0:19 - A Federal judge strikes down the Biden mask mandate on planes and public transit - was it the right legal ruling? Should we care?
18:28 - Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter - why is he doing it? why does it matter? will it succeed? if it does, what impact will it have?
45:07 - Taylor Lorenz doxxes the Libs of Tik Tok account creator - another major battle in the Culture Wars
Calvary Audio, Ladies and gentlemen, April two thousand and twenty two. I am at Bolinski and this is your weekly dose of sanity. The prevailing narrative rapturous joy across the land this weekend in America, particularly for travelers, as the federal mask mandate was struck down by a federal judge in Florida, UM and no longer the CDCs requirement that everyone has to wear a mask on airplanes, trains, buses, and other public transportation UM has been put on ice, at least for the moment. I mean, we'll get to the legalities of it, and then we'll get to the sensibilities of it in just a minute or two. But man, I mean, just think about how much tension the flight experience has has included over the past couple of years. I mean, if you're a flight attendant or someone who works for an airline, I mean, think about the pure volume of tents and hostile interactions that people have had with you know, trying to bay by these very loose rules in terms and trying to require that people wear masks and settings where you're also allowed to eat and drink, where you kind of have to set and stay in one controlled setting for hours at a time. Salute to all flight attendants and people who work um for airlines because having to go enforce this be the tip of the spirit. Essentially, they've been the foot soldiers of the CDC having to enforce this mask mandate, whether it makes sense, um or or whether they like it or not. And salute to them. And I'm glad that they can get back to some sort of normal semblance of life and not have to just be fighting with passengers all day long. I mean, think about if someone could compile the freakouts and the flipouts of passengers and just in fights and hostilities over the past two years. Um. Man, it will not be society's finest moment, but it seems to be over for the moment, even though it looks like the Biden administration is going to appeal it. UM. So what happened here, let's go with it. Let's look at this from the from a legal perspective forum moment Um. A lot of attention has been directed towards the judge who struck down the mandate. UM. She's a unique case. She was a Trump appoint he was appointed after the election. UM. Is one of the youngest, if not the youngest Federal Court judges ever. I mean, I think she's only thirty three years old. It was thirty three at the time she was appointed. Her name is Katherine mozell Um. Yes, she is. There's no secret of her ideological leanings. She was a clerk for Clarence Thomas. She was involved in, you know, numerous federalist societies throughout law school in her career. Those were all very much conservative, um, right leaning, and very much focused on individual liberty as opposed to you know, very suspicious of any government intervention whatsoever. So there's no bones about it. She's a conservative justice, and obviously that's what a lot of critics of her decision are focusing on. Um as to the decision itself. You know, listen at previously legal decisions in the Supreme Court striking down Biden's osha um federal vaccine mandate. I think that was done on very sound legal grounds. Um. I think a lot you know that this OSHA was never grant, did the authority necessary to to issue a vaccine mandate, particularly in the limited circumstances. I mean, just uh, the concept that I've harped on at the time was that any sort of restriction or impairment of individual liberty need to be narrowly tailored, and this was just something that was was done, you know, with a sledgehammer, as opposed to pinpoint, and I think the decision to strike that down was on very sound legal grounds. Admittedly, while I'm supportive of this decision um and was against the the federal mask mandate, uh, admittedly, I don't think this one was done on as solid legal ground um as the the opposition to the vaccine mandate. This was on all done under the auspices of the Public Health Services Act of pursued to which Congress granted the granted the CDC certain authority to uh, you know, to to address the spread of communicable diseases or other infirmaries via those traveling from outside the United States into the United States and within the United States. So the language of the Public Health Services acted self the Surgeon General with the approval of the Secretary, meaning the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment, are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the states or possessions, or from one state or possession into another state or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations. The Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be the sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures as his judgment may be necessary. So I gotta be honest. That's pre broad, right, I mean, whether or not you agree with the authority that Congress granted the CDC there Um it Congress is elected, it's it's they're the legislators. That that is the lawmaking body. Um, they are elected officials, and they're allowed to grant uh an administrative body that level of authority. The question is whether or not the CDC was acting within its authority. Um. Judge Mozel's opinion suggests that they were not. And I think it harps a lot, uh and kind of I don't want to say I'm misinterpretation of the text, but are really, you know, aggressively narrow uh interpretation, particularly as pertains to that litany of uh, that litany of of descriptions in terms of inspection, fumigation, disinfection, and sanitation, and saying that wearing masks or in the imposition of a mask mandate on federal air travel um, does not fall within any of those prongs of inspection, fumigation, disinfection, or sanitation. UM. I think that's kind of kind of specious, right, I mean, that's a really limited interpretation, particularly of the term sanitation, and that you would essentially be limiting the CDC too, just things having to do with cleaning as opposed to preventative measures like mask wearing. So once again, well, I don't agree with we'll get to it a second, the mask mandate on airplanes when the masks are not required essentially anywhere else in the world right now, particularly in the United States. UM, it's just nonsensical from a practical perspective from but from a legal perspective, it would seem that it falls within the kind of broad authority granted by the by Congress to the CDC. UH, I'm kind of hard to say that, uh, mask, you know, in position of a mask mandate to prevent the spread of a communicable disease does not qualify as fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, etcetera, etcetera. UM. So you know, and then beyond that, miss l she kind of got into, uh, kind of a little in her opinion, a little editorial about personal freedom and individual liberty. And listen, while that's all great and in many cases UM maintaining individual freedom and liberty, are you know, legally sound principles in this case? I mean, the question is listen, that's that that the authority the CDC had the authority that I just described, So okay, at that accepts that the CDC is in some certain cases going to be UM contracting individual freedom. And the question is whether or not, uh, whether or not requiring masks to be worn falls within that definition that I read earlier. It probably does, but regardless, that was the legal the legal ruling. So what was the response to that? UM? And I think also this is also very telling of do the businesses that are were required to enforce the mask mandate realize that it's bullshit um and also understand that it's it's not something that either its employees or its customers want to abide by. And I think it's pretty proof positive. In direct response United, Delta, Southwest American, which are the four biggest air carriers UH in the United States, they all did away with any mask requirement, as did Jet Blue, Alaska, Spirit in Frontier. A few other airlines have followed course since then. Over the last couple of days, the airlines know that this is unnecessary. Okay, when you're not required to wear a mask in any other aspect of society, but in this one controlled situation scenario, you're required to. I mean, it just seems like the federal government found the one the the one aspect of American life that they're in complete control over that is a kind of indoor controlled environment, and said, Okay, this one gives us plausible deniability. We'll just maintain this one mask requirement here. And a lot of other states that didn't have mask mandates through late two thousand one early two thousand twenty two even more ridiculous. But even the bluest of blue states in New York and Los Angeles that um had mask requirements more generally for indoor activities through early two thousand twenty two, even those have been lifted as of the last six week, so everyone's walking around essentially without a mask. Or nineties, five percent of people are not wearing masks in any certain sort of circumstances whatsoever. But then when you go to an airport and get on a plane, then everybody has to wear a mask, okay, in terms of stopping the spread of of a disease and of uh of a virus. I mean, if everybody's walking around without a mask in every other scenario period, you can pretty much gauge whether or not the virus is going to spread generally, and what the prevalence of the virus is beyond whether or not the the marginal difference um in preventing spread by wearing masks of the time on an airplane, because you're still allowed to eat and drink and lift the mask up to eat and drink. What marginal overall benefit does anyone think that that is providing in stopping the spread of of COVID at this point, right if it's spreading freely everywhere else, but you're stopping it, and that limited, that limited circumstance, and you're not even necessarily stopping it because most people are wearing poorly fitted cloth masks and are lifting it up to eat and drink or go to the bathroom. Can you fathom how little actual impact this that mask mandate is having. Period, It's not doing a goddamn thing. Okay, So beyond that, where does this not make sense? There was one individually as a doctor on Twitter named Eric Wadera. It's like he mentions that he feels safe wearing an N nine to see COVID patients in the hospital of the course of two years. Right, so he understands the COVID patients are not always wearing masks, but as a doctor, he's wearing an N nine to prevent himself from get and COVID or from spreading it to two others. But then the response to that is people thinking, well, there's no possible way that one can protect oneself on a plane anymore without universal cloth based masking that allows for the exception when eating and drinking. Okay, So what's he describing the absurdity that anyone who wants to wear an N ninety five for the entirety of a flight and not eat a drink on the flight, go ahead and do it. Okay, by all means, if you're that concerned about getting COVID, have at it. Okay. If if Eric would doctor Eric wadera can feel comfortable being safe by wearing an N ninety and hospitals around COVID patients for two years, You'll probably be fun on an airplane where very likely nobody has COVID and in the worst case, a couple of people do right and you're recirculating air the entire time. So the fact that there's once again an act the notion that there is in aggregate any marginal benefit when most people are wearing poorly fitted cloth masks, everybody's eating or drinking. I mean, that's complete bs right. Anyone who has particular concerns can wear the mask themselves. The overall impact of all these other people, most of whom are wearing cloth masks and who are eating and drinking, and there's just no that's complete theater, it's complete pageantry. It's second only to the requirement that you have to put on a mask to enter a restaurant and then take it. You can take it off when you go sit down. We all know that the mask requirement for six seconds while you're getting up and go into the bathroom or leaving the restaurant does not have any marginal benefit whatsoever. So once again anyone who is that concerned and mask worn for you know, almost the entirety of a two three four hour flight. Yeah, that's probably gonna provide some protection. Not that most people will need it anyways, but go ahead and do it. Okay, Requiring everybody else to wear some mask when there's no requirement as to which type of mask to wear is complete nonsense. It has no practical benefit whatsoever. Aside from that. The mask mandate was gonna expire a couple of weeks ago, Biden extended it into early May, supposedly under the claim that they needed to assess the severity of this new sub variance of omicron b A two. Well, you know they've had time to assess that and b A two and not that O macron was really spreading or affecting anything. Anyways. There hasn't been a bump anywhere. Okay, there was the most minuscule, uh, you know, like ten percent bump in New York. And we're already coming from such a low basis. I mean, you go and look like COVID prevalence and cases in the hospital in the I C word, it's lowest points since essentially February two two thousand and twenty. I mean if this is non existent, so going from essentially non existent to slightly above nonexistent like spare me. Okay, that that was some significant bump that needed to be studied. If we want to look at other uh, if we want to look at other jurisdictions where this sub variant seems to have hit earlier, well, in the UK, same thing. They experienced a slight bump just above what they're all time low had been, and then it went in plateaued out. Okay, so the jury is in. Okay, we know about b A two. It's not another wave of covid um OHM CRON. Beyond that, then you factor in om crons lack of severity in the first place, the even lower severity of the sub variant, and this is not the type of thing that needed to be studied. Okay, this is an indemni This is an endemic disease. At this point, the numbers are incredibly low, and everybody is going about their business, living their life as they were before, not paying much attention. The only people are paying attention to this are a handful of you know of hall monitor scolds on Twitter, uh and people in the Biden administration. There's no justification for this whatsoever beyond that looking to do people actually believe that mask mandate, that this that these limited mandates only on certain types of public transportation actually do anything? Do they maintain them? To do other institutions and governing bodies maintain them in place when they don't have to know they do not. Illinois lifted its mask mandate on the state's public transportation, Washington, d C, Philadelphia, all these other jurisdictions on their public transportation, their m t as all lifted the mask mandate. New York of course, goes ahead and maintains their's. We'll see how long uh they maintain there's But the vast majority of jurisdictions did the second that they weren't required to maintain the man date via federal law. Once once they were given cover to get rid of them, they got rid of them, just like the airlines did. Okay, everybody knows, uh what the general tenor and the general consensus are from businesses, from citizens, and they don't need they have other than the handful of people who are going to keep on wearing masks. Uh. There's no desire, there's not public support for this mandate. So what's the Biden administration's response. First off, it was pretty wishy washy, Okay, they know it doesn't have public support. They know that this looks makes them look continually suffocating, like it just looks nonsensical, it's not helping them electorially. But conversely, they know that this ruling, if it's allowed to make to remain in place, will set a bad precedent in in essentially preventing them from from the CDC from taking any number of actions in the future. Right, So this does set a bad precedent for the government and government agencies if you have such a narrow interpretation of the Public Health Services Act of ur And there's an article in Politico today about, you know, discussing the internal battle in the Biden administration over whether they even want to appeal this ruling. And it looks like they are going to appeal the ruling. But you know, there's no bones about it. There's a lot of people in the Biden administration who realize they're looking stupid, who are advocating against appealing this and saying we almost got cover, and that continuing to require people to wear masks on planes and instituting this federal mandate. It's making you look bad because it looks ridiculous, because it is ridiculous, Okay, and that this judges, you know, super conservative ruling almost gave Biden cover. So hell we oh well, it got struck down. You know, we can't we can't impose the mandate any furtherest who we're not gonna get We're not gonna bother. You're not gonna make you jump through the hoop of continuing to continuing with this farce. But um, because they don't want to necessarily hamstring their public health agencies going forward for god knows what contingencies they may appeal it. I guess it would go directly to the Supreme Court. That should be an interesting session for the Supreme Court because once again, you know, the the conservative slant and bent of the Supreme Court got the ruling on the Ocean vaccine mandate correct. But I think you know, these uh, these conservative justices, I think they may understand that this district Court ruling it's probably a little too narrow, you know, a narrow interpretation of the text of the legislation. Um, So I think it's gonna gonna be more interesting. You might get some conservative justices, you might break ranks and actually, um, try to overturn the Florida District courts ruling here. Um, I think that would be super interesting. But here's the most ridiculous thing about appealing this. This thing was meant to expire in early May anyways, right by the time the Supreme Court would even hear it, right, it were going to be at a point at which it was already going to be that the chances that that Biden was not going to extend this any further, Right, they were gonna let it. They were gonna let the mandate expire in a couple of weeks. This thing is not gonna get hurt by the Supreme Court for at least another month or two at best, if it is appealed. Right, So let's say they reinstitute the mandate, you know, based purely on in in legal terms, it's gonna be at a time when they, from a practical perspective, don't even want to institute the mandate any longer. So, Um, Joe Biden, I think it was it was a mistake. It was a political mistake to extend the mask mandate any further, because it exposed it to being to being stricken down um by a federal court judge and now puts them in this uncomfortable position about doing of doing something they know is not politically popular. So um, continual political missteps by Joe Biden. One last point on this the the CEO of Jet Jet Blue, David Neilman. I mean, he put it best, and he's very supportive of removing of striking down the mandate, and he acknowledges realities that was incredibly frustrating having a police passengers continually knew. It made his employees unhappy, It made for a worse travel experience overall. And as he put it, why can the government have the State of the Union without masks when we have to continue to mask people on airplanes? Okay? One of the many contradictions and conflicts and absurdities of continuing to require ut masks and the most narrower circumstances. So um, Joe Biden continues to step on breaks politically. UM. Should could be looking forward to just from a purely legal perspective and interesting Supreme Court UH Supreme Court session on this, But for the moment, go book your flights, guys, flash those Pearly Whites, let your freak flag fly and no more masks on airplanes for the time being. Okay, So with juicy topic, I've been waiting to get to Elon Muskin his attempting to buy Twitter, an issue that's been dominating the public consciousness the news cycle. Lots of chatter about this and a lot of freakouts about this topic and his attempt here, and so I think it taking a survey of this issue, we have to wonder why is this seemingly so important? So it begs a few questions specifically, one why is Twitter important? To why is Ellen interested in owning Twitter? Three? Why are certain people a lot of people freaking out about this? And for what would actually change about Twitter news, information consumption and dispersal an American society of Elon is successful in this attempt. Okay, So everyone seems to question alan sincerity when he talks about um these various projects or ventures that that he contemplates and one that he contemplated or talked about on social media that he seems to be looking to execute on is buying Twitter? Um? And so why don't we just go straight to the horse's mouth. I don't really think he's hiding anything, right, I think he's pretty transparent and sincere in uh, you know the nature of his interest in Twitter and why why he's going after it. So this all kind of started on March when Ellen tweets out, um one, well, March, free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to that principle? And then he took a poll and and admonished his followers and those who participated in the poll to be very careful with their response. Next day he follows that up with given the Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done? Okay? So Twitter? That that is what Twitter is, Yes, is the de facto public town square. And in this respect, and one something that I think a lot of people overlook is that regardless of how many people are on Twitter participate in Twitter, overall, the people whose voices matter, right, the people who who's their position and function in society is to be a funnel for narratives, news information, for determining what the narratives are filtering information about current events, they're all on Twitter, and they're all heavy Twitter users for the most part. Right, the people who write for either one legacy news publications or to the new digital publications or three just happen to have a strong, loud public voice during the social and digital media era. They're all they're all power users on Twitter. So what goes on on Twitter really does shape the national discourse. And also, and this is something that I think a lot of people overlook. If you're wondering why there's been so much conformity amongst the media class during the age of Twitter, is because they're all on the same platform scoping out each other's work all day long. Think about it. Essentially, imagine if in any or other profession, every person, every member of that profession, had to put their work on kind of a public message board for all their colleagues, not just the ones they work with, but everyone else in their industry, to to review, look at ogle and and comments, and criticize on a daily basis. If you're a journalist in modern America, that's what you do. Everybody puts their work out there. You're tweeting it out, whether through your personal account or through the account of whatever publication you write for and everybody else in the media industry, every other journalist gets the opportunity to come in to to essentially through the same funnel. Comments on that, I think that drives a ton of conformity because journalists don't they're worried about what their colleagues say. Okay, So that's the That is the function of Twitter. It's truly is the de facto public town square, and in that respect, is not you know, it's not like other commercial and private companies. It is very much like you know, the digital version of of telecom companies, of the telephone company, right, and it's it reflects more of a utility and a common carrier than a variety of other public companies. So I think anyone who wants to dispute that it's not to be taken seriously. Okay, Twitter for better for us. It serves a vital role in in modern society and in our democracy. And if you want to further proof of that, I mean, look no further than Donald Trump, I mean, the president of the United States. It was his primary communication tool and essentially the number one salvo, the number one you know, uh step taken it to oppose him was to remove him from this platform. So it's of unquestionable important importance to our society, to our democracy. Okay, so why is it Lan interested in it? Um? I. Once again, I don't think he's being sneaky here. He's telling everybody why he's interested in it because of its importance and because he thinks that it's not operating UH in adherence to free speech principles and he believes in free speech principles. That begs the question, well, should Twitter operate UH in alignment with free speech principles, and everybody goes to though it's a private company, free speech is only about the First Amendment, which protects you, protects you from the government. And that's of course bullshit. Be because regardless of whether you have to abide by UH free speech principles where you're whether you're legally obligated as a company, it should be the guiding moral principle. The First Amendment and free speech are good things. Thus, if you run a company that serves certain communication functions, you should that are as broad as Twitter. You should try to adhere to those to those principles, and then they'll also go, well, free speech is not you know, unconditional there are limitations on free speech, and yes, of course there are limitations on free speech. One goes to the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. No very few of any people who are free speech advocates UM, particularly of allon's ilk, are arguing that should be no limitations on free speech. All of these social media platforms always had community guidelines, but those community guidelines operated one way in the era from let's call it two thousand six to two thousand twelve fourteen, and have operated another way recently. The types of things that were not considered protected speech right like defamation, UM threat, threats of physical violence, things like that. Those nobody's ever been arguing that you should be able to do that on Twitter. That you send a tweet saying Hey, I'm gonna come murder you at twelve fifteen on Tuesday, right, and that nobody's arguing for that. But these platforms have continued to drift and stray from more traditional free speech free speech principles which included a few categories of prohibited speech. Now what is prohibited is far broader, including everybody's favorite word misinformation, Okay, misinformation unless it constitutes direct defamation, Misinformation and defamation two very different things. Unless it constitutes defamation. Misinformation has never been uh prohibited speech, Okay. Defamation is an assertion of fact about a specific person that is false and damaging. Right, So if you claim, falsely without proof, um, this person raped me on this night, and if to the extent that there's in controvertible evidence that that is a false, factual claim about it a specific identifiable person, Okay, that's a different story. Right. If you can put forth evidence to a to a speech platform um proving that this is false, then I could definitely that would seem to fall within uh taboo or unprotected speech on a social media platform. Misinformation is a completely different thing. That could be assertions of facts or claims, not not having to do with any specific person. They could just be things that people say are assert as beliefs or facts, and they're so ill shape and it is so vague. Trying to identify what is quote unquote misinformation or simply factually untrue is just an impossible and impractical task. And let's be honest, to the extent that the social media platforms have tried to take on that task, the record is not very very good if you look back in terms of which broad categories that people have claimed are misinformation or where misinformation is rife. Um, whether it's about uh the the origination of COVID and the lab in the you know, the possibility of the lab leak from the Wuhan lab. Social platforms got that one wrong. Um, the claims around Donald Trump's supposed collusion or things going on with Russia Gate and his involvement or non involvement with the Russian government around you know, the the kind of context of the two thousand and sixteen election. I mean, no shortage of misinformation or claims about Donald Trump's involvement with the Russians had ended up either being one proven demonstrably false or two was never proven to be true. The platforms didn't have much of a problem with people making those claims that was never considered misinformation, even stuff like the Steel dossier, which was complete nonsense and was never supported in the first place. Okay, anyone who goes and says someone tweets out that you know, everybody, Hey, everybody knows that the Russians have a tape of Donald Trump being paid on by some hooker and they're using it to blackmail him, and he's a Russian, a Russian agent. Okay, Uh no, more than a handful of people have put that out on social media, and nobody it was never identified as misinformation, right, And continually misinformation only seems to be identified in one direction. Right. We'll get to some people claims of false equivalency on that in just a second. So, um, why are people freaking out about Alan potentially buying Twitter? It's because, let's be honest, the the current censorship regime or content moderation regime on Twitter is there, and like I said, it only moves in one direction, and it is there to enforce uh conformity around specific narratives, right, not every narrative. You know, there's diversity of thought around a number of different topics on Twitter. But when things start to get touchy, right around the touchy more high high voltage topics. Okay, if you're if you, if you're concerned, if you if there's a tangible concern about what you may say that might get you censored or you know, subject to content moderation, It almost universally swings in one direction. So the people who swing in the other direction. Um, the the idea that they can no longer enforce narrative conformity concerns them a lot, and then they try to couch it and claims about racism and harassment, and I think it's very disingenuous. But once again, we'll get to more on that in a second. And then also the question of what would actually change if a Laen took control? And we'll have more of the prevailing narrative after the break, So what would change if he took control? Clearly he wants uh broader, he wants more narrow community guidelines. He wants to take a little bit of a foot off the gas pedal of content moderation, and he wants to reduce the things that you can say on Twitter that would get you banned or suspended. Okay, that's plain. At its core, that's pretty much what it is. There's a number of other functional concerns that Ellen has, just like people. If people think that his only interest in Twitter is simply censoring less people know he comments quite often on specific um feature sets and functional changes that he thinks in terms of, you know, questions about an edit edit button or allowing for more extensive tweet threads things and making it easier to access threads, things of that nature. So he's also a tech guy and a product guy at his core, and he wants to make a number of functional feature change just to Twitter as well. So where does As I said before, there you've we've seen different errors and phases of content moderation on Twitter. It used to be far there's far less censorship, less content moderation and uh and you had to be far less concerned about what you're saying on Twitter back during the early two thousand and ten. So let's let's look at how Twitter handles this internally. Um, there's something called the Twitter Trust and Safety Council. This was announced February nine, to two thousand and sixteen. And here's how. Here's the press release from Twitter. On Twitter, every voice has the power to shape the world. We see this power every day, from activists who use Twitter to mobilize citizens to content creators who use Twitter to shape opinion. To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies. With hundreds of millions of tweets sent per day, the volume of content on Twitter as massive, which makes it extraordinary extraordinarily complex destruct the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking truth to power. Okay, so they acknowledge it, they know what what role Twitter serves, and the balance that they're trying to strike between is they put it um fighting abuse and speaking truth to power, allowing people to express themselves, but protecting people from harassment using these digital tools and these channels of communication. That's why we are announcing the formation of the Twitter Trust and Safety Council, a new and foundational part of our strategy to ensure that people feel safe expressing them on Twitter as we developed products and programs are Trust and Safety Council will help us tap into the expertise and input of organisam organizations at the intersection of these issues more efficiently and quickly. These will include safety act advocates, academics and researchers focused on minors, media literacy, digital citizenship, and efforts around greater greater compassion and empathy on the Internet. Okay, So here's what Twitter has. They have internal employees who are specifically looking at content moderation from a perspective of making sure that information on Twitter is accurate and that people are not being harassed, But who are these advocates, academics and other researchers that they're looking to. If you think that these people aren't slanted politically in one direction, you're crazy. Okay. So, uh, you have to trust that the sources that they're looking too for input on these issues are even in well balanced and have free speech and mud. Okay. So we could imagine if a lawn musk takes is successful in his bid to own Twitter, that the Trust and Safety Council you know, will either be one disbanded, two, will have its authority reduced to three, will be required to have a more diverse set and politically balanced set of voices and organizations, uh, participating and counseling that counsel from from the outside. Okay. So that, sir, that begs the question of what has the Twitter Trust and Safety Council accomplished? Has it made Twitter at Kinder's gentler, softer, nicer place than it was in two thousand, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen. I mean it doesn't really seem so right. I mean, you still seem just an intense amount of vitriol on the platform. Um, I'm sure that there are a handful of instances where people are rightfully being suspended for true harassment, right as opposed to being suspended for all the high profile suspensions are almost universally not for harassing people, but for simply expressing unpopular views that are then uh labeled as either one hateful or to misinformation. And once again, and try to pretend that that it's even handed is is just completely ridiculous. So, um, it is Alan's bid for Twitter really make Twitter two thousand and fourteen again? And if he did end up making a two thousand and fourteen again, does that really change? So what? What's what necessarily does that change about communication on social media platforms in American public discourse? I don't think it changes a ton. So another really interesting perspective was put out there by Mike's Alana. Um. You know, he's a tech entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and a commentator on a lot of free speech and political issues. He's got a website called Pirate Wires, which I think is really really good. Um and he always has a really you know, fun and lively and interesting perspective on these things. Um. And here's some of what he put some of how he described it, um So with a Wednesday Twitter CEO Prague Agarwal announced Elon would join the company's board and team Yea, censorship lost its mind. Their stated points of concern war and remain as numerous as they are incoherent, as the hive mind hasn't yet settled on a common argument and almost none of the lan's critics actually believe what they're saying. Is that that seems to be the case. There's not really a common argument. Nobody can really pinpoint what they think is going to go so wrong if a lawn buys Twitter. I think that all of a sudden, um uh, you know, Nazi propaganda. Everyone's gonna be flying swastikas in their profile pick on Twitter. Is that what they think is going to happen, I don't know. They seem to be very vague in their assumptions in their claims about what's gonna go wrong if he does. As Salona goes on, the real reason members of the censorship class are angry is that they are currently empowered by the most dominant speech platforms in history to amplify their own narrow voices and to silence their political enemies. This tremendous, wildly dangerous privilege is now perceived as threatened by the introduction of Musk to Twitter's board. The question is free speech. Alan's detractors believe unfettered conversations are dangerous. Alan believes free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. The censorship people thought they had the game unlock, but power has a way of shifting, which is why the wise among amongst us tend to want it balanced. The hall monitors are furious. That's a great articulation of what the reaction around Musk has been. Essentially that they don't have any specific concerns that they can articulate. They know that the platform had been swinging in their direction and willing to enforce their mores and values, and they know with that with Musk at the helm, that they won't be able to enforce that anymore. They know that he's a wild card and that he wants things essentially, you know, more balanced and more open. And when things are more open, they don't get to punish their political opponents as much as they would like to. Okay, let's be honest. That's that's essentially what it is. Um and you know, he's also has some interesting thoughts on a Lan's place in society and as a leader of the tech world. UM. At the time of Steve Jobs's death, there was a popular question of who would assume is the facto position as industry leader. Today, it's hard to even imagine a world in which the role does not belong to a lan for direction, inspiration, and vision concerning the very best of what technologists have to offer. Men and women of the industry point to the man who lands rockets unjustifiably. We share his victories and he stands for our failures. The pressure is unfair. And the kind of teenage boyishness with which must approaches social media has always struck me as a bit of a rebelliousness in response, that's the it's Lawn's kind of tenor on social media. Yeah, it's kind of a a freewheeling boyishness where he's having fun where he believes that there are no boundaries um, whether you know it's whether content moderation wise or culturally right. And he has he has a different approach, like he'll poke fun at people, he'll be a little mischievous, but it's not ill spirited, and it's really not harmful in any way, shape or form. And the people the hall modys the ones who want to be uptight and you know, want this kind of enforced uh, enforced sensitivity. Unless it's they're unless they're the ones being mean, It just it just eats at them, It pisces them off. As Salona goes on, in this age of social media, it was inevitable a figure of such influence would come to evoke love and hate and intimate daily measure, the deafening magnitude of which jobs could not have imagined. But of particular interest is the strangest strangeness with which even a Lawn's fiercest critics in derision cannot help imbue their most hated villain with supernatural, almost godlike powers. This so, this is interesting that the freak out about what a Laan might do to Twitter is evident of his power and of his influence. He's just a guy, He's just a guy. He probably wants to loosen the reins and have Twitter do a little less censorship and add add a few features. Yet his enemies and his detractors think he's all powerful, like they're like Ellen is gonna turn this this into his own personal fifedom, even if he could. Look how difficult it is to for a company to wrap their arms around the infinite amount of communication and interactions that go on on this platform. Like, there's only so much influence that Elon Musk could exert on Twitter even if he wanted to write. So it's crazy that they have such concerns. His enemies continue to fan the flames. They're feeding him. They're feeding the mythology of how powerful and supposedly evil this guy is. I don't really get it right, Well, what has this guy done. He's He's made it easier for people to make direct payments via you know, via digital banking. He's landed a rocket on the moon and created a really fun interesting car that runs on electricity. Like, I don't what has this guy done that is supposedly such a harm to society. I mean, a lot of people look to, uh, what they were trying to tag him on. Is this that he's so rich and he's not paying his fair share in taxes? Then he goes ahead and pays the largest tax bill in the history of America eleven billion dollars last year. I meant, every turn, he seems to negate whatever his opponent's arguments are. Um, So it seems that this freak out is just purely about control with Ellen at the Helm, they know that the censorship regime that they are supportive of, that they propagate. No, that day is over, Okay, that that's in the dustbin of history. UM. So we've gone over why it's important, why Ellen is interested, what people are freaking out about, and what would actually web speculating on what would actually change. Now let's go on to will Ellen actually be able to execute on this purchase? Is he going to be successful in this bid? So clearly he's being a post. Okay, the Twitter board of directors. Um, And this actually broaches up an interesting point. One of the things that that Ellen has identified, um is how little the board of directors owns of the company. A couple of days ago ago named Chris baig uh he is the founder of Laski. He tweeted, He tweeted out a grid listing the Twitter board of directors and their owners amount of ownership in the company. And I mean it's it's miniscule. You've got Jack Dorsey about two point two percent. Prague the CEO is it's six percent. Got one board member doesn't own anything, another one that owns one one thousand and I mean most of the board members here own like three one thousands of the company, and I mean I understand that Twitter is a big company, but these are these are board members who truly do not have skin in the game. Ellen responded to that that tweet with that grid Uh says, wow. With Jack departing, the Twitter board collectively owns almost no shares. Objectively, their economic interests are simply not aligned with the shareholders. I think that's a really interesting point. Okay, So these shareholders who have very little steak first off, I mean most of them, you look into their backgrounds, I mean, they don't necessarily seem qualified to be directing um uh the most important communication platform in the history of the United States, and they their past experience just do not have relevance to that. Um But aside from that, they go ahead and they institute what's called a poison pill UM which, in response to Ellen's essentially responsive response to Elon's offer, um which was about forty three billion dollars and currently owns about nine percent of the company, they institute a new rule that if anyone acquires more than fifteen percent of the company, they'll flood the company with new shares, dilute everybody's ownership and kind of you know and kind of uh squeeze that holder down right. That's called the poison pill. So I mean, how could someone theoretically get around that one? You know, if Allen was able to find other people who were aligned with his interests, who all wanted to then accume a couple of people who wanted to accumulate let's call it, of Twitter up to the poison pill threshold, and then combine with those individuals to take majority voting control of Twitter. Theoretically could do that. I mean, the one name that keeps on getting kicked around for that is Peter Teal And I'd be shocked if Peter Teel is is, you know, sitting this one out on sidelines. He seems to have a lot of interest in these issues. Um. And so beyond that, you know, what, what cards does Ellen have to play? Um? There is the prospect he's a major shareholder, right and there is a responsibility of the board of directors to the shareholders to maximize value. And you know, he could claim or institute a shareholder lawsuit that in denying this his bid and his offer, which would provide the shareholders with with a nice win with some serious appreciation in a great stock price, um that you know that they've violated their duties to the company. A gentleman named Roman Chef on Twitter. He's a serial entrepreneur and he actually did a great job of summarizing the corporate law around this issue in the prospects of a shareholder lawsuit in identifying that the board of directors has two primary fiduciary duties. One is a duty of care and one is a duty of loyalty. The duty of care is a requirement that the board makes decisions with reasonable diligence and prudence. The board must one assured be assured that they have the right information to act and to devote sufficient time to review the information right So, in response to a UH purchase bid, they have to show that they took the time to look into to analyze all the proper proper information to determine whether or not to take the offer. Um. Beyond that, the duty of loyalty is the second fiduciary duty. It necessitates the board act in the best interest of shareholders and doesn't put personal interest ahead of these interests. For instance, directors can't have an undisclosed interest in the transaction that is different from stockholders. So if Ellen wanted to bring a lawsuit against the against the board of directors against the company for turning down his offer, he'd have to show that they violated one of those two duties. Um Usually a board is able to protect himself protect themselves into the business judgment rule that essentially gives, particularly in Delaware, gives the board of directors a ton of leeway and saying you know, hey, we we have the lee win. We have the authority to make a decision in our our reasonable business judgment. And just because you know it might provide shareholders with a nice return doesn't mean that it was the It was a proper decision for the company. And given that the stock price was recently within the last year above the price that Ellen is offering to pay, I mean they might be able to hide behind the business judgment rule. Another way to put it is if the board can show a rational basis for its decisions, the court will typically side with the board. However, there is a stricter standard when there's a hostile takeover, which is what this is. In that case, the standard is when directors uni unilaterally adopted defensive mechanisms such as a poison pill. Then the defensive mechanism has to pass a more strict test of reasonableness and proportionality. So that's what Ellen would be going after, um, claiming that you know that the defensive mechanism that they took in instituting the poison pill was not reasonable nor proportional. And also I'm sure he would make the claim that he the that the board is cutting their nose despite their face and you know, and preventing shareholders from assuming significant returns just because they don't like they're not a fan of how culturally and politically Elon is intended to run the platform if he is successful in his bid. So, um, yeah, if you want to look up this guy Roman Sheath R O M E N S H E T H. He's got a couple of great threads on the corporate law texture and context surrounding you know what what options Ellen might have at his disposal and if he's unsuccessful in that bit, I mean, he's already said it once again. I think he's being genuine, honest and transparent. He says he's gonna dump all the stock he's got about nine percent of the company. If he just goes ahead and dumps all that stock and one fell swoop, it's gonna tank the stock price. And that's a lot of pain on on Twitter shareholders and on the company. Is not going to reflect well on the board. And he also might be hoping that other shareholders that the prospects of that convince other major shareholders or just an aggregate enough maybe smaller and mid sized shareholders to put to continue to put pressure on the board. Um. Who knows there could be some you know, cultural prohibitions on that that the other shareholders might not want to be seen as publicly aligned with Ellen, you know, for their own reputational concerns. Um. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with what the timeline is here. I'm sure we will start to get some movement on this one way or the other. And beyond that, I can't imagine if you on his bid is not successful, that he just drifts quietly into the night. I mean, he clearly believes this to be an important issue free speech and communication from the the you know what are the de facto public squares, the social media, the major social media companies and platforms, and he believes this to be very important. And he's not a guy who He's a guy who was inclined towards actions. So if he's unsuccessful with the bid with Twitter, I imagine he's gonna start working on his own platform. So should be super interesting to watch how it plays out. Not gonna make any secret about it. I want to see him succeed. I want to see him loosen some of the reins on content moderation and censorship and just do away with the ridiculous notion that these platforms um are equipped and authorized or or have the best interest of the public in mind and identifying what they believe to be misinformation or disinformation. Okay, they don't have the skill, they're not good at it, and and nobody granted this them this authority in society. So best to luck to Ellen. We will be monitoring the situation, I can assure you, and we'll have more of the prevailing narrative after the break. Okay. Another big battle in the Culture Wars this week. Taylor the Wren's verse The Lives of TikTok So. Who are the players in this battle? Okay, Taylor the Wrens someone who fashions herself quote unquote a tech reporter. She currently works for the Washington Post. She used to work for The New York Times. She recently left, making no shortage of enemies in the process. At The New York Times a bunch of snide remarks as she exited that institution. So Taylor is a woman in her early forties, I believe who you know. It kind of embeds herself in with players involved in a teenage digital stardom, right to big tiktoker's instagrammers, and tries to write think pieces on them and whatnot, and decides to kind of inject herself into a lot of controversies in those worlds, and a lot of situations where people are getting canceled for supposed bad behavior, whether it's managers who are claimed to have you know, mistreated their TikTok or or Instagram or ute uber clients, people who might you know, some of these digital stars, mostly very young people who might have can uh engaged in some wrong act or whatnot. She very famously got egg interface on Clubhouse late two thousand twenty when she falsely accused venture capitalist Mark and Reason of calling someone a retard in a room and it wasn't Mark Andreason's clearly a bad faith and kind of embarrassing in juvenile attempt by Taylor Lorenz to attack and fabricate mouthfeasance against someone that she considers a political enemy, because hey, Mark Andreason is on the side of free speech, does not have much love or affection for liberal causes, and Taylor Lorenz is out playing moral enforcers. She's the wicked witch of cancelation. She wants to find reasons to cancel people. She's a political operative. Okay, the idea that she is a quote unquote journalist just looking to do stories and explain to people the world of digital media and digital stardom and digital talent. I mean that that's kind of laughable. She's out there to find controversies, inject herself into them, and try to use her plat form to punish those those that she thinks are guilty of wrongdoing. Lives of TikTok. This is a Twitter and an Instagram account that, for the most part pretty much just takes videos that are are already publicly available on TikTok that certain TikTokers put out there that display people doing engaging in kind of weird or perverted or strange behavior associated with modern progressivism, whether it's uh talking about you know, their own white guilt and engaging in in self denunciation rituals and engaging in strange, weird racial pathology, or more so on what was what led to this controversy in this battle um, strange sexual proclivities, uh, gender ideology. You know, many times the people in these videos kind of adopt a strange progressive artsy aesthetic with dyed green hair and nose rings and and this and that. Um, but think about the types of strange and kind of extreme radical racial and gender politics that you see on the progressive side, and these lives of TikTok push this on display. But once again, it's really it's almost predominantly and I think universally simply reposting videos that people have deliberately, involuntarily already put out there. It's letting the videos speak for themselves, and the videos happen to elicit a reaction, right, And so the account has become prominent, has become popular because it's finding strange stuff to show. Okay, it's finding people engaged in very odd, odd behavior and it's putting that on display, and it's eliciting a certain reaction. Right, if the the behavior on display did not elicit certain reactions, that the account would be irrelevant. This wouldn't be an issue in the first place. But because in a lot of instances, a lot of the people that appear on the lips of TikTok account and are are engaging in this strange behavior that they're sharing on TikTok, they end up being school teachers, and many times school teachers for very young children. And there's a a very strange pattern of people who are elementary school teachers talking about how they engage in instruction and curriculum with their students around kind of you know, alternative sexual preferences, sexual orientation and gender ideology, transgenderism in circumstances that are by any estimation, inappropriate. Okay, And this is sparking quite out, you know, some outrage and a reaction even legislatively in a lot of people, even tie the recent legislation in Florida, which was then followed up by some other states kind of prohibiting you know, inappropriate teaching of sexual orientation and gender ideology to in the case of Florida, was kindergarten through third graders um where some people are even saying that the videos that Lives of TikTok posts are in certain respects motivating this legislation. And I don't think that's actually too outlandish of a claim. This account is having, uh it's it's content is very viral. I mean it's this account is making an impact one way or another on the public discourse. Um. So, Taylor the Wren's decided to do what I'm sure she would call a profile on and trying this was so lives of TikTok was an anonymous okay, it did not have a name behind ended right, Taylor Lorens took it upon herself to go and try to expose a quote unquote docs or expose the identity of the person behind the libs of TikTok account. Okay. And as this as the story was approaching being released, you know, the lives of TikTok account was trying to put Taylor the Wren's behavior as a journalist on display and published a bunch of the materials. And here here was Lorenz's message to the libs of TikTok account um, essentially trying to elicit commentary for the story from Taylor, Hi, I'm just following up here. You've been mentioned as the administrator of the libs of TikTok account on Twitter, and I need to turn my story in today. Is that your account? Please let me know asap because you're as listen to this. You're being implicated as starting a hate campaign against LGBTQ people if you're unaffiliated with the account. I want to be sure to set the record straight. Okay, So listen, this was not a profile, right, This was not just trying to explain in newsworthy account or a newsworthy person to the public. This was an attack. This was political optors. This was activist journal Is that there that there was an accused that literally an account that literally just repost videos that people voluntarily put out into the public sphere on TikTok. Simply reposting those videos is inciting a hate campaign against the lb g t Q community. Okay, Um, so we know what Taylor Lorenz was trying to do here, and then becomes a conversation of is this proper journalism? Do you docs private citizens? Um? Is there any not a guarantee but expectation of privacy if you don't want to be exposed on on the Internet. And you choose to have an account that is anonymous unless you're engaged in some real, some real wrongdoing, should you be able to remain anonymous? Uh? In Taylor Lorenz and the accusations are that you know this person was engaged in wrongdoing in this deserved to be exposed once again, inciting a hate campaign. Okay, so let's look at the question, are they inciting a hate campaign? Well, here's the thing. It's hard to claim that someone's engaging in a hate campaign when you're literally just mirroring people's behavior and content out to the world. Okay, And some people would claim that these videos were being taken out of context, but I don't think that claim holds true. This account literally just took TikTok's that were already released displaying weird behavior and reposted it with very little editorial for the most part, but in some expect in some respects uh explaining what these people were engaged in. Thus far, in all the criticism of the libs of TikTok account, there's almost zero claim that anything they said was untrue or mischaracterized anything. It's mostly just that they don't like the reaction. They don't like the reaction of society to what the libs of TikTok account is exposing. Because a lot of these, these teachers, a lot of these you know, lives of TikTok were being reposted. They don't they don't have big profiles, they don't have big followings, so not many people are aware of these videos. Then their video might get reposted on the libs of TikTok account and boom, their behavior is exposed to a much a much wider audience. In a lot of cases, these are people who are admitting very openly and being enthusiastically promoting that they discuss really inappropriate uh stuff about sexuality and sexual orientation and gender ideology with children, and that they do so very proudly. Um And to say that it's a hate campaign that parents and the public at large might react negatively to this, I think is bullshit, right. And if you don't, if you don't want to, if you're a public school teacher, if you teach young children, you have a certain responsibility if their parents and the public at large are reacting disfavorably to what you're injecting into the curriculum and into these children's lives. That's notable, and you need to take note of that. That is not a hate campaign. So let's look at just a couple of these the examples of the types of things that the lives of TikTok account are are exposing to the public, that are eliciting some criticism and in some cases some punishment for the teachers that are once again, they are publicly posting this stuff. Okay. A first grade teacher records an identity Shares zoom call with K through second graders where he spoke about being trans and this is a quote from the video. When he's has that he's teaching this to the K through to second graded students. When babies are born, the doctor looks and makes a guess on whether the baby is a boy or a girl. Sometimes the doctor is wrong. If they are right, the baby assist gender. You shouldn't be teaching that to six year olds. Okay, that's not a hate camp. Exposing that is not a hate campaign. Exposing that is exposing inappropriate instruction from an lm entary school teacher to impressionable young children. Another one is a woman who proclaimed herself to be a magical pleasure worker who runs a sexy summer camp for children and rule Kinectic in Kentucky. Sorry, you shouldn't be running a sexy summer camp for children. That's not appropriate. That is behavior that is warranted. Criticism is warranted and should be exposed. That is not that is not trying to generate a pylon on people because someone is is gay. Okay. The the defining characteristic of what is being exposed is not that the person is a homosexual or is transgender or whatnot or fits that category. Is that they're injecting inappropriate aspects of sexuality into the lives of children. Okay, those are two completely different things. There's the vast vast majority of homosexual uh lb G t Q teachers are not doing these things. The the lb G t Q teachers that are not doing this stuff have nothing to worry about or not doing anything wrong. There's no They're not going to be exposed. There's not gonna be a hate campaign insided against them, because all they are that they they're not doing anything inappropriate with children. This is relegated just to the people who are clearly doing so. Beyond that, you've got an assistant professor at Old Dominion University who outright, very openly explains that they're trying to normalize the term minor attracted person m a P. Minor attracted person means a pedophile. They're trying to normalize pedophilia. This isn't This is to college kids, not to school children. I'm sorry people trying to advocate for or normalize or sanitized pedophilia. Yeah, if you're gonna go openly admit that in a public form and posted on social media, you can't blame whoever reposts it for the type of hate you get. A theater in the UK is advertising a family sex show. This is for children age five and up. A family sex show. That's that people are promoting as appropriate for kids as as young as age five. That is not okay. Once again, not a hate campaign. Exposure of perverted behavior that needs that deserves public censure. Okay. So there's definitely an argument that the woman behind this account, her name turns out to be Shy A Ray Check. She's actually an Orthodox Jewish woman from New York and a real estate agent. There's definitely a a an argument to be made that what she is doing has such impact and is now a matter of public concern and her her identity is newsworthy and it's you're not. There's no breach of journalistic ethics to go and discover that and expose who this person is. But it's clearly being done by Taylor Therenz in a way to portray her as inciting hate campaigns. Listen some of these teachers who are exposed once again from their own videos they're posting on the internet. Okay, some of these teachers are suffering professional consequences because elementary school curriculums and teaching children is not a free marketplace of ideas. Okay. There's a responsibility given by the citizens to the public school system to properly instruct and treat the children that it puts in its care. Okay, while parents are at work during the day and while the while the children are being educated. Okay. So the idea that we should expose all children to all ideas, know that that is not a provent. This is not this is not Twitter, Okay. It's for parents need to be able to regulate what their kids get exposed to in school. So they're gonna be some professional consequence to some people who openly admit to injecting perverted sexual orientation and sexual curriculum into what they teach school children. Okay, so look who's doing this. This is the ultimate cry bullie, Taylor the Rens. She calls any criticism of her on the Internet and listen, she gets a lot of it as harassment. Right, Um, but sorry, Taylor, you're the one who's injecting yourself into these controversies. If you want to go play wicked witch of cancelation, then you're gonna have. If you don't want, if you don't want to deal with the heat, they get out of the God's damn kitchen. Okay, the internet is a harsh place. You're not the only person who ask people criticizing them, attacking them, and in certain cases, harassing them. Uh, this is this. If you're not built for it, then you shouldn't be involving yourself in it. But every time that Taylor and the Renz has no hesitations about directing that type of hate and negative attention and harassment towards someone else, and then goes and she conducted some ridiculous, sappy interview on MSNBC a couple of weeks ago where she's crying and sobbing about uh, the you know, the negative attention that she gets on the internet. I'm sorry you're not getting any sympathy from me, Taylor. Okay, you want to be someone who is going and trying to incite hate mobs and smear campaigns against others. You may think it's morally justified, but if you want to be that person, you've got to accept that you're in the trenches. Okay, And there's gonna be some blowback. I mean Glenn Greenwald, who's someone who gets the incredibly nasty messages and harassment on the internet all the time, and who also is homosexual, might I add? And he doesn't let Taylor get away with this. Then he points to out two weeks ago, two weeks ago, after before she went and decided to dox um this woman behind the lives of TikTok account, she responded to, you know, some kind of pithy comment about online harassment. Uh. Taylor runs like, I know you're joking, but docking, stalking, trying to hurt and smear people's loved ones, threatening them, It's not okay in any situation. Listen, go remember what how Taylor the rends term the email that she sent to the lives of TikTok account trying to verify whether or not the individuals a person behind it. Essentially, Hey, sorry, uh, you know in a nice life that you got, but you're being implicated in a hate campaign against lb G t Q individuals, So you know, we want to get your comment on the topic because you've got some trouble. Bruin. She does exactly what she claims that she is a victim of. She's a total crybal in. Its total hypocrisy, as Greenwald puts it, do you not see how corporate journalists have created a framework where they can do anything to anyone they want, and nobody can do anything to them, including criticize them, because it generates quote unquote harassment. That's what goes on here. They go and attack people. They're going to try to ruin people's lives and smeary people with with no hesitation whatsoever, because they think they have the moral imparative imperative. But when they get criticized in return, that's harassment. They simply want a failsafe excuse to dismiss any criticism of their work and their tactics whatsoever. It's completely cheap and it's disingenuous and it's manipulates of okay, So beyond that, is there any valid criticism of the libs of TikTok account? I mean, I think there actually could be. There's one individual happened to be able to see this entire situation with a clear lens and put out some, you know, very even handed thoughts on this topic. His name is Peter Savodnik. He's believing or not a writer for Vanity Fair, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Vanity Fair seems to now actually be putting out some quality content on occasion. So he broke down a few bullet points around this topic. One, Uh, Taylor Lawren's pieces poorly written and edited. The post should be embarrassed, but probably isn't okay. So Taylor Lawren's first off, it's just a bad journal She's not good, she's not talented with language, she's not a talented storyteller, She's a bad writer. Period Number Two, it neglects to discuss in any substantive way the videos that have made libs of TikTok so prominent, the the the theme's ideas and arguments that have upset so many. Okay, so if you think that this is inspiring hate against these l g B t Q individuals, you need to at some point wrestle with why this is the reaction, right, because this doesn't seem to be the reaction of society of anyone, just two people who happened to be homosexual or transgender. It only happens to be the reaction uh to specific behavior. So the themes, ideas and arguments that are once again that are in the videos that the lives of TikTok posts that once again are put out voluntarily, voluntarily by the people in the videos, they're just repost of already public content. Taylor Lorenz makes no no effort to actually wrestle with whether or not what's being portrayed in these videos is appropriate, or whether it is justified and valid that a lot of parents find this stuff to be offensive and troubling and worthy of contacting schools and school districts for potential consequences. He goes on, in an ideal universe, it would have reported on the content that has outraged so many parents. The role of the reporter, presumably, is not to decide whether those parents should or should not be outraged, but to delve into the anger to try to make sense of it. And that's perfect, That's exactly the It is pure judgment on Lorenz's part, right uh that she believes, whatever the reaction are to the lives of TikTok videos are mean and evil and wrong, and there's no attempt whatsoever to examine why or how or see if there is validity to the anger and outrage in response to them. But Lorenz was apparently uninterested in all that that would have required empathy. Her piece reflects the brokenness of mainstream media discourse, which doesn't engage, but talks past trafficking and half truths and ad hominem attacks in pursuit of ever narrowing slivers of audience. The thing is, as its audience has grown, lives of TikTok has gotten worse. It's videos have shifted from the undeniably outrageous to those that are up for interpretation in a rush to play kate the like likes of Tucker Carlson. It is lowered, lowered, its standards finding good stuff is hard listen. That is a valid criticism because it acknowledges that the lives of TikTok does expose a number of videos that are undeniably outrageous that do show bad behavior, including oftentimes bad behavior from those that are teaching children. Right, So they acknowledge that there's a reason this account is popular, there's a reason there's a reason this account is impactful, Okay, and not everyone who finds the things uh it posted on that account off putting is out of its mind. And they do acknowledge that some of the videos. Now, because let's be honest, the videos that are put out through lives of TikTok are intended to elicit a response. Um, are now shifting to some videos that may not be so outrageous. That may just be some homosexual people uh going about their lives, are describing, you know how incidentally their sexuality came up in a classroom setting or at their job or whatnot. Okay, So fair enough, fair enough that it might be casting too wide a net, Um, and that some of the people in the videos that it's portraying are not actually doing anything that perverted or or depraved or worthy of criticism. Okay, So I think that's completely valid. Um. As he goes on, a better piece would have traced this decline and then then asked the question, can one build an audience while staying honest or almost a good idea? Spotlighting bad teachers melt into schlock that undermines the cause? I doubt it. And what is the impact of that on our politics? Now, this would be a helpful exercise if someone who had followed savodniks instructions here trying to understand what this says about culture is you know, what is this account doing that is good, that is bad, that is neutral? And unpacking that from there? But she doesn't do anything of the sort because she has no interest. Okay, she's a political operative masquerading as a journalist, and not a very good one. Um, So it doesn't seem like this is slowing down the lives of TikTok account. I think it's I think it has gained about two followers since the hit piece ran. So, Um, Taylor lorenz is tactics and her objectives in doing what she's doing, Um, I don't think they're long for this world. I mean she's made I know some people who know her, I know some people who have worked with her. She's making lots of enemies around town and eventually that the Washington Post is going to get tired of her bullshit, just like the New York Times got tired of her bullshit. Um So, but this this battleground as as part of the culture wars you know of. Let's let's be honest, this is what it is. Um. Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender teachers who you know who do not think that they should have any limit on teaching about alternative sexuality or sexual orientation or gender ideology, no matter the age of the people that they teach. This is going to be a battleground in in the culture war, American culture wars um and the parents rights movement which is sprung up in which is gaining steam quite a bit. Um so uh A fascinating topic, I believe in one for both both for good and for bad. I believe it's a fascinating topic, but want to continue to monitor so everybody, thank you so much. Between the mask Mandate Alan and Twitter Lives of TikTok verse, Taylor Lorens wof culture wars heating up this week, as I am sure it will continue to stay hot and here at the prevailing narrative, we will be here to report on it. All, Thank you so much. Talk to you soon. I am at Bilinsky once again. You can listen and subscribe to The Prevailing Narrative on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you're listening right now. Make sure to follow me on my socials at Matt Belinsky m A T T B I L I N s k Y. The Prevailing Narrative is a Cavalry Audio auction and association with iHeart Radio produced by Brandon Morrigan, Executive produced by Danna Bernetti and Kegan Rosenberger for Calvary Addio. I'm Mat Bolinski h