretation, you could easily imagine that they would swear under oath. I was told the counting was done, but it was just a misinterpretation. Now, what about the fact that these suitcases were kept under the table until these people left? Why would you put, number one, why would you put ballots in a suitcase? Did you ask yourself that? Why would there be these roller bags that you take on an airplane? How would those be in a vote facility? Because it seems like if something's in a suitcase, wasn't that the way it got into the building, like, illegitimately? Because it's in a suitcase, it's not in some kind of official container. Right. Except they're not suitcases. The rolly bag things you saw are the official ballot containers. They have wheelies on them because they're heavy. That's it. So there was no suitcases. There were only official containers that were exactly the containers that you use to hold ballots. Now, somebody said, but, Scott, why Were they under the table? Why were they under the tables? Why would you hide them under the tables until these other people are gone? To which I say, where the hell else would you put them? Apparently you've never worked in any kind of a situation like this where you keep stuff until you need it is under the table. That's where it goes. Do you think that they put wheels on those containers because they're not very heavy? No, they have wheels because they're hard to lift. They're heavy. Where do you put something that's heavy? Do you pick it up and put it on top of a table? No, you put it under the table. Do you put it in the aisle where people are walking around and they would have to walk around it? No, you would put it as close to the counting machines as you could. Not on top of a table because they're heavy and not in the aisle. You would put them under a table relatively near the counting machines. And when would you take them out? When would you take them out? Well, if it were me and I were running this process, I would count up all the ones that you could process that were already out of the envelopes. When I was done processing all the ones that are already out of the envelopes, do you know what I'd do? I'd walk over and see if there's any more to process. And then I would see that the envelope cutters had really gotten ahead and they'd created a whole bunch of ballots that are now in these luggage things. And the numbers that had been released for the envelopes was gigantic because they'd done a good job cutting. And now they just took those and ran them through the system? Every part of what you saw in the video is the normal system, Every part of it. Now, can I determine that just because the video shows two movies? I know which one is true. You can watch that video. And if you know that these luggage things are the standard things they use, if you know that the cutters are done and had been dismissed, and if you knew that, it's obvious that's where you would store them until you need them is under the table. That's exactly where you'd put them. Could it be that some of the people who were in charge of counting might have been unaware of how many the cutters had put under the table? Would that surprise you? In such a weakly organized system? Would you be surprised to learn that after the cutters had left, somebody says, oh, wait, there are way more ballots here than we thought. We didn't Realize they were storing them under the table. How unusual would that be? Not even a little bit. That wouldn't even be a little bit unusual. That would be exactly how you'd expect a semi organized thing to go. It's like, oh, we got some ballots over here. Oh, I forgot. There's some under the table. Pretty normal stuff. Now, do you see a complete movie for both versions? Yes, you do. The video 100% supports both versions of the story. One is that they just cut some stuff and left. There were a lot of things they cut. Maybe they found some more at the end of the night, but they were just all in the room. They're in official boxes and they just counted them. Now, another thing somebody said is, but, Scott, that big spike that happened all at the same time. How could such a big spike happened? Well, the answer is that's when they started counting the ones that this group of people had taken out of the, the envelopes. They just waited until they were done. It's a big batch. They just ran them all at the same time. But what about the fact allegedly they were 98% for Biden? How in the world could you have so many ballots that are 98% for Biden, number one? I don't know that that's true. Do you? I've heard people say it. Do you know that that's true? So I would say that is not even close to a data that I would say, yeah, that sounds pretty credible. Could be true. Let's say it is true. Let's take the assumption that there really were 98% of those votes really did go to Biden, all in that, that little hour there. What does that tell you about the video? Doesn't really tell you that. That's why that anything you saw in the video, it doesn't tell you. That's why it's 98% Biden. Because you could have an entirely separate fraud which created a whole bunch of, let's say, harvested ballots. Could it be that the harvested ballots came in toward the end? Yes, it could be a complete fraud, but not the one you see on video. In other words, the fraud could have happened to create the ballots that were then cut, that were then put in the boxes that were then counted, but would allow the possibility that everyone in that room was just counting ballots and didn't do anything wrong. Right. That is not. That possibility is not ruled out by anything you saw in the video that they were just doing their job. You can't rule that out based on the video. Now, could you Be suspicious based on the video? Sure. Should you follow up? Absolutely, of course. Because we all want to know more and we'd like to be certain. And if 98% of those votes went to Biden, would you suspect that was fraud? Yes. Yes, you would? If it were true. But it doesn't mean that if that were fraud, that you saw any of that fraud happening on that video. It could be just that's why ballots are for Biden. But all they were doing is counting them. Maybe. Let's see, what else did people say? Oh, somebody else said, well, I could believe it was legitimate if it happened at 12 noon, but this is happening late at night. Suspicious. Right. To which I say everything was happening late at night, that all the voting places were counting late at night, because that's the way it works. So none of that means anything. All right, so I'm going to look at your comments here for a moment because I want to see how mad you are. Signing out. Yeah, people do not like experiencing confirmation bias and then knowing it. But let me. If you prefer to believe this for a while, and by the way, you could be right, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that this video shows something bad. I'm just telling you that there's nobody here who wanted that to be real more than I did. Well, maybe Trump did. Right. But when I saw that video, I laughed out loud and I said to myself, okay, this is probably going to get debunked, but damn it, I hope this is real. Like I really, really wanted it to be real. Because you know, I do. I do believe the election was rigged. And I don't think we'll necessarily get such good evidence like that. So the fact that it might have been real was just sort of exciting to me. Now you see where my bias is, right? My bias is 100%. I want that frickin thing to be a real video, but I'm afraid it isn't. I'm afraid the evidence just isn't there. You really just had to hear the other side of it now, somebody saying the fake water burst thing was fake. Now let me be as clear as I can. There's a hundred percent chance in my opinion, that the election was rigged. Right. Here's my argument and try out my argument compared to this argument. So the video evidence you saw no better or worse than the Covington kids video. Is there anybody who would disagree with this statement that the, the credibility of that Georgia video is equivalent to. If you're just looking at it, you're not an expert. And you're just a person looking at a video. It's equivalent to in believability and credibility to the first Covington kids video you saw, which was very believable and completely reversed of what the actual situation was. Could this be one of those where it really looks believable, like there's some fraud happening right in front of you, but it's just not. Yeah, easily, easily. That wouldn't even be. That wouldn't even be a stretch. It would be the most normal thing in the world that that's fake. So the ones that I tend to doubt in terms of claims are the ones that are a little too on the nose. Like there was a truck, there was a trailer full of ballots, but we can't find it. And there was a video of a thing, but the other explanation fits it too. You're going to see a lot of these. So here's my argument for why the election was stolen. It goes like this. You. It's 110 degrees out in your town. It's the summer and you buy an ice cream cone and you're walking down the sidewalk eating your ice cream cone. And the top of the cone, the ice cream falls off on the sidewalk. It's 110 degrees and the sidewalk is just sizzling hot. Now, you know you're not going to pick it up and you say to yourself, ah, screw it, bad luck today. And you walk away. Now I ask you an hour, let's say a few hours later, I say to you, you know, you dropped your ice cream on that hot sidewalk at 110 degree day. Do you know if it melted? Do you know if it melted? And you say to yourself, you know, I guess I don't, I don't know if that melted. It was 110 degrees and it was ice cream. I know because I was, I was licking it before it fell. Fell off. So it was real ice cream. But I don't know it melted. Or do I. What would you say? Would you say that hours later you know it melted or would you say, I don't know, there's no evidence, I can't prove it. I don't have a video, I don't have a testimony. Nobody watched it. Could you fairly say it did not melt because you don't have any evidence? No, no, you know it melted. Why do you know it melted without any evidence? You know it melted because it didn't have any other option. There was only the one thing it could do in this world. It had to Melt. It doesn't matter if it had a witness, it doesn't matter if it was on video, it had to melt. So this election is like that ice cream that fell on the sidewalk. The one thing we did learn is that at the very minimum there are tons of ways that you could cheat. Did we not learn that for sure? I feel pretty confident about that, that whether or not cheating is confirmed at some large scale or not, we certainly learned that the witnesses don't see the whole system. At the very least it's a non transparent system. You all agree? Non transparent. We can't audit the software. The witnesses had certain access, but not complete. There are all kinds of chain of custody things that nobody witnesses, etc. Now, under a condition where cheating is completely practical, if you wanted to do it and the stakes are sky high, it's like trying to deny Orange Hitler second term. What could be a higher stake than that? So it's possible. You've got the biggest stakes in the world. How often does major fraud happen? When it's possible, in fact quite possible and people really, really want to do it? How often? Every time. It's like the ice cream melting on the sidewalk. You don't need a witness if you have this setup. If you got a hot sidewalk and some ice cream, you're going to have some melted ice cream. If you have a non observed election in the United States, the highest stakes you could possibly imagine. Yes, of course, it happened. Of course. Now how about the question of did our foreign adversaries try to influence the election? We have some information on that. Now, given that we know foreign adversaries can. All right, so it's possible, right? Same situation. It's possible. We know that for sure. Because how hard is it to, you know, do something with social media? It's easy. So it's possible. And of course, if you're China or Russia or Iran, for example, the stakes, they're not just high, it's life and death, it's the fate of your country. It's the highest stakes you could possibly imagine. So it's possible. Indeed, it's easy. And the highest stakes in the world, did it happen? Yes. Yes. We don't have to debate it. You don't have to show me the evidence. I don't need to see a video of somebody in China typing out a meme. I don't need that evidence. It had to happen. It can't not happen in our world. It's ice cream on a hot sidewalk. Of course China tried to influence the operation in Fact. DNI Ratzenberger. Ratcliffe. I'm sorry. DNI Ratcliffe told CBS that China is using blackmail, bribery and covert influence to target members of Congress and make sure the only laws that are favorable to China are passed. That's just part of what they're doing. Apparently they China. This is from Gordon Chang. Actually, China was using AI to figure out who was, let's say, sympathetic to Intifa and Black Lives Matter and then they would send them TikTok videos of how to riot. Do you think that mattered? China sending black, Black Lives Matter and antifa sympathizers directions on how to riot. You don't think that mattered? Probably mattered. And Gordon Chang says that's exactly what happened. So everybody looking for these little bits of evidence of whether this election was stolen or not, it's complete misdirection. You don't need evidence if bullies chase down the witnesses. Let me say that again. Bullies chased out witnesses in the key cities. So keep that fact about all the election fraud and mischief and stuff. So keep that that fact. Just as one little fact that bullies and we have plenty of witnesses. This seems like that will be easy to demonstrate. Bullies chase down witnesses to the vote counting. Okay, that's an important fact now. Now take all of the other stuff. You got your video that you, you think shows some corruption. You've got your data analysis that shows some worrying things. You got hundreds of witnesses. Now add up all those strong arguments and then just throw them in the ocean because you don't need them. They're useless. Maybe you could prove them in court, maybe you couldn't. Doesn't matter. They're useless. The only thing you needed was bullies made witnesses leave. That's the end of the conversation. Every thing you say after that doesn't matter. You get that, right? Nothing matters but that it's the only thing that matters. And if you allow yourself to imagine the other stuff matters, you your victim of misinformation and misdirection. All that matters is it was non transparent by force because bullying is force. This was a violent coup. Or you must assume it was a violent coup because the witnesses were intimidated away by force. So the assumption is it's a stolen election because of the bullying of the witnesses. You don't need anything else, nothing else to throw out this election and do whatever you want. If you're the house now. I don't know if they will. I would predict that Biden will actually take the job to keep society together. But I think we can Say that nothing like the Republic exists anymore. I think it was Franklin who said, when asked what kind of form of government they had created, he said, a republic, if you can keep it. And we didn't. We lost it. Because the Republic doesn't look like anything like bullying witnesses and having a non transparent election with software you can't audit. That's not even close to being a Republic. Whatever that is, is a bullyocracy. Do we have a form of government that's based on who can bully the best in the election process? Because that's what happened. So we did lose the Republic. It's no longer theoretical. The country still functions. So that's good. Luckily we have such good systems that have built up over time. The economy still chugs along and, you know, the garbage still gets picked up, but we're definitely not a Republic anymore. Can we get it back? Do you want to get it back? I think we can get it back. I don't know if it'll be in the next four years. I mean, we might have to wait for another election to get it back. But yeah, we could get it back. If we get to 2024 and there is more witness intimidation at polling places, what would be the proper response? You know what it is? I don't even have to say it. I'm not going to say it out loud because I'll get banned from all social media platforms. But yeah, this doesn't happen the second time. You get that, right? This is once. Maybe they got away with it. Maybe they stole the election. It looks like it. Maybe they'll get away with it, have four years of Biden. But this doesn't happen twice. Doesn't happen twice. All right. The weirdest, funniest story of the day is that Joe Biden was asked in an interview about his disagreements with Kamala Harris. I guess Jake Tapper was talking to him and Biden actually told this joke in public. He said, like I told Barak, if I reach something where there's a fundamental disagreement, meaning with kama we have based on moral principle, I'll develop some disease and say I have to resign. There's your strong leadership. He says if his vice president disagrees with him, he'll claim he has a disease and resignation. Now, to be fair, he's joking. To be fair, it was actually a pretty good joke, right? As a professional humorist, I give him a good grade on that joke. That was a solid joke because everybody was thinking, was he hit the two. The two joke dimensions of you're already thinking It. So that's one dimension. He's got something that, you know, was in your mind to begin with, and then he did something bizarre. The bizarre thing is that he said it out loud in public, which you weren't expecting. That's what makes it a joke. So it was already in your mind and then he said it out loud. That's two of the six dimensions of humor that I talk about. If you want more on the dimensions of humor, just Google my name and six dimensions of humor. It'll pop up all over the Internet. All right. So I don't know that this is necessarily signaling some kind of a Freudian slip where he's signaling to the world that this is going to happen. I think it's probably more it was just a joke, but I don't think it's like they haven't thought of it. You know, it's not like it's not on the option set, which is funny because he jokes about it and it is funny, but it's sort of on the options, that it's legitimately one of the options. I don't know how likely it is, but it's on the list. It might be fifth or sixth, but it's on the list. So there's a question of whether, I guess. Biden said he does want Trump to attend his inauguration. Do you think Trump should attend Biden's inauguration? Now, there's a history of it because it signals a peaceful transfer of power and it's good for the country. But do you think in this special case that Trump should go to Biden's inauguration? I would say strong no on that. Strong no As a supporter, I would be quite disappointed, actually, if he went. And here's the reason. If he doesn't take back the fine people hoax, you can't be okay with that. You know, it would be one thing if they lied about each other's records, you know, standard political things. But the fine people hoax, you can't. You can't be okay with that. You can never be okay with that, in my opinion. So I would like to see the president say, you know, as long as you're still spreading that fine people hoax, you can, you can go it alone. He won't do that, but it'd be fun. So I had this, this weird experience of, you know, I turn on Hannity and I'm watching this video of the Georgia video that looks like, but I don't think is massive voter fraud. And then I turn it over to CNN and Anderson Cooper is introducing a Clip of the President, and Anderson has this exasperated, disgusting look that he brings to everything if it's Trump related. So he tries to get this look like, I'm not just telling you what's happening, and I'm not just telling you my opinion. Look at how I feel about this. So I'll try to do my best. Anderson is really, really disgusted look. And I think it goes like this. And the President, this next clip we're going to see, he's just turned into some flim flam man. He actually used that term, flim flam man. He said, everything you're going to see in this clip is false. And I thought to myself, this is going to be good, because whatever clip follows that is going to be some super bullshit, right? And I'm thinking, you know, Trump unleashed, you know, if he thinks. If he comes to think he's a lame duck, the things he might say in office are going to be really entertaining. So I'm like, oh, okay, I got to see this. If Anderson Cooper says, there's not a single true statement in this entire clip, this is going to be some good stuff. And I turn on the clip and everything the President said was true. And I thought, what the hell? It is such a mind fuck to see these two worlds side by side. Now, as I say, maybe we're all wrong about what's true, but I think Anderson might be the most. The most departed from reality in terms of his vision of President Trump. Apparently, Governor Kemp in Georgia is asking the Secretary of State to do a signature audit of the votes. I did see a tweet that there were a whole bunch of categories of Georgia votes that they thought were dead people and people too young and people moved away, and they were pretty big numbers. And. But that tweet sort of disappeared. I feel as if that needs a little more credibility to talk about that. Is it true that we have information of a whole bunch of fraudulent votes in Georgia? I saw a tweet on it. Is that real or is that just somebody alleging it? And then was that from. Was Matt Brainard the. The source of that data? So I think that some of that requires verification. So, in other words, if you think that a number of these are dead people, you really, really need to check to make sure it's not people with the same names, etc. Now, of course, they tried to check for that. I know Matt Brainerd would not put out any data that had an obvious problem with it. All right, so understand this. If Matt Brainard put it out, it Wouldn't be any obvious problems with it, but it would still require verification. It could be if you dig down, you find out something you didn't know. But there won't be anything that's like intentionally fraudulent or obviously wrong if it's coming from Matt Brainard, but does require verification. So we'll see if that produces anything. What do you think of the Section 230 issue? The issue of whether social media should be publishers? Now, President Trump has said he won't sign some Defense Authorization act unless section 230 gets removed from social media. And that would make them suable. So if they, if they lost their protection under section 230, as I understand it, they would be treated as regular publishers who can edit things and not edit things. And if you can edit what content is on your platform, that makes you the author in a way. It makes you responsible for the content because you had a hand in deciding whether it was there or not versus the phone company that you make a phone call and you can say whatever you want. It's not up to the phone company. And they're not banning anything in a voice call. So a lot of people say, let's get rid of that, of section 230 and then the social media companies could be sued for, I don't know, throttling you or doing whatever they do. What do you think would be the downside of that? What, what is your, what do you believe would happen if section 230 would remove. Let me ask you specifically, do you think that Twitter would survive if this protection were removed? Would Twitter survive? What do you think? I don't know the answer to that question, by the way. I want to see what you think, because it seemed to me they would get sued if they keep things the way they are. So what would they have to do if section 230 were removed? What would Twitter have to do? They would have to remove anybody who was at risk. So they would have to remove anybody who would say something that could put them at risk, which would include everybody you'd like to follow on Twitter. Twitter would have to get rid of everybody who's interesting because it's the interesting people who say things that sometimes are not true because they're willing to take a little more risk. It's what makes them interesting. Right? You saw me be wrong already, you know, at least once this morning, because I'm one of those people who takes a risk, you know, I'll take things a little farther than maybe I should. And it's part of the fun. As long as I tell you that's what I'm doing, I think that's. That's fair because I tell you I'm doing it and somebody says, who cares? Yeah. So removing section 230 would remove social media from the world. Is that what you want? Now, I haven't heard the other argument. Now, some of you are thinking, okay, I knew I'd see the comment here. Somebody. Somebody said, that's okay. I'll go to Parlor. Parlor dies the same day. You know that, right? Parlor would be out of business same day. There's no such thing as Twitter going out of business because of section 230. And then Parler not going out of business. It's the same business. They don't have a. Whatever happens to one is going to happen to the other. So if you want them all to go into business, that would be the way to do it. But is there any middle ground? Is there a middle ground where there is more transparency and maybe some appeals process? Let me ask you this. If you had the option of transparency in algorithms and you actually felt confident that it really was transparent, I don't know how you do that, but let's say you could get there and you can manage your own algorithm and you could just turn it off. Let's say you could just turn it off and you just see things in the order that they come in. It's everybody that you follow, and that's it just. There's no algorithm at all. It just shows you everything, and you can just click a switch and get that. Would you be happy with that? Because there would be no filtering. You would just push a button and you personally would never be filtered. How about. Or at least in terms of the content you get to see. How about if they added an appeals process? So there's some independent non Twitter people who may be selected on some kind of a temporary term and rotating. And they look at it and they say, all right, we don't work for Twitter. We just work for the world. We're just volunteering. And in our opinion, this person was suspended for a while. But we think a year is long enough. And so we say, a year's long enough. We'll put you back on, give you another chance. What if you had that? Would you be happy with transparent algorithms plus an appeals process that was not from Twitter? They just use an independent board and take the advice. Could you work with that? Digital bill of rights? Yes, I think there should be a digital bill of rights for exactly this Sort of thing. So I'm looking at your answers. I see lots of no's. Lots of no's. But what would you do instead? Would you get rid of it? Because, remember, it's not just Twitter. Facebook goes, Twitter goes, Instagram goes. Do we just get rid of our most important industries in the United States? Because the digital businesses are the, the important ones at this point. Right. Somebody says 230 reform as opposed to removal. Yeah, I think what I'm talking about is reform. That's probably a good way to say it. Somebody says, no censorship. Well, but what I said was you could have an option as a user to push a button and you could have censorship or not have it. It was just your choice as a consumer. How's that? Is that a problem? Why would you object to that? Because the only people who would be censored would be for the audience to say, yeah, I want you to censor the bad stuff. I don't want to even see it. I might even pick that myself. You know, if I had that option of uncensored versus censored. Don't assume that I would pick uncensored. Don't assume that. I mean, I might click back and forth once in a while to make sure I'm not missing anything. But I feel like censored has some value. It just goes too far and might censor more than I want. I'd want to see both. Town square. Free speech. Yeah. You know, I feel. And I made the same argument a million years ago when Tipper Gore, Al Gore's wife, was railing to add. She wanted to add warning labels to music. And any of you who are old enough to remember this, remember there was a big kerfuffle and people said, hey, free speech, free speech. Stop putting warning labels of profanity on my product. And I said, now, of course, I like as much freedom as possible. But I said, that's not decreasing your freedom. That's actually increasing it. Meaning that the consumer has more freedom because they have more information. The more information you have that you can act on gives you, in effect, more freedom. So by putting a warning label on some types of content, the consumer knows more. I would say that expands their freedom because the more you know, the more you can make smart, free choices. A dumb free choice, meaning that you had freedom but you didn't know anything, so you made a bad choice. Well, I guess that's freedom, but it's not a good kind. I'd rather have the good kind of freedom where I have all the information. And then it's just up to me. So I argued that labeling things is just always useful. It's just a service that has nothing to do with decreasing your freedom. 230 is not the problem. It's letting Twitter use it as a shield while breaking its rules. Okay, so there's an argument which is that the problem is not the legislation. It's keeping Twitter to it. You know, I have a philosophy that I know a lot of you don't share, which is that mistakes that get corrected are not the same as mistakes, just plain mistakes, because we live in a messy world. And if you start blaming everybody who makes a temporary mistake that then they immediately apologize for and correct. I just can't get mad at people for that. Like, even if it's bad for me, you know, I'm still gonna say, yeah, it would have been better if it was perfect from the start. But anybody who fixes something that's wrong and does it legitimately is a hero in my mind, because it doesn't. There aren't enough of those. So in Twitter's case, if I may defend them a bit, I would say that you've heard Jack say, when challenged about specific things that got suspended, you've heard Jack say, that was a mistake. We reversed it. Now, you certainly need a system for which alleged mistakes get a hearing. That may be the part of the system that's missing. But if you have a company that's willing to, say, put the head of the company on and the public and say in direct words, no weaseling, no. Excuse me. There was no excuse offered. That was a mistake. We fixed it. I don't have a problem with that. As long as there's a system for, you know, the alleged mistakes. Do we need 230? Yeah. I don't know. If you give me options as a consumer, I don't care about any of that. I'll just pick the one I like, and I'll be happy because I'll feel like I picked it right now. Part of the problem is that as a consumer, you don't feel like you got the choice. You know, you could be. Yeah, I forgot my ring next to my drum kit. If you're. You guys are so observant. You notice my ring is not. I have to take my ring off to practice my drums because it hits the ring hits the stick. All right, you debunked the wrong video. Somebody says, I debunked the wrong video. Well, I debunked the video I saw and the one that's Going around. Somebody says there's two videos. James Dixon says, well, why don't you tweet me the other video just for fun. I believe that that's not true, James. I see your comment, but tweet it at me. I believe there are not two videos. Oh, there's another video with a blonde and a thumb drive. I did see that one. Is that the one you're talking about? I saw the one with the blonde and you know, she surreptitiously had something in her hand. I give that zero credibility. Zero, because you can't really tell what's going on in the video. You could imagine it's something bad and you can imagine it's not. I don't think there's anything else you could say from that. Somebody says there's a Georgia State vid. All right, well, just send it to me and I'll talk about that. But the one I saw is the one I talked to. That's all I got for now and I will talk to you later. All right, YouTube. What song am I practicing on the drums? I'm watching a drummer called Sina, or Sina, I don't know how to pronounce it. S I, N A. It's a young woman who's a drummer and she does, she does a lot of the oldies like the Beatles, et cetera. So I've been trying to copy Ringo Starr, which is tough because he's left handed. Talent stacking the guitar. Yeah. Oh, is it pronounced Cena? Somebody says that her name is pronounced Cena. Yeah. And by the way, speaking of talent stacks, let me talk about this. So. So it's a young woman who plays drums on YouTube and, and she's got over a million followers and she's been doing it for years, since I think she was a teenager. She must be in her 20s now. And watching her compile her talent stack is really fun because you can watch the videos over time and see when she's young, all the way to current. And she started out just being, you know, a teenager who was pretty good on drums. And so she did some YouTube videos and then she started adding to her talent stack. So then she was good at presenting and, you know, she, she got her lighting and her video and then she had pop up windows so you could see her feet working while she was drumming. And she really put together quite a talent stack there. I would guess she makes one to two million dollars a year. And if you told me what is her one talent, you know, what's the one thing that makes her worth millions of dollars a year. I'd say at least a million dollars a year. I would say, well, she's really good at drums, but I'll bet you you could find, I don't know, maybe 20,000 people who could play drums really well. And what makes her different is that she added those other. Those other talents. Plus she's a woman, so it makes it a little more interesting because there are fewer female drummers. Fulton county certified the election. You said. Okay, somebody says, unsubscribe. This guy is lying. We will not accept a fraudulent election. So somebody says there's an arena video and a state video. I don't. If it's a video of the same room at the same time, I don't know that that would be different. So it was the Georgia State video that was debunked and not the arena security video? Are you talking about the same room? Because if it's the same room, it doesn't matter. It's the same video. No, the cubicle video. Oh. There's another video of somebody going to a cubicle, but there's not enough information on that to. To. To have an opinion yet. Yeah. So if there's one thing that you should learn in 2020, it's this. The one thing you should learn in 2020 is you can't trust video. But for the. The troll who said that you should unsubscribe from this channel, apparently you missed the whole first part. Because I'm the guy who says you don't even need evidence. I'm the guy who says you. You can guarantee that the election was stolen because of the setup, because it was easy, and they had a high motive to do it. So of course it was stolen. There's no other way it can go. So to the troll who is completely misinterpreting me 100%, just because I don't buy every piece of evidence doesn't mean it isn't guaranteed that the election was stolen. Of course it was stolen. Can I prove it? Probably nobody can. My guess is that it will not be proven. It's just. It had to happen. Epoch Time has a video of suitcases? They do. Okay, somebody says Scott is conceding. No, Scott is predicting. Scott is predicting. It's different. I'm not actually running for president, so I don't get to concede or not to concede, but I can predict. And by the way, don't mistake strategy for surrender. You do know that if things go the way the pundits seem to think it will go and Biden takes office, you do know it will largely destroy the Democrat Party, right? If you want that. That I don't see it could go any other way, really. I know there's some people saying, oh, they'll control everything by changing the laws and stuff. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate, which is still a chance, I think. I think that election will be rigged as well. But if the, if the Republicans hold the Senate, you just have to wait two years and Congress will turn Republican and two more years and Republicans will own everything. If that's what you want. So don't think in terms of retreat or giving up thinking about short term or long term. Those would be the that's the frame you should look. All right. That's enough for now. Talk to you tomorrow.