Joe Bob (25:01)
Let the record show that I didn't say it. He said it. He didn't really say anything. But he did. But I didn't. Just so we're clear. All right. Hey, lots of points to get to. Lots happening going on around the world. Actually, some very great news happening on several different fronts. But before we talk about that, got to talk about the very interesting case coming out of California. Before that, we got to play the zinger. It is time to get to the point. Get to the point. Get to the point. I've gotten A couple emails TBT tv USA.com saying hey, they're called stingers, not zingers. Sorry. I actually think you're right. But I like zinger better. Zinger sounds more zippy and fun and jivey and cool. Stinger sounds like this sucks and not. They don't suck. I think they, I think they're fun. Anyways. All right, time to get to the point. First point up. This from Breitbart. Jury finds Meta and Google Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial now this is different than the verdict that was reached in New Mexico in which the jury found or the whatever the proceeding was. I don't know if it was a jury and arbitrator, whatever found that they did not do enough to prevent minors from being contacted by potential child predators. That's a different entire story. This is coming out of Los Angeles entirely talking about negligence regarding addictive behavior to a social media platform. Here's might get some flack for this. Let me know tptpca.com I think I hate this from a free market, freedom loving, individualistic society person. I think this is not good. And that shouldn't take away from the fact that I despise both of these companies, right? I despise what social media just as a whole has done to society. And I find this really, really, really troubling when it comes to what the ramifications of this are going to look like. A Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent in the design of their social media platforms after a landmark trial determining that addictive features such as Infinite Scroll Auto Play notifications were a substantial factor in causing mental health problems for the plaintiff who began using YouTube at the age of 6 and Instagram at the age of 9. Basically this person who is now 20 years old said, I just keep scrolling, I'm addicted to the platform. Um, interestingly enough, the, the attorneys for this person came out and said, well, yeah, you now can definitively not blame the parents for letting their kids scroll through social media. To which I say, why? Why can't you blame the parents as a parent who's not letting their kids use social media or really screens at all? I think it's totally justifiable to blame, at least partially the parents for allowing them to do so. Now, on the point of being addictive, I will say, yes, that that is exactly what they're trying to do. Is that a crime, right? Or is it exactly what the businesses are kind of built to do? Being addictive? Well, one, we don't necessarily have a definition of addictive, but let's just say it's building a platform or a product that you want users or consumers to use. If you do that too well, that's a problem. And again, this, this comes from me saying, like, I don't like the idea of scrolling constantly and endlessly through social media. I, I try to not do it myself. I encourage other people to not do it. And if that is the whole product, if the product is building something that users at the end of the interface like, but you do it too well, all of a sudden, now you're in trouble, which it kind of concerns. Every company in the history of the world has tried to do this. You build a product, then the user or customer uses that product and you want them to use the product more and more and more so you can keep selling them that product. It goes for food. It goes for, in both good food and bad food. It goes for cars, right? You manufacture a car, you want that person to like that car so they come back to your manufacturer the next time they are in the market for a car. Every single product that has been developed by a business for a consumer has attempted to do exactly this. And now Meta and Google, or again, are companies that I do not like are effectively being punished for doing that very, very well. Right, okay. We can hold two thoughts in our head at the same time. I don't think people should scroll. I think it's bad for you. Okay, we have that. Also, this seems like a really weird kind of subjective piece that only really applies to social media platforms, which leads to the bigger problem, which unfortunately, I could see this going off in a very bad direction of attorneys now thinking, okay, this is a cash cow, we're going to bleed these companies dry. And again, I'm not in defense of the companies. What I'm saying is more broadly speaking, okay, so where do you draw the line of quote, unquote, addictive behavior? The stuff that I spray on my lawn to kill the weeds, but not the grass. That company wants me to, quote, unquote, be addicted to that product and keep buying it over and over again because it works and I like it. That's the whole point of developing the product. And so if that is now bad, what does that open up for attorneys down the line to say, hey, this has clearly already been decided. This jury in Los Angeles awarded Mike this client $3 million because Google and Facebook are addictive, which again, is the goal of every company ever to develop a product in the history of the world. But because they have a ton of money, I'm just going to go ahead and cash checks by suing them over and over and over and over again and ideally settling out of court. This marks the first time a US Jury jury verdict has held a social media company or companies liable for addiction related harm. I don't know, I don't need to reiterate the point, but that not again, this is not in support of those companies. It is just a deep concern with where this ends up going. And I also think, you know, the bigger, broader point of, well, look, yeah, you can't blame parents. You still totally can. Like, that's don't let your kids use social media. It's plain as that. Simple as that. Oh, it's easier said than done. Yeah. Being a good parent is hard. Maybe not hard is the right word. Challenging may be the correct word. That's the whole point of parenting. It is very easy to sit your kid in front of a screen and have them scroll through. TikTok. Don't do it. Sorry. All right. Anticipating some blowback on that. Tptbusa.com if you have any thoughts on that. Time for something that everybody, especially watching this show, will agree on now. Now that we've probably divided people into factions, which is again, totally fair. This is discussion. This is what the free market, the open discussion society that we have is built on. But now get every, you know, we'll, we'll get back together here. This from NBC, but it's headlines everywhere. Transgenders, transgender women banned from Olympics entirely, which is a new rule issued by the ioc. This actually isn't even the most poignant headline. I think there's a, there are several headlines, obviously from conservative ones. They're going to be a little bit more brash about it. This is actually putting it politely. Did transgenders just as a whole. Nope. Olympics says IOCs is absolutely not, not at all going forward. That's going to start with the 2028 U.S. or Los Angeles Olympics. And they say the Olympics committee correctly says it's designed to protect fairness, safety and integrity in female categories, citing physical advantages, which we will get to a video of some crazy lunatic talking about the lack of physical advantages that don't exist. We'll play that video a little bit later. On in the show, the IOC is restricting female category participants to biological females, which again, is redundant. Biological female means the same thing as female. You don't need to add a second word in there. So there's that. So great. Congratulations. Tptpsa.com if for some reason that you have a problem with that, which I highly doubt. Oh, and you know, get to the next point. This is just so sad. We just, we hate to see things like this happen. New York Attorney General Letitia James, the person that made up a crime to prosecute Donald Trump with because that was her entire purpose in serving as the Attorney General, has been hit with two more criminal referrals alleging possible insurance fraud. Remember, she was, it was some alleged mortgage fraud which looked pretty clear and evident that she committed. But again, I guess we'll see. We'll see how any of that plays out. But two more criminal referrals alleging possible insurance fraud. The house. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte filed two new criminal referrals against New York Attorney General Tish James alleging she may have committed homeowners insurance fraud on applications in Norfolk, Virginia, which a property that she purchased in 2020. And also I believe, told the mortgage company that, oh yeah, this is my primary residence, even though the Attorney General of New York State needs to reside in New York State as per the New York Constitution. But I'm going to get a cheaper rate if I say this is my primary residence. Shoot. Let's see. Well, let me just add here that the attorney or the Attorney General, Latish James has called these baseless. But that'll all play out as it plays out and looking at the clock, making sure we gotta keep on moving. All right, let's see, let's see, let's see. Let's go to. Okay, this is actually kind of interesting. This from the Census Bureau. Slow growth impacts nation's largest cities the hardest. The US Census Bureau released its 2025 population estimates on March 26, and it shows the nation's population reached 341 million as of July 2025, reflecting a slowdown in annual growth of just 0.5% from the previous year's 1%. The growth slowed across most geographic areas, with metropolitan statistical areas increasing by 0.6%. Micropolitan areas. That's the first time I've heard that term by point zero two percent. By point two percent. Okay, so what does that all mean? Population gains remained concentrated in South. Skip down to the bottom. The overall US population grew by 1.7 million people to reach the 341 million. The metropolitan areas added 1.7 people. The let's see, where's the culmination of this? Okay, here let me just summarize this for everybody. The slow growth is impacting the high density places the most. That is where they're going to have the biggest problems. Interestingly enough, you could probably extrapolate out of that. Well, because the people that live in those types of places don't want to have kids the most. So yeah, it's as a whole nationwide a bigger problem, but also specifically in those locales a massive problem. Now obviously the it's going to be a bigger problem when you try to factor in all of these social services of people not having kids to be able to pay into those social services when they become employees or taxpayers. But the bottom line here is yeah, this is impacting the locales more or sorry, the metro, major metropolitan areas more, but it's going to impact the country more. We don't have necessarily the time necessary to get into the discussion of how that's going to look, just our decreasing population. So I'm trying to read and talk at the same time. Decreasing population going to be a much bigger problem. Currently it's a problem for the big metropolitan areas and will continue to be a problem if we continue to let that slide. All right, got to cut it off. They're going to get to official business mostly. We spent a lot of time discussing that meta negligence, Google negligence thing which that again tpt you have any thoughts on that? I would love to hear your take on that. Am I right? Am I completely wrong? Where do you stand? Kind of a litmus test of can we hold two thoughts in our head at one time? TBT. TBSA.com is the email address. We will be right back after the break with Official Business. Don't go away.
