← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Tudor Dixon Podcast: Big Tech on Trial, Section 230 & Social Media Harm Debate
00:32:36
Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:02]
B
Guaranteed Human support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures well.
- [01:06]
C
The holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless.
- [01:16]
A
So here's the idea.
- [01:17]
C
You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch limited time.
- [01:25]
A
50% off regular price for new customers upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month plan. Taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy.
- [01:34]
C
See Terms When I was diagnosed all I wanted to do was get back to work. I wanted to get back to that trajectory that I was on prior to the cancer. I always felt like I had value. I had a place on the team to just be treated with dignity. It means everything.
- [01:52]
B
Research shows there is a significant connection between the ability to continue to work and cancer recovery. We can make work a better place.
- [02:01]
A
For healing, learn more and see. Sign the pledge@workingwithcancerpledge.com if you're the purchasing.
- [02:07]
B
Manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [02:36]
A
Welcome to the Tudor Dixon Podcast. Well, you may have heard that there is a landmark trial right now going on in LA that is hoping to hold the world's largest social media companies accountable for the harms that they've allegedly caused to teenagers and children. Now, historically, these companies have claimed First Amendment protection. They're also hidden behind Section 230. But this lawsuit takes a little bit of a different approach that I find very interesting because we've always kind of felt like they were untouchable. But I have my friend Dan Schneider here to break it all down with us. Dan is the vice president for free speech at the Media Research Center. Dan, welcome to the podcast.
- [03:17]
C
Thanks, Tutor. It's great being with you.
- [03:19]
A
I'm so excited to have you here. I saw you talking about this on Fox and I was like, I have to have him on. Because I think we really have felt like we can't touch these social media companies. They're so powerful and they've hidden behind section 230, which is like, I mean, I would explain it, but you can explain it in better terms. I would explain it that they say, well, look, it's not our content, so we can't be held responsible for what's on these platforms.
- [03:47]
C
Yeah, Tudor, it's maybe. First of all, I just want to say, if I sound like I'm ever defending or apologizing for big tech, please push back because Google hates me. Facebook does not like me. These big tech platforms, really, I see them as very pernicious and harming people, but at the same time, I can recognize that there are some really good products they create that I use. And then as we analyze these cases, the plaintiffs do have some real challenges. So as I address those challenges, please don't think that I'm an advocate for big tech. I'm not, but we have to be realistic about what we face.
- [04:33]
A
No, it's interesting that you say that because I have also been a person who I guess people would say, well, you're kind of defending them as well, because I've said, look, I don't actually want the government telling me what my children can and can't do. I want to be in control because they do create some good products. And I say that I'm backing up your point because I've had so many parents say to me, well, just have your kids go back to a landline or make your kids use a flip phone. But that's not the technology today. They're going to eventually have to use this technology because this is where the world is going. I want them to learn it under my roof with me involved. So I do. I look at this lawsuit as kind of twofold. I think that there is an interesting message here that they've created a product that is addictive in a certain way to draw kids in, similar to how Big Tobacco created addictive products to draw people back to them. But I also think that there is. There is a message that you have to be aware of what your children are doing, and they're in your home, and you should also be monitoring that. So give us kind of a breakdown of what is the in between of those two things.
- [05:48]
C
Yeah, two really important principles right off the bat. And here's one of the challenges that the plaintiffs and there are actually two cases in California, It's a private cause of action. It's essentially like a class action suit of individuals who claim to have been harmed. In New Mexico, it's the state attorney general, the state prosecutor who's bringing a case, and they literally both started on Monday, and they're both being promulgated, prosecuted alongside each other. They both have similar schedules and similar. Similar witnesses, but different theories. But. So that. So, but two relevant and connected cases, California and New Mexico. In both cases, one of the big challenges that the plaintiffs or the prosecutor will face is that, you know, they're. They're claiming that. That the product was created to be addictive. Well, what manufacturer isn't trying to create a product that consumers want?
- [06:47]
A
True.
- [06:47]
C
What's the difference between creating a great product that people are drawn to and want to use and own and possess versus one that is illegally addictive. That's a really hard line to prove. Like, you know, my wife loves Diet Coke. Well, Diet Coke wants to be loved. Diet Coke makes a product specifically so that people will want to buy it. Does that make it unlawful? No, it doesn't. So, yeah, the plaintiffs and the prosecutor in New Mexico have to prove that this somehow crosses the line. The product is so good that it. That the consumers can't resist it, and it's designed specifically to harm them. That's a really tough case to make.
- [07:31]
A
It's interesting because maybe part of it is also just our own guilt of allowing ourselves to get sucked in. And I am not making excuses, but I have certainly Been that person who, what do we call it, like doom scroll scrolling or something where you just get sucked into one video after another or you just start rolling through the posts that you find on Facebook and then all of a sudden you look over and you're like, oh, I just literally lost a half an hour that I could have been doing something else. And, and I think that there is also potentially some self reflection that we have to do and say, okay, we have to. Like I said, as a parent, you have to set limits. You have to say, I want you to. I want you to stay off your phone, I want you to clean up, I want you to do something active. I want you to do this. You have to kind of be aware of what your kids are doing as well, right?
- [08:19]
C
Yeah, yeah. A bag of potato chips. Are you going to sit there and eat the whole bag one chip at a time? And you can't resist. You can't put it down. Well, that's what Blaze and Fritos want you to do. It's not unlawful. The consumer ultimately has the choice of doing that. Now the claim is that the products, these big tech assets, Facebook and YouTube in particular, that they were designed specifically to harm. And it's true. These companies have hired psychiatrists, they've hired people who know how the human brain works. They've used technology that casinos use to try to hook people. But guess what? Casinos are also legal. So it's a. And this leads to the second real challenge that the plaintiffs have. They can't merely prove or show that Facebook and YouTube contributed to their mental illness or their depression or their suicidal thoughts. They've got to prove that it's because of YouTube and because of Facebook that they became addicted and they. And they were specifically harmed by it. So there are a lot of these plaintiffs that may come from difficult home lives or have sort of genetic predispositions and that sort of thing. And yeah, how can they show that it's. It's directly because of Facebook or YouTube that, that they have fallen into this depression of these psychological problems. You know, it's going to be very difficult for them to show that it's exclusively and only because of these outlets that they ended up being harmed.
- [10:09]
A
So it's interesting. I mean, that is essentially what Meta came out and said. They said. Recently a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies. But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is deeply complex and multifaceted. And trends regarding teens well being aren't clear cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors that are impacting young people today. And it goes on. So essentially what you are saying is how do you, how do you pinpoint that this happened there? I do think that there are certain cases where they can say there were maybe instructional videos on there. I think one of the cases there was a family that said there was actually an instructional video on there for telling my daughter how to commit suicide and we ended up losing her. And I think in those cases there has to be some way that they're monitoring some of the content on their sites. Right, Right.
- [11:12]
C
Okay. So Tudor, you've just hit the crux of this thing. These cases are designed as product liability suits. Because when people have tried to sue these tech companies based on the content, this section 230law has been used by judges to block those suits. Now, I think those judges have misinterpreted the law. And this is where anybody who's thinking I'm shilling for big tech will understand. I am not. I do not believe Section 230 provides this absolute immunity shield that some of these judges have created. By the way, the Supreme Court has never ruled on section 230, the breadth and depth of it. Section 230 says that if you're one of these platforms and there's this specific legal term that was used. By the way, Tudor, this Sunday marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's 30 years old. Mark Zuckerberg was 11 years old when this thing was created. There was no Facebook, there was no Google, there was AOL and there was CompuServe. So the law is a bit outdated already and it uses arcane terms. But Section 230 basically said that if you're what we now know as a social media company, that you're deemed not to be a publisher, but a platform. Except, and there are a whole bunch of exceptions, these publishers cannot allow people to post things that are illegal or criminal or abhorrent. And they list all of these things. Okay, well, when these tech platforms censor conservatives, not based on some terrible, you know, content, that that is illegal, I think they stop being a mere platform and in fact do become a publisher and no longer get section 2, 3 protection or if they're allowing criminal conduct. Child exploitation. Child exploitation is criminal. It's not allowed. But if they are permitting that, then they ought to be held accountable. And that's where the New Mexico Attorney General has said he's got some earth shattering evidence showing that Facebook in particular was knowingly allowing criminal content to remain on the site. Well, if that's true, then Facebook's gonna be in serious, serious trouble. But as an attorney and I've been involved in massive litigations in the past, so I have a little bit of familiarity with the challenges. On one hand, I see that the plaintiffs have a very difficult row to hoe, unless of course, they've got the kind of evidence that the New Mexico AG claims to have.
- [13:55]
A
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on the Tudor Dixon Podcast.
- [14:01]
B
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's good. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete Disclosures available at public.comDisclosures People at.
- [15:02]
C
Work supported me while I was going through treatment. By not treating me like somebody who was going through treatment.
- [15:09]
A
Treatment sucks.
- [15:10]
C
Cancer sucks.
- [15:12]
A
Being engaged with work really helped to.
- [15:16]
C
Oh, I just knew I was going to beat this thing.
- [15:18]
B
Research shows there is a significant connection between the ability to continue to work and cancer recovery. We can make work a better place for healing.
- [15:28]
A
Learn more and sign the pledge@workingwithcancerpledge.com if you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower Motor. There's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. You make an interesting point, because we do remember when we were all. We were all being ratcheted back or censored on social media. And actually, I know moms that lost Facebook pages and they were kicked off Facebook completely. And to me, that was a.
- [16:19]
C
Illegally, yes, illegally, yes.
- [16:22]
A
And that, to me, was a very critical moment because then there was kind of this conversation of, well, is Facebook just a product or has Facebook become kind of a utility? Because people are communicating on there just like they communicate through the phone. Parents are part of the school group. They're part of the soccer group. You know, getting. This is truly an information center. And you were getting kicked off. So there was a part of us in the conservative movement who said, they can obviously monitor every post and hear every and know every word. They have trigger words that they are choosing to kick someone off for. But then you would see that there's still child porn on there, and you would go, how can you possibly not be monitoring this? And even these instructional videos that we've heard about, instructions to commit suicide, I mean, you. You. That's against the First Amendment. You can't be going out there and giving guides to hurt people, even if it is hurting yourself. That shouldn't be allowed. So these are things that you have to kind of step back and say, well, what is the problem that these social media outlets can't seem to get this stuff off Now. Now, I want to say I. I realize these are huge information sites and they have a massive amount of information, but I'd like to hear from them. Do you genuinely have a problem figuring out what's on your sites?
- [17:44]
C
They know exactly what's on their sites. And Tudor, let me address the next point in this whole debate, because some libertarians and some conservatives will say, hey, they're private companies. They can do whatever they want. Well, that's not true. Even before our nation was founded, we had common carriage laws. This is part of the common law in the United States of America. And there's only been one period in our nation's history where we walked away from common carrier laws, and that was in the infamous Plessy vs Ferguson case, where the Supreme Court for a time said, hey, railroad company, if you don't want to sell a Train ticket to a black man. You don't have to. You can discriminate based on race. Now it is true, Tudor, that if some, some guy who sells bicycles doesn't want to sell a bicycle, you know, he's permitted to be a racist. But if you're a common carrier, and there's, there's sort of a broad definition, common carriers, some corporate entity that is situated in the market such that if we allow that entity to discriminate for any reason, that disrupts the whole market. That's what a common carrier is. So att, Sprint, T Mobile, these are common carriers. If they were allowed to discriminate, the whole U.S. economy would be disrupted. So AT&T, if you want to sign up for an ATT account, they cannot deny you service under the law. Because the Supreme Court reversed the Plessy vs. Ferguson standard that permitted discrimination for any reason.
- [19:37]
A
But these, well, you would think that you couldn't be debanked then.
- [19:40]
C
Yeah, that's right. Banks are probably common carriers. These big Tech platforms are certainly under Texas law, they're common carriers. I believe under just US common law, they should be deemed common carriers. They should not be permitted to discriminate. But in a Supreme Court case that I attended oral arguments in the so called Net choice cases brought by the attorneys general of Texas and Florida, Big Tech was trying to argue that they should be permitted to discriminate against black people based on people's faith and their political viewpoint for any reason that they should be able to discriminate. Okay, well that's just returning to the Plessy vs Ferguson standard the Supreme Court obviously rejected decades ago. So no Big tech should not be able to discriminate against us based on our religion, our race, our ethnicity or our political viewpoint. We should be protected from that kind of discrimination.
- [20:37]
A
Okay, so that takes me to someone else who I would say is also considered a common carrier in that case and that would be Apple. And you're working on a, a, you're exposing Apple news right now. And I say that because if you think about your phone, you are either Android or your Apple. And Apple is allow you to get the apps, allowing you to get to Netflix, allowing you to get to all of these different other, they are carrying all of these other products, but they have their own news product on there. So you, you are a user of Apple, you have an Apple iPhone, you have an Apple iPad, you have an Apple computer. You are apparently only getting a certain type of news, aren't you?
- [21:18]
C
Yeah, Apple, we here at the Media Research center we refer to the big four news apps, Apple News, Google News, MSN and Yahoo News. And these apps completely control information dissemination. People don't even realize it if you have an Apple phone and about 45 to 50% of American voters have an Apple phone. Apple News is being fed to you. You probably don't even realize it, but we have been tracking every single day for months now all of these news apps, Apple news. Today's the 98th day in a row that Apple News has not published a single story from a right leaning media outlet. In that same time, they have published 1,299 stories from left leaning outlets. 1,299 to 0 is intentional. It's on purpose, obviously. And what news has transpired in those several months? Well, you know, the Epstein files, we've got the Trump administration, the President bombing Iran. We can go through all of these major issues and people with an iPhone are only getting stories from the left, nothing from the right. Literally zero. Google News is not much better. Maybe 2% of the stories that it promotes come from right leaning outlets. But you know, this is obviously intentional. It's political. This is how Donald Trump's approval ratings are being driven down. When these outlets are propagandizing America and between the iPhone and every Samsung phone and any other phone operate with the Google operating system, they account for 99.8% of every phone in America. 99.8% is either an Apple phone or an iOS powered Google type phone like Samsung. They are controlling information flow. It's a danger, but there's.
- [23:30]
A
Okay, so it's one thing for us to report on this. And I've seen this, I've actually seen this. I talked about it on Newsmax just last night. This is a conversation that conservative outlets are talking about right now. But of course, if you are in that world, then you've kind of had to seek out that information because as you can see, you aren't seen conservative media. If you are outside of the bubble, and I call us in the, in the conservative media bubble. So what can an organization like yours or someone else do or one of these conservative outlets, Is there the ability to, to cite the case that you already cited and say, look, you are essentially breaking the law by refusing, by discriminating and refusing to have conservative outlets in your realm of, of media stories?
- [24:18]
C
Yeah. So the Federal Trade Commission, the ftc, and by the way, Donald Trump has picked an excellent chairman of the ftc. The FTC sort of has two broad areas. One is sort of the antitrust Market share side, are consumers being harmed from a sort of a market price perspective or on the deceptive trade practices side? Does Apple claim that it is not biased? Does Google claim that it's not biased? Are they deceiving consumers? You know, when I bought this phone, I bought it believing that Apple was trying to be fair. I didn't know that they were committing, you know, that they were not being truthful. To me that's a misrepresentation, that's a fraud, that's a consumer harm the FTC can look into. On the market domination side, 99.8% of all these phones are either an Apple powered phone or a Google powered phone. And Apple has a subscription service. Well, is Apple engaged in an illegal tie in arrangement where if the New York Times doesn't pay Apple to be part of the subscription service, that Apple will then not push Apple news stories with the New York Times, that could be an illegal tying arrangement. In addition, are these companies actually engaged in political activity? Is this politically motivated? And if so, do they actually have to file as donations with the Federal Election Commission? And if they've not been filing, that's a violation of law. So there are a number of things that this administration and Congress can look at.
- [26:03]
A
Well, okay, so that takes me to Wikipedia. You wrote an op ed about Wikipedia, which I think is a, a very similar situation, but I think it's even more nefarious. But you can, you can argue that point with me if you want. But you've written that Wikipedia came out. And when it came out years ago, the message to consumers was kind of like this is a neutral site where you can add your history and we're all kind of sharing. It's like an encyclopedia online that we all share information and then there are some fact checks, but it's pretty neutral. And that was how it was presented. Then there was like the big switch. It was the bait and switch and it became a propaganda site. And it's pretty well known by conservatives, but I don't think by the general public that this is really progressive propaganda and you can't change it. So you like my own site? My own page on Wikipedia says horrible things that are legitimately not true. But they've had these leftist media sites write these things up and you can't change it. I'll give you an example. When I was in the media years ago, you know, you get these stories that your producers give you. And our producers gave us a story on a woman who had decided to cancel herself. The story was on should People self cancel. It was during cancel culture. Should people self cancel? The woman had done something when she was 16. She had one of the largest YouTube pages in the country. She had just decided she was going to. She had just like erased her YouTube page. And she was 21 and she came out and she said something came up that happened when I was 16. I've decided to self cancel. At the time, no one knew what she had done at 16 to cause her to cancel her YouTube page. So we talked about it on the news and said, you know, people should, there should be grace for people who, when they're 16, make a mistake and this is their business and they shouldn't have to self cancel. Well, when I ran for office at that point, it was years later, it had come out that people had accused her of putting makeup on and being using blackface. She claimed that wasn't her intent, but she ended up canceling her page anyway. The news, a news article ran saying Tudor Dixon defended this action. And we went to Wikipedia and said this is. So this is what it says on my Wikipedia page. That's not even true. It's not even close to true.
- [28:34]
C
This is.
- [28:34]
A
They say you can't change it because it's a, it's fact now that it's written in a media article and you didn't get the article changed at the time. So you can't change this page saying that you're this horrible person.
- [28:47]
C
Yeah, well, let me give you another example and then I'll sort of delve into how Wikipedia is just wrong. Pete Hegseth, of course, is now our Secretary of War. Well, there was a Wikipedia page for him before he was nominated, before he was announced, and it listed all the awards that he had earned as an elite soldier in our US Military and his record. And he has a very impressive record in our services. The day after he was announced, not only did Wikipedia literally delete many of the awards that had been awarded to him, they also then took down the pictorial icons of those awards and put it at the end of his page. They were trying to diminish his actual service. What's the difference between Pete Hexseth on day one versus day two? Well, day two, he's a Trump announced nominee and Wikipedia then did everything they could to try to take him out, including by lying about his record, by removing awards that he had earned on the battlefield. It's a lie. They're trying to suggest he wasn't given those awards. Now Wikipedia, it tries to get Section 230 protection by claiming that it's not a publisher, that it's a platform. And you might scratch your head and think, well, no, they're editing their stuff all the time. It's a publisher. Well, what they'll do is say, well, they're volunteer editors, they're not employees.
- [30:27]
A
They only choose who they are.
- [30:29]
C
Well, not only do they choose who they are, they also select them and train them. So we discovered and exposed how they've got this massive campaign through. They claim it's an independent, not for profit, called Wiki Education. But Wikipedia spun it off. It had been an internal project. Wikipedia. The same people who were at Wikipedia are Wiki Education. Wiki Education goes on thousands of college campuses working with radical left wing professors to have those professors as part of the curriculum, train people on how to edit and write things for Wikipedia. And so then which professors in which classrooms are doing this? Well, the radical classrooms, the African American studies, the LGBTQ studies, the feminist studies programs, they're the ones that are working with Wiki Education to train students on how to become editors of Wikipedia. And then they're the ones who then go through tens of thousands of wiki sites to edit them to conform to the radical agenda. I mean, this is a, this is a well crafted, well tailored program. Again, it's purposeful. Wikipedia is trying to radicalize the whole world.
- [31:47]
A
Well, they also have blacklists, though. I mean, even if I were to go to them and say, hey, this is a new article that says that this is not who I am and that this was a lie, if it comes from Heritage foundation, if it comes from Breitbart News, if it comes from even the Washington examiner, they're blacklisted altogether. You can't use an article from there.
- [32:06]
C
Right, right. They've got a very sophisticated blacklisting black volume program. There are actually three tiers of this. The first tier is if you're an outlet like Breitbart. On the first tier, if somebody tries to offer an edit to Wikipedia, the edit isn't even look at a review, it is automatically rejected algorithmically.
- [32:28]
A
That's crazy.
- [32:29]
C
The second blacklist they have is, well, you can, you can try to offer an outlet, but once an editor looks at it, the editor is instructed to reject it. And then the third list, the blacklist, is if you offer this edit, if there's any other publication anywhere in the world that has addressed the general topic, then Wikipedia will use that and only use the recommended outlet if there's no other publication out there. So tutor. Even if there had been a media outlet that explained the truth behind what you had done. And it was on that third tier. If there's any other outlet at all, like the Detroit Free Press or something that had written on you, Wikipedia would only be able to rely on that and not the alternative source.
- [33:19]
A
And this is.
- [33:19]
C
It's all designed to harm people like you, Tudor.
- [33:21]
A
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on the Tudor Dixon Podcast. I'm one person that ran for office, and I think that I did run for office at a time when I thought, I thought that there was a left side and a right side. And I thought people had their ideals on one side and their ideals on the other side. And this was America. And anybody can run for office who decides that they want to do they want to serve the country. And when I got into it, I was like, wow, this is so much different than I thought and so much different for people on the right because first of all, you have to have a massive amount of money to try to fight these things. But we are at a totally different level than the left. I mean, if you watch right now, if you are watching at all the midterms, you will not see negative news on leftist candidates. Even that guy Jay Jones, who was talking about murdering the children, wanting to watch the children of the speaker of the House of Virginia die, got almost no coverage whatsoever. It's shocking to me what we are up against. And then when you start to, I mean, thank goodness for organizations like yours. And that's why I think people should follow you and follow what you're doing at the research center. Because without us following what you're doing and without this story that you've broken on Apple News, we don't even. You get so caught up in the day to day of taking kids to soccer and getting to work and all of the making lunches and dinners and everything that you focus on for your own life that you don't realize what you're being fed is a bunch of lies.
- [35:02]
C
You know, when we did this Apple News story, one of these left wing trolls came at me and said, well, you know, what would a conservative ever do if you won this? If you didn't have anything else to whine about? To which I responded, well, we would provide for our families, we would worship our creator and we would try to be productive citizens. What would a liberal do? Because liberals don't do this. Liberals simply try to destroy anything that's good and holy. They tried to upend everything. They think the chaos is the norm and that Anything that is stable is somehow harmful. I mean, this is the world we're in. It's no longer Democrat versus Republican. It's pro freedom versus anti freedom.
- [35:47]
A
You're so right. Because it's not just that this stuff stirs people up and gets them to vote a certain way, but now you see these, these people that are like the. I don't. There's not a nicer term for them, but the useful idiots that go out and protest, and the protest creates this visual that then allows jerks like Eric Swalwell to ask the ICE director or the folks, the, the agent who was being that was testifying at the hearing, are you going to resign? And do you think. And then the other woman that said, do you think you're going to hell? I mean, these are, it's like these political stunts are so humiliating to people who are actually serving and trying to keep the Americans safe. But I just want to say I appreciate that you bring this to light because then people can kind of sit back and go, oh, these stories about ICE aren't true. Oh, these stories about conservatives aren't true. These stories about the administration aren't true. But it's a daily fight. So I appreciate that. It's not just that you are worshiping your creator and providing for your family, but you're also fighting for us every day. Dan Schneider, thank you so much for coming on today.
- [36:54]
C
Thanks, tutor.
- [36:55]
A
Thank you. And thank you all for listening to the Tudor Dixon podcast. For this episode and others, go to tutordixonpodcast.com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can always watch us on Rumble or YouTube tutor Dixon, but make sure you join us and have a blessed day. This is an I heart podcast, guaranteed human.