Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: Elon Musk Twitter Deal “On Hold”

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 13, 2022 1:26 pm

BREAKING: Elon Musk Twitter Deal “On Hold”

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 932 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

May 13, 2022 1:26 pm

Elon Musk has temporarily put his Twitter deal on hold "pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users." What are the ramifications for free speech? Logan and the rest of the Sekulow team discuss. This and more today on Sekulow.

Truth for Life
Alistair Begg
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
JR Sport Brief

This is Logan Sekulow with breaking news, Elon Musk Twitter deal on hold. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. This is Logan Sekulow on a Friday and we're talking about the breaking news. And honestly, when this breaking news came out, I was filled with dread. I was filled with sadness because he may not be a savior for a lot of things, but maybe one of the free speech saviors, Elon Musk, said his deal to buy Twitter was on hold. Now, what the reason he put it on hold is a reason that I think we can all say if you've been experiencing Twitter for the last 20 or so years, it's been available 15 years. You know it.

You love it. There are a lot of bots on there. There's a lot of not real people who have accounts on there for nefarious reasons.

That's what he said. The Twitter deal is temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam slash fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users. So we'll essentially saying before I dump an overpriced, I'm already going in with an overvaluation offer.

Before I do that, let's make sure that the people on here are actually real. Obviously, this is a moment to where he's coming under a lot of scrutiny for just the idea of this guy purchasing a platform that has been really seized and controlled by the left. Well, and that is part of an acquisition process when filings are made or as you go through the due diligence period when you're making a large purchase. Now, I personally never made a $44 billion purchase, but you know, when there's large corporate purchases, things like that happen.

There is due diligence that you go through to make sure that the asset you're buying actually has value and that what is put forward publicly is accurate. Now, when he's responding to this report that Twitter filed saying that the spam or false accounts represented fewer than 5% of its monetizable daily active users in the first quarter. What Elon Musk is then saying, because I think he probably believes that number is couched in some language from Twitter.

Right. They're trying to make it look a lot better than maybe it is because, as we know, there are a lot of bots and a lot of spam accounts that are on Twitter. So he wants to make sure that whatever they're putting down in that filing is a true representation of the amount of real people on Twitter before he goes and drops $44 billion. He also did say that he's still committed to the acquisition, but I think what's different now is when you see an eccentric billionaire like Elon Musk, most people, when they're doing due diligence phases of corporate purchases, they're not publicly tweeting about like, hey, you know what? I'm pausing for a minute.

We got to go through this filing, make sure it's on the up and up. But that's what we're seeing here. So a lot of people on the left were like, aha, maybe we will keep our precious Twitter, but it is a part of the natural buying process. Well, it comes out that there are a significant, obviously, percentage of people that are on there that are not legitimate, over 5% or whatever it is, and he pulls out of this. I mean, I think Twitter tanks.

I think it already was. I mean, essentially, though there are millions of people who use it, clearly, it had become a dead platform for really conversation, for speech. I quit using it.

I know most people had quit using it. And then you have the rise of something like Truth Social, which, oddly enough, in the wake of the launch of Truth Social, you have Elon Musk talking about it, mentioning it, bringing up Truth Social, something you wouldn't really do to bring up really could be your competitor. And he also talked about, in the last week, reinstating President Trump and whether that would be good. And he thinks it would be good, has a lot of good reasons why he thinks it was a bad mistake to ban him, and then created what became Truth Social, which I have to say, I've been on now for the last couple weeks, and I have almost triple the amount of followers on Truth Social than I do on Twitter. And I've been on Twitter for about 15 years. I've been on Truth Social for two weeks, and I have more interactions there from real people than I ever had on really any other social media platform. I had my most popular Truth post went out today, late last night. I'll have to tell you what that is in the next one. Maybe not what you're expecting.

Maybe not so controversial, but it does kind of tie into the whole global narrative. I want to know what you're using for social media. Look, we know people have moved off of Facebook, moved off of Twitter. Where are you at? Will you go back on? Give us a call. We'll be right back. We're talking about the breaking news.

This is Logan Succulo, by the way. We're talking about the breaking news that has come out this morning, that the monumental deal that Elon Musk had planned to take over Twitter, one of the strongest, most powerful social media platforms, and the most divisive and destructive, in my personal opinion, was going to be taken over by, at minimum, a guy who is all about free speech. Free speech advocate.

You may agree with them and disagree with him on a lot of other issues, but you can at least agree with his point of views likely on free speech. Now, he did an interview just the last couple days and talked specifically about the ban of President Trump. I think a lot of people know that's where sort of the bigger divide happened. I would say it happened years before then on Twitter, but that was sort of the end-all for a lot of people. And to some degree, President Trump was what saved Twitter initially, because back prior to President Trump's election, Twitter was really struggling. So we're thinking back now to 2015. And then President Trump announces that he's running for President, and the interaction that people were getting from, one, a Presidential candidate, and then what turned into be an actual U.S. President, it really kind of lifted Twitter in a moment where there was a lot of people questioning the future of it to begin with. So they had four good years, and then they banned President Trump, and it becomes the liberal cesspool that it has been. And I think the numbers are wonky.

I think they're strange. If you really look at how social media is controlled, look at right now. Right now, when I'm broadcasting live to you, some of you guys are listening to this taped or watching it later or listening on radio.

But let's just look at our social media platforms, if you will. On Facebook right now, we have on the page we're broadcasting from roughly four, four and a half million Facebook likes. There are currently 1,200 people watching us live right now on Facebook. Now, take that back a few years, there was 10,000 people sometimes watching live, and that's the number they're reporting.

Who knows what that number really is? Go over to Rumble, which has become the free speech advocate. There are more people watching right now at Rumble, a much narrower base. On this channel, there's 170,000 subscribers, and over what is watching on Facebook is watching right now on Rumble. So these numbers are getting skewed and people are getting aware of it or even inactive accounts. It's not necessarily all fake accounts or bot accounts. A lot of people that signed up for Facebook 15 years ago, a lot of people that signed up for Twitter 15 years ago and gave up on the platform. Maybe didn't deactivate or delete their account, but they just poof, left. And a lot of that did stem from political division. And it got even worse when President Trump was essentially removed from the platform.

Now, they asked Elon Musk, potentially the new owner of Twitter, as we know, he right now says it's on hold as they do their due diligence, but he's still committed to doing it. And we all hope he does. Well, not all. We'll get to who is not thrilled about that a little bit later. But let's hear from Elon Musk when he was finally asked, and this is what I can really appreciate about this guy, is when a hard question comes, he doesn't give you some political, you know, answer that doesn't make any sense.

That's, you know, flipping it on on the narrative and making sure that it doesn't really answer the question. He's pretty darn direct. So let's hear from Elon Musk. I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice. He is not going to be on Truth Social, as will a large part of the sort of the right in the United States. And so I think this could end up being, frankly, worse than having a single form where everyone can debate.

So there you go. Not only putting off Truth Social, but saying, yeah, it was not correct. And I believe later on he actually says it was morally wrong to do that.

Now, you can decide that for yourself, but it does start a very interesting conversation. And when that happened, when he said, I'm going to put President Trump potentially back on, I believe it was wrong. Now, he said he was, as of now, committed to just be on Truth Social.

And why wouldn't he? It's his own platform. There's millions of people there.

It's fairly nice, I will say that. It's nice to post something and not just have thousands of, like you said, fake accounts, bought accounts or accounts paid for. Remember, there's a lot of this, too. People that, businesses that pay for people, pay for fake accounts to then go after conservatives, go after, and look, that's not all media.

I'm not even going to say that. There are sports products that are made or TV products where there are thousands of bots that are made to go after them, because this is sort of the modern technological entertainment warfare, if you will, political warfare. It's not just done in a very clean-cut, easy way to understand. And obviously, you have all the international things. You have the Chinese government, you have the Russian government, you have other places that are putting out information that's not exactly accurate. And a lot of times, those are made to target people who they can engage in, start a conversation, and create that, what they've said, the disinformation. There is some of that that is accurate, that is coming from foreign governments. Foreign influencers.

That's something we should certainly take a look at and see what's happening. But here's, again, Elon Musk. Let's hear from him, and then I'm going to talk a little about Truth Social. I think it was a morally bad decision to be clear and foolish in the extreme. I think that's a good part to stop, because what he pretty much says, even a little bit later, is specifically that permanent bans should be rare and few. Now, I have to say, as someone who has been personally attacked, had my family's life threatened on Twitter, there's a little bit of me that's like, you know, maybe it shouldn't be that rare.

You know, there's sometimes. He says illegal activity. Maybe we should put people on suspensions.

But I've had that happen. I've actually had Twitter say, you know what, this person keeps creating accounts. There's nothing we can do about it.

Sorry. Now, President Trump, we're going to keep him off. We know how to do that. But some rando who decides to threaten your family because they don't agree with your politics, that person gets to potentially stay on. So I have some concerns, but overall, it's a step in the right direction. Well, and that's what we've talked about here many times is that what Elon Musk is saying, not necessarily that he thinks that conservatives are right. And so therefore he wants their voices to be amplified.

What he's saying is that the world and the country and everyone is better when there are competing voices in an open public forum. And he views Twitter as that. And what Twitter has instead done over the past years and decades that it's been around is marginalized certain voices that it doesn't agree with. And it went to the extreme when they started doing permanent bans on people that they disagreed with politically. Not to mention, as we have many times when people like the Ayatollah of Iran or Vladimir Putin, their official verified accounts still exist. So, you know, you're getting a real message from the Ayatollah when he tweets death to America. But if it's a political opponent here in the United States of what the liberals that run Twitter currently are into, you could end up with a permanent ban.

You could end up with a block on your account where it says you must delete your speech or else you cannot use your account. And so what he's getting at with that entire statement about President Trump is not necessarily like, I want to hear everything President Trump has to say. He's saying that because they limited the open public forum, that those voices aren't going to be silenced because that's the way that this country works. So they're going to find a place just to speak. And instead, you're separating people from being able to get their points across and to discuss with their fellow citizens. Now, to get us a little bit back to sort of the headline, if you're just tuning in, I want you to make sure that we are covering that, not just talking about Twitter in general. The breaking news this morning was that Elon Musk said on Twitter that the deal was currently on hold as they do some investigation into bot and spam accounts. Here's a bit of a conversation from Fox News earlier with Brian Kilmeade and Charles Payne. Let's play that. You can give yourself a little bit of a rounder discussion of what's happening.

This is Byte29. Five percent does not seem like a lot. What do you think he's getting at? You know, Brian, let's say you went to your local grocer and you wanted to buy 100 eggs, OK, for a good price. And you say, listen, I'll pay you now for 100 eggs. How many are broken? And the guy says, well, five percent or less.

It's OK. I'll give you X amount of money. Then you buy them and find out, no, it's 10 percent of them are broken.

Sort of the same kind of thing here. How much is Twitter worth if a large degree of the actual, you know, accounts? It's worth what its accounts are, right? It's worth what the eyeballs are. It's worth what the daily average user account is. If most of them are fake and not most of them, but a large percentage, I think it's well over five percent. I think really what's going on here is Elon Musk is probably trying to get a better price.

Yeah, that could be the case or it could be just making sure and doing his due diligence. What's funny, you mentioned the eggs. So I'm on Truth Social at Logan Secula. You can find me verified.

Red checkmark. You can find me there. You can follow. And again, like I said, I got about triple the amount of people there that I do on anywhere else. Just that and YouTube are the only ones that compete with the numbers for me personally. But, you know, on Twitter, it's pretty hostile.

It's a pretty strong debate. Speaking of eggs, last night, around 11 o'clock at night, my whole family had gone to bed and I was still up. So I was like, yeah, I'm going to hop on Truth Social.

And I tweeted a picture. One of our guys here, he has chickens. And they, I procure some eggs from him every so often. Great eggs. Great eggs. Top notch eggs. Locally sourced eggs, I guess. Right? That's what you called that.

I mean, they are local. So I just tweeted out. Hey, not tweeted. Sorry. Truth out. Take it back. Truth it out. Truth out.

Hey, anyone else got friends with chickens who make great eggs? Look at these. And I posted a picture.

Here's what I found out. The Truth Social crowd, they got chickens and they've got eggs because over 1,500 people, I believe, liked that tweet or that truth. I'm sorry. I got to read that truth. On Twitter, they would say, how dare you subjugate these chickens? Right. Exactly.

They would have gone at them. But no, thousands of people come or liked it. Had hundreds of comments, hundreds of retruths. My biggest truth on record.

And all it was was about eggs. And I kind of love that because it may be a political sphere of people. It's people that want to talk and have genuine discussion. If you're on truth or you're on Twitter, still, I want to hear from you. Give me a call.

1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secular. Will, you said you got a question coming in from YouTube? Yeah, this is from Sharon on YouTube, and she asks, what does this mean for satire accounts? Would they be considered spam or not a real person?

And that is an interesting comment. But I think that for the most part, if it's a satire account that's creating genuine content, not just used to go and and be an army of bots that go after certain posts or to counter arguments. No, yeah, I think maybe just misunderstanding what a bot is. We're not talking about a news source or a satire page or something that's made with intent. A lot of these are accounts that are made for destruction, are accounts that are made for misinformation or they're made for a lot of problems there. They're not real people, or even if they are real people, they are paid to cause trouble. Or you have, again, spam bots, stuff like if you've ever looked, look at any celebrities responses or Instagram page or Instagram is the best way you'll see when a celebrity posts within about a minute. There's about 20 people trying to get you to invest in some form of fake cryptocurrency because those are spam accounts. They are not real people.

These are bots that are created to comment, comment, comment immediately when a verified account or someone with prominence post. That's more what we're talking about here, what I believe that's what he's talking about here. Now, obviously, people have been panicked about this. So a lot of people woke up and read that that article this morning, read that headline this morning that he was putting it on hold. And people like me, you know, viscerally were not thrilled with that because I would love to see someone like Elon take it over. And then you have obviously the people on the hard left who have been panicking for the last month that he was going to take over their beloved platform. And this came out from Media Matters, you know, our favorite source.

They're probably going to clip this and put that on there. You know, good for us. They put out this signed page with, you know, a lot of people that you're going to like. We'll get to the end of who that is.

This is to whom it may concern. I'm not going to read you the whole thing because TLDR, this is way too long. You want some highlights, though? I got some highlights.

Yeah, Will's got the highlights. Well, I just I'll start with the first paragraph and you can take it from there. To whom it may concern, Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized. All right. Let's just start with there.

OK. And then there's a greatest hits of 20 reasons why. Elon Musk, again, the guy who put more money into sustainable energy and electric vehicles than anyone. Is now not only not the savior of the left, but is pretty much the devil himself to the left, just purely for the fact that he would like Twitter to be less toxic for 50 percent of the country and for the world. But well, let's go through sort of the greatest hits of this again, this signed boycott, if you will, of Twitter.

Yeah. And this letter was actually sent to brands last week asking them to commit to standards, basically commit to how Twitter is right now or else they will not advertise on the platform. Now, this went to big brands like Coca-Cola, Disney, which has their own problems as it is right now, Kraft, but other large companies that would be advertising on Twitter. So basically, this is almost like a boycott, divest and sanction type move. These and many of these groups are involved with that against the state of Israel.

So they kind of have their M.O. like Twitter BDS, but they're saying Musk intends to steamroll the safeguards and provide a megaphone to extremists who traffic in disinformation. The new favorite word of both the government and the left hate and harassment under the guise of free speech. His vision will silence and endanger marginalized communities and tear at the fraying fabric of our democracy.

I mean, that's intense. I mean, this is you're talking about Twitter here, people. I mean, it's been a cesspool for a decade and we're worried this worried about it.

I'm not worried about it. I also think we need to take back disinformation. You know, Trump did it. Fake news was about him. They called him fake news.

Then he was like, I'm going to start using it. We should start using disinformation. Everything they say now, disinformation.

Yeah, exactly. We take it back that all of a sudden we're selling disinformation T-shirts. We're starting our own society. The disinformation society. The disinformers.

Is there a membership fee? How do you get involved? It's calling yourself the disinformers is hard because are you the disinformers? You need like disinformments.

Disinformments? Yeah. You're an informer. Right. Got it.

Tip line. Yeah. I found some disinformation. What was it? The left. So let's go through this letter. We'll continue on.

Sorry about that sidebar there. Let's go through this. Maybe who signed it? Because, you know, who signed this? You think it's going to be some other major corporation. So maybe, you know, some very moderate St. Jude's Children's Hospital, you know, something that's just like the ACLU or someone that like, maybe the ACLU says there for free speech, but doesn't really fight for free speech anymore.

Maybe you think they'd sign it. I think when the ACLU Twitter account realized that Elon Musk was a big donor of theirs, they all of a sudden went from this is going to be horrible to like, yeah, we think Trump should be back on to put that out there. They said it was like, he's not wrong. I love that.

So funny. So let's go through some of the let's just give you a couple of the top. My favorite really of this is that it shows with the conversation we've had this week between the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion to the left, really trying to codify Roe versus Wade. Some of the names that jump out at me on this list are NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Yep. Obviously a pro-abortion group. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Obviously a very pro-choice group. Their whole mission. They throw religious in there just to throw you off. And we have the Women's March. So there is a whole list of about 20 different people that are a lot of tier.

The top tier of of the organization. So, quote, social justice organizations and or pro-abortion organizations are who signed this. Now, why are people that are pro-abortion so concerned about speech they don't like?

Because when you tell the truth online, if all falls apart, people's minds start to change. Yeah. And I think they're seeing a big rise. I think, look, the whole the draft decision in Rome, we just saw two of our biggest days in the history of the organization do that matching moment we did earlier this week, is because I do believe they thought there would be a bigger outcry than there was when this leaked decision, obviously leaked likely by someone within the court with liberal leanings to cause chaos. And it did, to some sense, cause a lot of chaos. But it didn't see. It hasn't yet.

Maybe when the decision comes out, I'll be, you know, you can talk to me later on in the summer. You didn't see other than at a couple of cities and in front of the Supreme Court, you didn't see mass protests. Even protests in front of the justices homes, which would I would not want to be having my home protested, but were comparatively very to some of the other protests they've been able to organize. There were not as many people turning out for those as you would expect if it was as galvanizing of a moment for the left as they claimed it was.

I think it was an eye opening. That should be an eye opening for both sides of what this topic is right now and where people are. Maybe they're not as motivated, as passionate about it as we thought on both sides. That's an interesting discussion that can be had and we should talk about that at some point.

But because this didn't become the protest of the summer hasn't yet where people are taking to the streets in mass and there's destruction and chaos, like there was two summers ago and people going, you know, clearly something is happening in this country. I think it's freaking everyone out and they think having Twitter be removed as somewhere where you can just have a one sided conversation or you can cancel people for their political points of view because that's the way they've been doing it. But that maybe that's not the best bet, because if Elon Musk, again, not a conservative activist by any means, is going to run this company and said, oh, we should have free speech on it and you should be able to share and have discussion. Maybe we actually can discuss.

Maybe there could be an intelligent conversation that that's going too far for the radical left. We'll be back for a second half hour of secular. If you don't get us on your local radio stations were broadcasting live for another half hour on social media.

You know what? Just find us on Rumble. We're there uncensored.

We'll be right back. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today. . Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. This is Logan Sekulow. I'm about to send out a little truth post, Will. I'm hosting Sekulow right now. I don't know.

I retruth my brother's account. You're going to post the Rumble link? I'm going to post the eggs. No, I'm going to post the Rumble link.

Hello, here is my breakfast. I'm going to say, give me a call if you want to be on the air. Let's see if we get some calls. Should we do that?

Let's do it. What's that number? I'm about to type it in. 1-800-684-3110.

I'm going to say call if you want to be on the air and make sure you tell people. Oh, I did accidentally put a bunch of winky emojis. That's not right. Is that accidental or did you do that on purpose? How do you put a bunch of winky emojis by accident? And because I clicked the emoji button there, Will, this is truth. Well, you know, there is one thing I do want to bring up because we were talking about all these nonprofit groups that were going after advertisers trying to get them to boycott and how they were trying to essentially keep the Twitter as it is, kind of trying to preserve the way that Twitter controls and manipulates speech on there. And we've been talking about the disinformation governance board that the DHS had set up the leader of that, Nina Jankowicz, who has had just a plethora of wonderful things to say about free speech and what she calls disinformation.

But this is one, this is from a Zoom conference. This is what Nina Jankowicz, which Will and I have to tell you something about. We do have an interesting tidbit there. Personal experience potentially with Nina Jankowicz. But I think this is interesting what she thinks Twitter should become from people with those blue checkmarks that we love to get our information from.

Go ahead and play by one. And I am eligible for it because I'm verified. But there are a lot of people who shouldn't be verified who aren't, you know, legit, in my opinion. I mean, they are real people, but they're not trustworthy anyway. So verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.

I mean, that is a wild one. It's nearly impossible with the amount of people that are on Twitter to try to somehow have a editorial board that is going to go through and go, let's give you more context. And they do it now. It's my editorial board. It's like Wikipedia where it's just people with blue checkmarks. It's not even employees or some sort of oversight organization.

It's just people. I have a blue checkmark. Well, she would probably say that, I mean, you're a real person, but you're not legit in her opinion. I mean, you're real, but not trustworthy. I know that. And you know how we know that she is legit. And I'm going to show my nerd card here as well, because, like, I have no judgment I can pass on Nita Jankiewicz due to this because I was in attendance. And so was Will. Just going to throw him under the bus, too. Thank you.

I appreciate it. We once, not once, maybe multiple times, went to see what is called, look, just hear me out before I even say this. Before I even say this out loud. There was a time and a place where Harry Potter ruled the country. And Harry Potter, you know, the wizard boy, the boy who lived. Are we getting too nerdy here, Will?

A little bit, but I love it. I like the Harry Potter books. I like the movies. You know why?

They're an allegory for Jesus. Look it up. J.K. Rowling says it.

Okay. Tells a whole story. It's just parable.

Christian parable. Like Narnia. So before you start acting me about wizardry, first you look at that. Beyond that, Nina Jankiewicz was one of the members of the wizard rock band.

Yes. There's a Harry Potter themed rock band, the Moaning Myrtles. And Will and I attended one or two maybe of those concerts.

Now I don't remember her specifically. But we saw Harry and the Potters. We saw the Whomping Willows. We saw Moaning Myrtles.

And not again, I can't say anything because I was there. But that may be why she got verified in the first place. Yes. She was a member of that band, that wizard rock band.

Kind of like a folk duo is more what I would call it. But she was a member of that way before she was the disinformation czar. This was at least 10 years ago. Wish it was longer.

It would be better for us if it were 20 years ago. I don't even want to read the comments. It's like 400 people watching right now because I know what they're saying. But just a fun tidbit.

Fun bit of information. Hey, we are taking your calls right now. I want to hear from you in this half hour. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I want to also thank everyone for supporting the Matching Moment this week on It really meant so much. We will continue to fight for you and for your values. We'll be right back.

You know, you learn something new every day. And that is that the Facebook audience does not care for Harry Potter or Harry Potter related conversations. So here's what I'm asking you to do if you're on Facebook. Share this with your friends. Let's have some fun here today.

We are talking about mainly the Elon Musk pause that is happening on Twitter. But as one person said in the comments, get to the story nerds. So now let's move back to the story at hand.

He's probably not wrong. And you know what? I understand sometimes we get a little out there one person.

But Jay and Jordan are much more serious. Also, I agree with I would say that's a very fair statement. That's true sometimes. So it's Friday. People chill out. Let's have some fun. Okay.

Sure. Neata Jakewitz is running the disinformation Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Magic is what you call it. Yeah. I mean, to to the people's points on on Facebook that aren't Harry Potter fans. If you already weren't a fan of the disinformation governance board, the fact that go watch Blood Prince, a former member of a wizard rock band is now the head of that. If it doesn't already give you the feeling that this is some sort of dystopian wizardry, maybe you're right. Yeah.

Dolores Umbridge, her favorite character. Yeah. That's what I've heard. Really?

No. That's disinformation. They're going to mark that as partly true. Partly true. She does love the films. But I mean, who doesn't?

Well acted. Let's move on. Let's go back. A lot of people on Facebook, not fans. I don't care.

Let's move on and have a little fun again on Friday here. But really, you are looking at a deal which is maybe in jeopardy right now. There's a lot of talk that this is to just devalue Twitter so he can come in with a lower cost. And that is part of the conversation that's happening.

I'm not so sure. I feel like people don't treat Elon Musk in a way that I think is a brilliant mind. But I also think he's fairly upfront. Right.

And I think he's fairly honest with how he's feeling. And I think this guy said, I think there's a lot of bots here. I think there's maybe more than they're saying. Or maybe I just want to confirm that it's low enough to where I can justify this acquisition. I don't think there's anything natively wrong with that. That would be happening regardless. That's called due diligence of a 40 billion dollar purchase.

Yeah, absolutely. You do your due diligence. You go to the Carfax. You go to the Consumer Reports when you're buying a vehicle. Right.

You go. And as a used car, you're making sure it wasn't in any major accidents. That the cosmetic look of it isn't because they completely rebuilt it. That it doesn't have a salvage title.

You also look to see other people. How they have a good experience with your Corolla that you're purchasing. That type of thing is normal when you're making a large purchase. That's terms that we all can understand.

Send me the Carfax. I've never made billion dollar purchases, but that's the equivalent. Hey, never say never. Never say never.

That's impressive. I mean, if you get to that point. You'll probably be helping me. You'll be on the board. Okay. If I'm making billions of dollars of purchases, I'm going to need your help, Logan.

We've been together a long time. But all that to say is that if you understand making a big or you get an inspection on a house, if you purchase a house, like these are things that happen when you're making a large purchase. Absolutely.

That's this phase. They've agreed. They're in contract in housing terms. They're under contract.

You go through the inspection process to make sure that what you're buying actually has the value that you put the price on it because you can say, I'm going to spend 44 billion because I assume as an outsider, these are what the assets are. But if there are no bones to the house, if it's rotten to the core, then it's worthless to you. It's on a floodplain. Floodplain will get you. Yeah. It's happened to me.

Every time. I had a house put under contract. Flood damage.

We pulled out and said, no, we're not doing this. That's what happens. Just imagine that on a much larger scale, like a hundred billion times the size. Well, are we going to check that math? I mean, that's a bit of an estimate, but I don't know. Probably. Probably close.

Pretty close to a hundred billion. Yeah. Times. Yeah.

Maybe more. Who's to say? All right. Hey, I want to hear from you. We haven't spent a lot of time talking, taking calls or comments today. I would love to hear from you. If you have a comment, we've got a couple more segments left about this whole conversation of what's going on in social media, not just with Twitter, but just sort of the, the divide that's happened in social media.

I want to hear from you. I want to hear, are you still on Twitter? Do you plan to go back to Twitter? If this goes through, are you on truth or is truth? I know a lot of people aren't on iOS devices, currently truth social only on iOS devices.

I know apparently that's going to be fixed soon, but as of now, I know that that's smaller. So what are you doing? How are you engaging with people on social media? And then some of you may say I'm not, but really for those people that are watching, there's thousands of you watching between platforms, less on Facebook. Give us a call.

I would love to hear from you. I know you got to like, if you're on social media, now you have to like minimize us and call us, but I would love to hear from you and have this discussion because I want to hear from people unlike Twitter that may be filled with bots. I want to hear from real live humans, 1-800-684-3110 and be kind to our phone screener or you won't make it on the air.

Some people haven't been kind already. I'll just go ahead and put that out there and there's a reason you're not on the air, but we shouldn't play, we should play this because it's not a show with you and me hosting without playing a bite from our favorite Brian Stelter. And he was weighing in on what his analysis, you know, the host of reliable sources. The biggest misnomer in television history. He was asked by CNN anchor Kate Baldwin, what she thought he thought was going on with this whole move.

Let's play bite 30. Brian, what is going on here? It seems this is all about money, even though Musk says he wants to review the deal because of concerns about spam or fake accounts on Twitter. He tweeted out before dawn saying that the deal's on hold while he looks into this. He linked to an 11 day old Reuters article about the existence of bots on the, on the site. He says he needs to review that, but he's still committed to the transaction.

I think we should be incredibly skeptical of this. The markets have been tanking in recent days. Elon Musk is not as valuable as he was before Tesla stock is declining. Tesla stock was the main way he was securing the financing for Twitter. So as Bloomberg's Tim O'Brien said, his pockets are feeling lighter now. He may need a way out of this deal, but with Elon Musk, you never know for sure.

So we'll see what he does. It is true. There are things that have happened.

Obviously the stock market, crypto, Dogecoin, everything has kind of been on the down. So there's not a hundred percent inaccuracy here, but I do believe that this is a much a broader issue. Elon Musk is also the richest man in the world world. So when he says pockets are feeling a little lighter, yes.

Has across the board, there been an economic impact. If you have any sort of holding in the stock market, whether it be 401k personal investments, or if your company is publicly traded like Elon Musk's is there is truth to that statement, but it just rings hollow when Brian Stelter says things like his pockets are feeling a little lighter. His net worth is over $200 billion. Now yes, a lot of that is tied up in his companies and the stock there. So it's not like he has that cash on hand. It just seems so ridiculous when you put that when the next richest family and it's a family has a hundred billion dollars less than he does. So let's be very clear when you say pockets lighter, it's not like all of a sudden you made a bad gamble here on, on some investment and you're now completely bankrupt. It's a different situation for this person.

Yeah. There are a lot of comments coming in, a lot of calls and a couple of people said, take some more calls. Well, to those people, you give us a call, we got some open lines, 1-800-684-3110, you know, put your money where your mouth is.

Do it. 1-800-864-3110 we'll take a lot of those calls in the next segment cause it's the last segment of the day, but let's start with one and maybe you'll feel moved to call as well. Let's go to Lorna. Who's calling in Pennsylvania online too. You're on the air. Hello. Hi.

Go ahead with your comment. I am 71 years old and I remember when we didn't even have color television, let alone social media. And the only reason I stay on Facebook is because I have friends all over the world cause my husband's in the military and he helps me keep, keep it in contact with him. But I got on truth social and I love it. It is a fun platform.

I'll say I'm having a lot of fun on it. I know there's a lot of comments and a lot of people stay on Facebook, like I'm still on Facebook. I left Twitter. Personally, I'm on Facebook. I have a page you can like as well. That's not as active, but I'm on Facebook. Why?

Because of the exact reason you do. There are people who I've been friends with for decades now, and that's the only way I can kind of keep up with their lives. You know, obviously people want to see pictures of their families and their baby pictures and all that. And we've actually seen Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and some of the others say that is actively where they're trying to kind of re-guide Facebook, which is kind of away from it being a, a sphere of people commenting and hating and, and all of that and divisiveness and kind of back more towards, don't you want to see your grandkids' pictures?

Don't you want to see your kids' pictures? And I like that. Good for them.

I hope that that's where it goes. As someone who's on Facebook and we do this broadcast, I will say that sometimes Facebook recently has maybe come after us a little bit for certain things. And we usually were able to clear it up.

It's usually not that big of a problem. Not after damage was done. But after the damage was done and they tell everyone that what we said is fake and then they go, oh, we did some searching and we found out, you know what, y'all are having a lot of lawyers there. Yeah, that legal case that y'all were directly involved with, turns out you weren't wrong. You were right. But guess what?

The damage is already done. So I have some issues with maybe Facebook corporately, but I do like the personal side of it, because the truth, truth is right now, it's kind of a blast and I hope you follow me there. And more people followed me there in 24 hours than did on Twitter, than did on Facebook. The only other place is YouTube is comparable.

That's the only other spot. I'm trying to move people over to Rumble, move people over to Truth because it's a lot of fun and you know what? The comments are a blast.

I'm sure you're in there right now if you're on Rumble and you're having some fun. That's what we want to do here. Give me a call though, as we head into the last segment of the day, I'd love to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 684-3110. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We're going to take some calls in this segment. A lot of you are on hold. We'll do our best to get to as many as possible, but there's still actually two open lines right now.

So 1-800-684-3110. Let's get to it. Let's go to Ken who's calling from, hey, I'm wearing the shirt, the great state of Georgia.

Ken, you're on the air. Hey, how are you doing today? I'm doing all right.

Good. Going back over my original point, the way I stated it, you know, with all of the things that are happening in the world, people tend to overestimate our own input and what we say has an actual effect. No one remembers the AI that used to be in the eighties.

We had the great sci-fi movies. Everyone thought it was far fetched to that AI was controlling everything and might accidentally go to war with each other. Well, how do we know that's not what's happening right now? They control our paycheck. They control our, uh, stock market, the stock market. Remember it shut down the stock market one day because it saw something it didn't like. Well, and Ken, to your point, to some degree, the algorithms that are embedded in the tech behind Facebook, behind Google, behind YouTube, uh, behind Twitter is AI. It is artificial intelligence that are by private companies. Yeah. When you hear the algorithm, that's really what we're talking about here.

It's not far fetched Ken to go where you're going. Look, we even had in the last couple of days, if you've probably seen it and what I've said is a bit different, but you've probably seen like the profile pictures you can do that look like oil paintings and they're really cool looking. It's a great app that creates this, but what's that really doing according to news reports, sharing your data information with a Russian companies. Now they got my face already.

Let's just be honest. They got your face already, but there's never just, it's never just what it seems very rarely. Is it just what it seems in terms of any of the apps you download, especially free apps, social media platforms. There's there's like the surface level and you got to read all the fine print, which no one does. Well, and to Ken's point as well is that it, it is not just these companies, which we know manipulate the way we buy things, manipulate the things we see the content we see.

They are trying to get you to believe things, which is what the left is admitting to when they don't want it to be more open where they want to keep certain voices off. But it does kind of bring up that sometimes it's a surface level conversation about speech and a component of that speech is the way that speech is controlled from a tech level. And what is you know, they may not ban you from Facebook, but the algorithm can de-platform you or shadow ban.

That's a lot of times what we're talking about is when your speech just isn't being presented to people. And when you have, in some cases, platforms that have millions of followers, that there's a disproportionate amount of eyeballs on your content than should be, that tells you that there's something going on. That tells you that whatever their tech is, their artificial intelligence, it may not be in most cases is not an individual clicking a button to turn down your influence. But the machine learning is deciding to do that.

And so there is also a cover for corporations many times when they're like, we don't have someone doing that to you. We're not doing that to you. Our smart computer, our algorithm is deciding. That's not what people want to see. Why? Because we trained it not to like conservatives, that's just, it's artificially intelligent.

What's the artificial part. We told it what to learn. Look at these comments right now.

And this is from Mary. It's interesting. She said, I deactivated my Twitter account when they deactivated President Trump.

I don't love Trump, but I love the bill of rights. So there's an interesting point that there are people who are not even conservatives, not even Trump supporters, if you will, if you are, if you do identify as a Trump supporter, who maybe just said enough. And I feel like that happened on Twitter. I think it happened on, I think it's happened on a lot of the platforms where there is that sort of mass exodus and maybe some people don't even deactivate their account. They just delete the app. They just stop going. They stopped looking.

It becomes toxic. Their therapist said, maybe you should get off of Twitter. That is happening time and time again. And it's pretty interesting. You know, I think there's a bite from Senator Elizabeth Warren. Are you trying to get no one to watch? Well, are you trying to drive it from- No, I think this is good. This is good.

We already lost them with the Harry Potter rock concert story. Now you're going to play- She also seems like she could be a character in Harry Potter. Elizabeth Warren.

Yeah, she's got some umbrage. Let's go. Let's hear- Oh, of course, because it may seem a little bit off topic from what we're talking about, but I think it ties it all together because in this statement from her, you have both disinformation and a portion of it, which kind of goes against the Bill of Rights.

So let's go ahead. This is about the post vote on Wednesday for when the Democrats tried to codify an extreme version of Roe versus Wade in the Senate, and it failed 51 to 49 with Senator Manchin voting with the Republicans to block this. But this is the response from Elizabeth Warren after the vote by 22. I believe in democracy, and I don't believe that the minority should have the ability to block things that the majority want to do. That's not the Constitution.

What we're talking about right now are the individual rights and liberties of half the population of the United States of America. I think that's enough to say it's time to get rid of the filibuster. So first, here's the disinformation portion of this, which I would think the DHS disinformation board would maybe want to look at because she says, I think that's enough to say it's time to get rid of the filibuster. Based off that vote, if it were just a straight majority vote, they would have lost. It wasn't the filibuster. Now, yes, that was a vote, and technically it was filibustered because they did not get to 60. But if it was just, should this bill pass or fail like they do in the House of Representatives, 51 said, no, we do not want it to go forward.

49 said, yes, we do want it to go forward. The majority was Republicans and one Democrat. So that had nothing to do with the filibuster except for the semantics that that was the filibuster vote.

Just throw something else in there to make it seem like that's what it is so you can have that talking point. But it also says, I don't believe the minority should have the ability to block things that the majority want to do. There is a reason we have representative democracy and not a straight democracy.

Why we're a constitutional republic and not a straight democracy is because there are protections for the minority in our country. It isn't straight mob rule. But what the left wants to do is go to straight mob rule. They want only what the left wants to go forward. And that's what you see on Twitter.

It's what you see out of the administration. It's what you see out of senators like Senator Warren is that they don't want the Bill of Rights to protect the free speech of the minority class. And that's when you look at Twitter. They don't want what they consider on Twitter the conservative minority to have a voice. That is actually against what our country was founded upon. So when she says that's not the Constitution, that's just not true. That's why we have the Bill of Rights. Yeah, and you look at like we said, we only got a minute left here, but you look at what happens in media, which is you have what we assume 50 percent of your customer base is on a different political side than most of the people creating media. Do they create content that's aimed at that audience? Very rarely. In fact, you're usually just told to deal with it.

You know what most of us have done? We're conservatives. We've dealt with it because we can separate our art, our music, our television, our film reality and know that we may not have the political speech that we're looking for, that we're interested in or that we agree with, but we're about having the conversation.

And there are people who are stepping up. They're making interesting movies. They're telling interesting stories. TV shows. We got Bob Beagle, our children's YouTube channel, which uploaded a new video last week. Go check it out. There are people creating great content. But until you stand up and say something, they're just going to assume, just like every other conservatives that are so pro free speech, that we can disassociate ourselves.

Maybe we're smart enough to disassociate ourselves from our musician favorite, musician having a different political view. Well, that's going to do it for the show today. And for this week, we'll be back on Monday. Thank you for all your support again at the ACLJ this week. It's greatly appreciated. Visit for more.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-04-19 01:28:39 / 2023-04-19 01:50:50 / 22

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime