Speaker 1: Censorship on social media is out of control, with companies
Speaker 1: like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram eliminating prominent conservative voices from
Speaker 1: their platforms. It's an issue that many on the right
Speaker 1: have been discussing for years now what can be done
Speaker 1: to fight back? In this special edition of Hold the Line,
Speaker 1: we'll talk to several tech entrepreneurs and lawmakers who are
Speaker 1: challenging the big tech social media monopoly by building alternatives
Speaker 1: for those who are being silenced. Welcome to the special
Speaker 1: edition of Hold the Line. I'm buck Sexton. If we
Speaker 1: lose the big tech battle, we will lose all the
Speaker 1: political battles to come after it. They control the spread
Speaker 1: of information. They control the pipes of the dissemination of
Speaker 1: data and facts and figures in such a way that
Speaker 1: they can shape your perception, everyone's perception about reality. And
Speaker 1: they've done this for partisan ends. We know this now
Speaker 1: beyond any reasonable doubt. They used to claim that this
Speaker 1: was just an accident. They would occasionally ban a conservative
Speaker 1: or suspend one for sharing a not PC thought or
Speaker 1: sharing something that was considered too dangerous to the ruling
Speaker 1: Democrat apparatus, and of course, the big tuck oligarch sitting
Speaker 1: atop that largely, but now we know, now we've seen
Speaker 1: what the reality actually is. Here's just a little flashback
Speaker 1: to October of twenty twenty, when Jack Dorsey, former CEO
Speaker 1: of Twitter, was saying that there was no evidence that
Speaker 1: the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's emails was disinformation.
Speaker 1: Watch this one, okay for cooth Mister Zuckerberg and Dorsey
Speaker 1: who censored, censored New York Post stories or throttled them back.
Speaker 1: You either one of you have any evidence that the
Speaker 1: New York Post story is part of Russian distry information
Speaker 1: or that those emails aren't authentic to any any any
Speaker 1: instipation what's there they're not authentic, or that they are
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation. Mister Darcy, we don't you know, so, so
Speaker 1: why would why would you censor it? Why did you
Speaker 1: prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is
Speaker 1: supposed to be for the free expression of ideas and
Speaker 1: particularly true ideas. We believed to Philip Felt our hacking
Speaker 1: materials policy, we judged and it was hacked. They weren't hacked.
Speaker 1: We judged in a moment that it looked like it
Speaker 1: was hacked materials. You were wrong, purpacing and and we
Speaker 1: updated our policy and our enforcement within twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: They were wrong. It wasn't hacked material. It was true material,
Speaker 1: and it was right before an election, and it might
Speaker 1: have actually changed the course of that election. The Big
Speaker 1: Tech now is clearly openly a Democrat superpack in act,
Speaker 1: and that's the way they actually operate, and they have
Speaker 1: an understanding now of the amount of power that they wield,
Speaker 1: and this is not going to be something we could
Speaker 1: ignore any longer. You can care a lot about the border,
Speaker 1: about defund the police and crime, and you can care
Speaker 1: about spending and COVID policy and inflation, all these things.
Speaker 1: If the lib left Marxist social media platforms are able
Speaker 1: to continue to control the spread of information, to shut
Speaker 1: down voices that are speaking the truth or that are
Speaker 1: critics of the regime, we're never going to be able
Speaker 1: to win at the national level. Again, those are the stakes,
Speaker 1: which is why the Democrats are now all in on censorship.
Speaker 1: They realize they want to use this weapon, this tool
Speaker 1: of information suppression, as long as they possibly can, because
Speaker 1: it is enormously helpful to their power and their aspirations
Speaker 1: for more of it. This was just in July present,
Speaker 1: the United States, Joe Biden was actually saying that information
Speaker 1: on Facebook that the regime doesn't approve of is literally
Speaker 1: killing people. Watch what's your message the platforms like Facebook,
Speaker 1: they're killing people. I mean they're really Look, the only
Speaker 1: pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they're killing people.
Speaker 1: That's not true, by the way, as you know, one
Speaker 1: of the dumbest lines ever uttered by any president's a
Speaker 1: pandemic of the unvaccdor. No, it's not. That is a lie.
Speaker 1: They were wrong anyway. Jensaki, White House Press Secretary, really
Speaker 1: the propagandas are of the Biden regime. She says that
Speaker 1: you should be banned from all social media. Plan Let
Speaker 1: let's take a step back for a second. Here. The
Speaker 1: people that are supposed to be in charge of dissemiting
Speaker 1: information to the public so they can make informed decisions
Speaker 1: and that this republic can stand with citizens who are
Speaker 1: informed enough to be able to hold their government to
Speaker 1: account and to make wise decisions and who they allect. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the people in charge are actually saying, no, no, we
Speaker 1: want to shut down anybody that gets it our way.
Speaker 1: We want to censor them, we want to silence them.
Speaker 1: This was just in July Jensaki saying you should be
Speaker 1: banned from all social media platforms, not just one. A
Speaker 1: couple of the steps that we have, you know, that
Speaker 1: could be constructive for the public health of the country
Speaker 1: are providing for Facebook or their platforms to measure and
Speaker 1: publicly share the impact of misinformation on their platform and
Speaker 1: the audience. It's reaching also with the public, with all
Speaker 1: of you to create robust enforcement strategies that bridge their
Speaker 1: properties and provide transparency about rules. You shouldn't be banned
Speaker 1: from one platform and not others if you afford providing
Speaker 1: misinformation out there spanned from all of them. You see,
Speaker 1: they are open about their desire for censorship. Left controls
Speaker 1: the social media platforms, they run them, and they expect
Speaker 1: them to be their allies, and they have been. We
Speaker 1: need to do something about it, or we can just
Speaker 1: continue to hear stuff like this from a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: Permilla Jaya Paula Washington, who's saying even banning conservatives isn't enough. Watch.
Speaker 1: It's no secret that our social media companies have been
Speaker 1: part of their algorithms promoting disinformation, and I think that
Speaker 1: these steps are important, but frankly, a little too little
Speaker 1: and a little too late. The reality is it's not
Speaker 1: just Marjorie Taylor Green. All over Twitter, social Media, Facebook,
Speaker 1: all of these companies have been using algorithms that are
Speaker 1: just about clickbait, not about truth. And so if we
Speaker 1: are going to take on the disinformation that's out there,
Speaker 1: the big lie, and everything else that goes with it,
Speaker 1: then yes, this is a part of it. But it's
Speaker 1: got to be much much more amazing, isn't it. Only
Speaker 1: want to prove narrative allowed agree with the people in power,
Speaker 1: or they will shut you down and silence you and
Speaker 1: punish you. Or we can fight back. We can actually
Speaker 1: build our own unsinkable aircraft carriers of free speech. And
Speaker 1: that's what we want to talk to you about here
Speaker 1: on this special for Hold the line. We've got a
Speaker 1: great lineup of guest coming up, and after the break
Speaker 1: we'll talk to Jason Miller, whose social media platform Getter
Speaker 1: is poised to give Twitter a run for its money.
Speaker 1: Stay with us. Twenty sixteen presidential campaign was arguably the
Speaker 1: first national race in which Twitter played a central role.
Speaker 1: At the time the general election rolled around, then candidate
Speaker 1: Trump had amassed a following of over ten million people
Speaker 1: social media megaphone allowed him to bypass hostile news outlets
Speaker 1: and bring his message directly to potential voters. You already
Speaker 1: know President Trump was banned from Twitter in late twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: a move it's done the political world and left him
Speaker 1: without the most important communication tool in his arsenal. What
Speaker 1: I mean now is the former senior advisor to the
Speaker 1: Trump twenty twenty reelection campaign and CEO of Getter, Jason Miller. Jason,
Speaker 1: great to see him, but good to be back with you.
Speaker 1: So let's just talk about what it was like. You're
Speaker 1: on the front lines of President Trump's twenty sixteen campaign
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. But let's talk about twenty sixteen for
Speaker 1: a moment and the enormous win that he had that
Speaker 1: so many people said was impossible. How critical was Twitter?
Speaker 1: I mean, what role did Twitter play and the President's
Speaker 1: usage of that tool in his election and his defeat
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton. Well, it's very important, both Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook and let's say, all of social media. And what
Speaker 1: I've always said is that President Trump really his superpower
Speaker 1: has been ability to bypass traditional media go directly to voters.
Speaker 1: And so in twenty sixteen, that was part of the
Speaker 1: way that the President Trump was able to sneak up
Speaker 1: on the elites or the media or a lot of
Speaker 1: folks who didn't see a Trump coming because he's able
Speaker 1: to talk directly to people, and they couldn't shut him
Speaker 1: down by saying, here's negative coverage and the failing New
Speaker 1: York Times or fake news CNN or any of the
Speaker 1: traditional news sources. What's different or changed in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways over twenty twenty is they were ready for
Speaker 1: President Trump and for our team, and so they started
Speaker 1: to change the rules of the game, whether it be
Speaker 1: the warning labels that they would put up, whether it
Speaker 1: be the shadow banning, or changing the algorithms. All these
Speaker 1: different things made it much difficult to connect directly with people.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that I think is important
Speaker 1: to know is that Dorsey and Zuckerberg both got a
Speaker 1: lot of heat from the left, particularly the progressive left,
Speaker 1: who blamed them for essentially helping President Trump win in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. They say, if you hadn't, if you darned
Speaker 1: kids hadn't gone and created these platforms, then we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have ended up with Trump. And so I think that's
Speaker 1: part of the reason why you saw such the backlash
Speaker 1: from Dorsey and Zuckerberg heading into twenty twenty because they
Speaker 1: were trying to make amends for having created their platforms
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. How the issue of Twitter's cracked down
Speaker 1: on conservatives progressed over the years. I mean, Jason, I'm
Speaker 1: all enough to remember when Twitter claimed there was no
Speaker 1: political bias or politicized decision making about who's being either
Speaker 1: shadow banded or outright suspended. What's changed, Well, I think
Speaker 1: a couple of things have changed. Number One, They've decided
Speaker 1: that they want to use their platform to help frame
Speaker 1: the world as far as what the issues are, how
Speaker 1: people look at things. This is no longer kind of
Speaker 1: the altruistic free speech platform. This is very much about
Speaker 1: they have a particular ideology and they want people to
Speaker 1: abide by that. And so you take a look at, say,
Speaker 1: for example, Google and YouTube, the way that they now
Speaker 1: put warning labels on if you talk about climate change
Speaker 1: in the way that they don't agree with. You. Take
Speaker 1: a look at the way that Twitter will go and
Speaker 1: actually ban people or the sentence you to digital jail
Speaker 1: for a short amount of time and simply for saying
Speaker 1: something about vaccines or COVID that they don't agree with
Speaker 1: and that's part of the reason why we end up
Speaker 1: getting Rogan. You had the Robert doctor, Robert Malone, you
Speaker 1: had Marjorie Taylor green Book get kicked off, and then
Speaker 1: that rolls up into helping us get Rogan, then ultimately
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson yesterday. But Buck, I think if we kind
Speaker 1: of step back here and take a look at it,
Speaker 1: it's President Trump. I think was right when he said
Speaker 1: last year, if they're willing to do it to me,
Speaker 1: they're willing to kick me off, they'll do it to
Speaker 1: you in a second. Now we're seeing how they've kicked
Speaker 1: off President Trump. Really, the guardrails are off, the big
Speaker 1: tech social media companies are unencumbered for what they want
Speaker 1: to do next. It's President Trump depending on an alternative
Speaker 1: being available if he should choose to run again in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. In your estimation, that's a great question.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's necessarily depending on it, but
Speaker 1: an alternative will be absolutely necessary. That's a critical function
Speaker 1: if he wants to have a chance to win in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, is to have this strongly developed alternative platform.
Speaker 1: Because the fact of the matter is the big tech
Speaker 1: social media companies. If they even allow his new platform
Speaker 1: or some new platform that he's on to be on
Speaker 1: some of the app stores, they're going to look for
Speaker 1: every excuse an opportunity to try to shut him down.
Speaker 1: They will say it's in the future of human civilization.
Speaker 1: They'll say asteroids are going to crash into the earth
Speaker 1: that we allow Trump back on Twitter or on Facebook.
Speaker 1: I think it's already clear that the bands for those
Speaker 1: platforms are going to be permanent. But I think where
Speaker 1: the rubbers are really going to meet the road is
Speaker 1: when he launches his own platform into what extent that's
Speaker 1: allowed to thrive and operate, or if they just look
Speaker 1: to shut it down right away. What happens, by the way,
Speaker 1: for other You know, when you can ban a president,
Speaker 1: you can obviously ban anybody, right so for a lot
Speaker 1: of other people, including prominent conservatives, on social media platforms
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook and others, it would be even harder,
Speaker 1: you would think, to try to get some answers here.
Speaker 1: But is there a well, what happens if you get
Speaker 1: banned right now from one of these social media giants
Speaker 1: and your conservative and you say, hey, you know, I
Speaker 1: want my day in court, so to speak. Right without
Speaker 1: actually necessarily getting a legal aspect, though I know that's
Speaker 1: a part of this too for some people, my friend
Speaker 1: Alex Barnson among them. But what happens, I mean, is
Speaker 1: there like a Twitter get out of jail court you
Speaker 1: go to. I mean, who do you talk? It feels
Speaker 1: like it's also nameless and faceless, but yet immensely powerful. Well,
Speaker 1: they do have an appeals process. I couldn't tell you
Speaker 1: the inner workings of how that truly functions, just for
Speaker 1: the simple fact that they keep that very tight and
Speaker 1: very closely guarded, because again, there is a lot of
Speaker 1: unevenness and I think the way their standards are applied.
Speaker 1: I mean, just take a look at the fact that
Speaker 1: you have the Taliban, the Ayatola all on Twitter, but
Speaker 1: no President Trump. And pretty sure President Trump has never
Speaker 1: killed anybody. You can't see the same thing of her
Speaker 1: a Moss, the Aetola and the Taliban. They've killed lots
Speaker 1: of people. Senator Ram Paul, by the way, speaking of
Speaker 1: people kicked off, politician, big public figure, well known, he
Speaker 1: explained why he was quitting. We've talked about Twitter a lot.
Speaker 1: YouTube obviously owned by Google, which is the subsidiary of
Speaker 1: alphabet here he is saying he left YouTube over censorship.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm tired of censorship. You know they say
Speaker 1: Mark Twain used to say, everybody's complaining about the weather,
Speaker 1: but nobody's doing anything about it. Well, everybody on the
Speaker 1: right complains about social media in their censorship, We'll do
Speaker 1: something about it. Let's quit. So I'm no longer going
Speaker 1: to let some punk, some snot nosed kid over at
Speaker 1: YouTube decide that a speech that I gave on the
Speaker 1: Senate floor is not appropriate, or that when I say
Speaker 1: cloth mask don't work, because I'm trying to save lives,
Speaker 1: because if you go into the right, your grandparents are
Speaker 1: wearing a cloth mask, you're going to get infected. If
Speaker 1: an eighty year old's taking care of their wife and
Speaker 1: they're wearing a cloth mask and their wife ask COVID,
Speaker 1: they're going to get infected because the cloth mask don't work.
Speaker 1: You don't say, Jason, well, that's right. I hope that
Speaker 1: we can get Senator Paul over on Getter. He certainly
Speaker 1: would be a welcome addition and a strong voice. I
Speaker 1: think about a dozen or maybe fifteen senators who have
Speaker 1: joined the platform. But he's right, I mean at this point,
Speaker 1: we got to look and say we're additional places to
Speaker 1: go and make our voices heard. You know, when the
Speaker 1: things buck is. I never tell people though that they
Speaker 1: should go and give another platform. My philosophy is is
Speaker 1: the CEO of gettor is that I have to make
Speaker 1: Ghettor a desirable place for people to be. I need
Speaker 1: to make it so people want to be a Ghettor. Yes,
Speaker 1: at a certain point people just start to give up
Speaker 1: the big tech platforms on their own. But I want
Speaker 1: to lead with our strengths and our attributes and then
Speaker 1: pull people in that way. Certainly a lot of people
Speaker 1: are saying, hey, we need to quit big tech altogether.
Speaker 1: Though we want to talk about going on offense here
Speaker 1: when it comes to free sphjas and we'll have more
Speaker 1: with the CEO of Ghettter, Jason Miller in a moment.
Speaker 1: The past few years have demonstrated the importance of social
Speaker 1: media to the national political discussion and races all across
Speaker 1: the country. So with Twitter's cracked down on conservatives and
Speaker 1: false wing, what can we donna take back power from
Speaker 1: big tech job aience. In July last year, Jason Miller
Speaker 1: and his team launched get Her, a social media app
Speaker 1: designed to directly compete with the Twitter monolith. I mean,
Speaker 1: now once again, CEO of get Her, Jason Miller, Jason,
Speaker 1: thanks so much. Man. Now let's talk about offense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely so. We're taking the fight right too big tech,
Speaker 1: and I think the bucket beginning of this. There are
Speaker 1: a couple of philosophies that I laid out for our team.
Speaker 1: Number One, I think for too long we've been told
Speaker 1: if you want to have some alternative platform, you go
Speaker 1: develop it just not going to be as good as
Speaker 1: big tech. I tell my team every single day. I
Speaker 1: don't care how long Twitter has been around, how long
Speaker 1: Facebook has been around. We're not judged on the fact
Speaker 1: that we're only six months old. We're judged to get
Speaker 1: what the current user experience is for these other big
Speaker 1: tech platforms. They've had a big head start on us,
Speaker 1: but we have to catch up. That's why right now,
Speaker 1: that's say we're a marketplace competitor to Twitter and Facebook.
Speaker 1: When we launch a vision, which will be our short
Speaker 1: video format that competes directly with TikTok with Instagram reels,
Speaker 1: we're launching that in February, then that's going to make
Speaker 1: us competitors to them help with a whole new demographic
Speaker 1: of younger folks are coming on the platform. And then
Speaker 1: where we go next, where we go and launch get
Speaker 1: ter pay, our two coin ecosystem with essentially a stable
Speaker 1: coin and a fluctuating coin. We launched that this summer.
Speaker 1: We're going to go a place where none of these
Speaker 1: social media platforms have gone before. And as we get
Speaker 1: into decentralized finance, we get to the peer to peer lending,
Speaker 1: all sorts of cool stuff that's coming that's going to
Speaker 1: completely set us apart. But the other thing that I
Speaker 1: always say, make our team remember every single day is
Speaker 1: we're guided by a simple principle that if you believe
Speaker 1: in free speech and you oppose cancel culture, then you
Speaker 1: have a home here. It doesn't matter what someone's background
Speaker 1: or their ideology. If they're on the left, they're on
Speaker 1: the right, they don't care about politics at all. We're
Speaker 1: guided by that principle that free speech has to have
Speaker 1: a safe space and that's here on getter. Okay, so
Speaker 1: gettor is somewhat similar as it stands right now to Twitter.
Speaker 1: I am full disclosure, probably just said it's the first
Speaker 1: segment I'm on Getter. I use Getter similar in some
Speaker 1: ways to Twitter. What's different about it for the folks
Speaker 1: out there? Absolutely so. Number one, we have longer posts
Speaker 1: up to seven hundred and seventy seven characters, Longer videos
Speaker 1: were now up to three minute videos. We also have
Speaker 1: live streaming now that we've started introducing that in the
Speaker 1: beta stage, so folks who are verified users, we've started
Speaker 1: to allow a couple dozen folks using that. Some of
Speaker 1: the live streams have got some pretty big audiences so far.
Speaker 1: Where we're also going to is very surely will allow
Speaker 1: an edit feature, as well as the fact that that'll
Speaker 1: be one of the big things, but you won't have
Speaker 1: to like Twitter blue pain and extra three ninety nine
Speaker 1: or four ninety nine a month. We're gonna make that
Speaker 1: available to everybody, as well as some longer videos a
Speaker 1: little bit closer to ten minutes. So we have some
Speaker 1: really good features right now every thing too. I think
Speaker 1: our translate feature is much easier to use. And here's
Speaker 1: a cool thing, buck. When you set up your Twitter account,
Speaker 1: excuse you set your Getter account, you can actually import
Speaker 1: in all of your tweets because that's your intellectual property.
Speaker 1: The platforms don't actually own that, and so when you
Speaker 1: set up Getter, you can poured in all your tweets
Speaker 1: that helped populate your timeline. So whether you have memes
Speaker 1: or videos or recordings or other things, then you have
Speaker 1: a backup of that that's all going to come with you.
Speaker 1: It's a feature. A lot of folks really like that's
Speaker 1: really cool. I got to use that one. Well kind
Speaker 1: of growth have you seen since you actually launched get
Speaker 1: or Jason? Absolutely so, we're the fastest ever social media platform.
Speaker 1: We get to a million users. We did that in
Speaker 1: three days. Then over the course of the last few
Speaker 1: months we got up to three million users, and then
Speaker 1: literally just over this past week, we added on about
Speaker 1: one point one or one point two million users following
Speaker 1: the editions of folks like doctor Malone and Marger Taylor
Speaker 1: Green and Joe Rogan and now Tucker Carlson. So we're
Speaker 1: now up over four million users on the platform. Here's
Speaker 1: another cool thing, and this is another principle that I
Speaker 1: put down at the beginning. I said, this is going
Speaker 1: to be a global platform. If we're going to grow
Speaker 1: and really take on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram TikTok,
Speaker 1: we have to go global. We've got to be big.
Speaker 1: Only about forty percent of our user base is here
Speaker 1: in the US, about sixty percent is global, with about
Speaker 1: fifteen percent and excuse me in Brazil, about ten percent
Speaker 1: in Japan. So this truly is a global free speech
Speaker 1: effort right now. Now, what kind of resistance have you
Speaker 1: faced from the rival big tech oligarchs out there, and
Speaker 1: what are you expecting that they're going to do as
Speaker 1: you guys continue to gain steam and momentum. Well, we've
Speaker 1: seen already in some of the early stages that Twitter
Speaker 1: was actually buying ads off of us. So if you
Speaker 1: went to the app store and typed in get Her,
Speaker 1: an ad for Twitter would pop up, which they did
Speaker 1: that when we're only about one or two million users,
Speaker 1: So we could tell that we shook them quite a bit. Also,
Speaker 1: as we started talking about some of the advancements and
Speaker 1: get Her and some of the new features, we've noticed
Speaker 1: that Twitter has gotten a lot more aggressive in saying
Speaker 1: that they're going to offer different premiums and different features.
Speaker 1: And so we've definitely lit a fire in them because
Speaker 1: Twitter hasn't had any real advancements in quite a while,
Speaker 1: but where they have gone as far as on their
Speaker 1: spaces front with doing kind of the they essentially did
Speaker 1: kind of a rip off a clubhouse is different from
Speaker 1: we're going on the video front. I think the video
Speaker 1: front is going to be more successful. I think that
Speaker 1: the otherwise, I think Clubhouse would have taken off and
Speaker 1: been a big ginormous success on its own. But I
Speaker 1: think the video feature is something that I mean, look,
Speaker 1: look at your platform. You're on video and that's that's
Speaker 1: where so much of the action the interest is in
Speaker 1: these days. So we actually kind of sit back and
Speaker 1: have a little bit of a smile. We see Twitter
Speaker 1: saying that they're going to do something new, because it's
Speaker 1: really they can't teach an old dog new tricks, so
Speaker 1: to speak. But Forgetter, we're still young, we're still growing.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of cool things ahead. Yeah, what
Speaker 1: else do you guys get or have in the pipeline?
Speaker 1: And what are some of the milestones you're hoping to
Speaker 1: reach if you have some sense of estimated timeline you
Speaker 1: know by all means, Yeah, absolutely So in addition to
Speaker 1: Vision the short video platform, then also get or Pay
Speaker 1: that's coming up. We're also going to make as you
Speaker 1: can import in Instagram posts that will be something that
Speaker 1: we allow very similar to how you can now import
Speaker 1: in Twitter posts. So we think that's going to be
Speaker 1: a cool feature. Also, as I said, expanding out live
Speaker 1: stream to a lot more people, there'll be another exciting dynamic.
Speaker 1: And also too, we'll have cross posting where you can
Speaker 1: elect to if you post on Getter to then have
Speaker 1: that appear on Twitter. You know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that a lot of folks come back and say is
Speaker 1: I got to bounce around in different platforms, and everyone
Speaker 1: wants to get away from big tech. But a lot
Speaker 1: of content creators also very much don't want to say
Speaker 1: give up followings or groups that they have and other audiences.
Speaker 1: So those will make it so if you post on Getter,
Speaker 1: it'll show up on Twitter, which makes us you really
Speaker 1: don't have to go back to Twitter at all. The
Speaker 1: one of the question that Jason for people that switch
Speaker 1: over is are the followers that someone has on Twitter
Speaker 1: the same exact followers they start out with on Getter
Speaker 1: or how does that work? Great questions? So right now,
Speaker 1: so what we list or the total number of followers,
Speaker 1: so we have both the Getter followers and the Twitter followers,
Speaker 1: whe people can see your combined reach Essentially the front
Speaker 1: end of the engineering got a little bit ahead of
Speaker 1: the back end, and so about two weeks or so
Speaker 1: when we roll that out and you'll see that when
Speaker 1: you post something on Getter and you've elected to also
Speaker 1: have that appear on Twitter, then the follower account that
Speaker 1: you have there is reflective of the total follower base,
Speaker 1: or also might put it in there where you can
Speaker 1: see just very clearly here's the Getter specific and here's
Speaker 1: the combined numbers. So that's a little bit more clear
Speaker 1: for folks. So it's so it gives you the opportunity
Speaker 1: of a much bigger amplification. The other thing, too, is
Speaker 1: just the fact that we are a global platform, that
Speaker 1: we are now up over four million. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people may previously just had a domestic reach,
Speaker 1: whether that's just here in the US, or say just
Speaker 1: in Brazil or the UK or wherever they might be.
Speaker 1: Now they're realizing that they're using their megaphone to talk globally,
Speaker 1: like a Penis cantor Freedom from the Boston Celtics, who
Speaker 1: now with the help of Getter, in addition to some
Speaker 1: of his other efforts, has taken as anti CCP fight
Speaker 1: globally Jason exciting stuff. Good work, Thanks for being with us.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sorry, We'll be right back with more of
Speaker 1: this special edition of All the Line. Left efforts to
Speaker 1: dominate social media began largely in twenty sixteen when they
Speaker 1: accused Russia of using Facebook to influence voters. As back
Speaker 1: in the day we were allowed to question the legitimacy
Speaker 1: of a presidential election, of course, but it ultimately mounted
Speaker 1: to was Russia purchasing approximately one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars worth of advertiser at least people in Russia acting,
Speaker 1: we believe, at the behest of the Russian government. It's
Speaker 1: not exactly a great threat to our democracy, though, considering
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spent over up billion dollars
Speaker 1: over the course of the campaign. Still, the moral panic
Speaker 1: over a few Russian bots and Facebook ads eventually became
Speaker 1: a broader campaign by the left to control what can
Speaker 1: and can't be said on social media, and they've seen
Speaker 1: some success. Due to the constant pressure, Democrats have managed
Speaker 1: to squash new unflattering stories, including the Hunter Biden laptop story,
Speaker 1: and they've d platform people who've been critical of the
Speaker 1: governments response to COVID nineteen I've got with this myself,
Speaker 1: getting suspended and getting all kinds of strikes and shadow
Speaker 1: banning and demodetization just for saying things that are obviously
Speaker 1: true about the COVID regime of Fauci. Remember, it's not
Speaker 1: about spreading disinformation, it's about who decides what disinformation is.
Speaker 1: I'll take a closer look at their efforts at censorship
Speaker 1: in tonight's buckbrief. Let's understand this right now, the Democrats
Speaker 1: have embraced wholesale the usage of social media platforms as
Speaker 1: a tool of their preferred narratives and policies. That's right.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are now at a place where they quite
Speaker 1: obviously and quite clearly want Facebook and the other major
Speaker 1: social media company to do everything in their power to
Speaker 1: shut down whatever ideas they don't like. In fact, they
Speaker 1: even threatened, not just asked politely, they threatened some of
Speaker 1: these social media companies to make sure that they fall
Speaker 1: in line. Now, they're overwhelmingly run by not just Democrats,
Speaker 1: but really far left zealots. That's who actually runs Facebook
Speaker 1: and Google and these other platforms Twitter. But they also
Speaker 1: recognize that their businesses and so antagonizing half the country
Speaker 1: might not be a great idea, but they don't care anymore.
Speaker 1: You know why, because the Democrats demand that they fall
Speaker 1: in line and that they actively censor and shutdown. They
Speaker 1: used to pretend they weren't doing it right because they
Speaker 1: didn't want to lose half the country and all of this.
Speaker 1: But here, for example, is Biden in November of twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen saying that social media companies should not be exempted
Speaker 1: from being sued for the promotion of fake news. Watch.
Speaker 1: I just think that social media has to be more
Speaker 1: social conscious of what is important in terms of our democracy,
Speaker 1: and part of that is a little truth in lending
Speaker 1: here and making sure that everything is not about whether
Speaker 1: they can make a book. It requires that the journalistic
Speaker 1: responsibility you have. You can't do what they can do
Speaker 1: on Facebook. You can't do what they can do and
Speaker 1: just say anything at all, then not acknowledge that when
Speaker 1: you know something is fundamentally not true. And I just
Speaker 1: think it's a little out of hand, and I, for one,
Speaker 1: think we should be considering taking away the exemption that
Speaker 1: they cannot be sued for knowingly engaged down in promoting
Speaker 1: something that's not true. I understand this is the government
Speaker 1: effectively threatening the social media company, saying, not only do
Speaker 1: we want you to be the truth police, think about
Speaker 1: how that goes. But if you don't do it, maybe
Speaker 1: we'll make sure that you can get sued, maybe will
Speaker 1: bankrupt you, maybe we'll go after you. This is what
Speaker 1: you would expect in an authoritarian regime. Remember, it's not
Speaker 1: that you will have ninety five percent of the media,
Speaker 1: of journalists of newspapers against an authoritarian regime. That's not
Speaker 1: how it goes. That's what you had under Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's in fact that you will have a collusion, if
Speaker 1: you will, between the media and the regime in power,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what you have with the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: That's when you should be really concerned about not just
Speaker 1: free speech, but freedom in general. And they don't even
Speaker 1: really hide it from him. Back in May of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, the chief propagandas are of this White House, Jensaki,
Speaker 1: said that there's an obligation of responsibility for the social
Speaker 1: media platforms to shut down untrustworthy content and disinformation Watch.
Speaker 1: The President's view is that the major platforms have a
Speaker 1: responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans
Speaker 1: to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation and misinformation, especially related
Speaker 1: to COVID nineteen vaccinations and elections. So, for example, would
Speaker 1: it be a disinformation Was it disinformation to suggest that
Speaker 1: the Wuhan coronavirus came from a lab leak scenario in Wuhan, China?
Speaker 1: They said it was. Were they right, No, they were not.
Speaker 1: Is it disinformation to say that the vaccines don't last
Speaker 1: more than a few months with their maximum protection and
Speaker 1: aren't very effective at all at stopping the spread of
Speaker 1: the omicron variant of coronavirus. No, but if you said
Speaker 1: that three months ago, two months ago, they would have
Speaker 1: shut you down for misinformation. Seeing the pattern here, But
Speaker 1: they don't care. This is about power. This is about
Speaker 1: the ability to control the narrative. It's not about what's true.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't care about what's true. They don't care about
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. They want what they want. They're like
Speaker 1: spoiled children. They don't want people saying things that upsets them.
Speaker 1: They don't want people being able to challenge their sacred cows.
Speaker 1: Here's Hillary Clinton back in November of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: just making it clear to everybody that she thinks there
Speaker 1: should be new laws to regulate social media companies. First,
Speaker 1: we have to take necessary legislative and regulatory action to
Speaker 1: begin to regulate the way that our social media and
Speaker 1: tech companies operate. You know, we had to have new
Speaker 1: rules for the industrial age at the beginning of the
Speaker 1: last century. Well, we certainly need new rules for the
Speaker 1: information age because our current laws, our framework is just
Speaker 1: not to adequate for what we're facing. And there are
Speaker 1: a number of very good ideas about how to both
Speaker 1: apply existing laws and to fill the gaps that exist
Speaker 1: so that we can begin to try to rain in
Speaker 1: some of the abuses of the technology companies, particularly the
Speaker 1: social media companies. Yeah, they want to make sure that
Speaker 1: they restrict Conservatives are getting kicked off, Conservatives are getting
Speaker 1: deep platformed. We're the ones that we're getting censored. And
Speaker 1: the government and people in government currently and previously at
Speaker 1: the top levels are saying we want more of this.
Speaker 1: In fact, the sitting president just said recently, social media
Speaker 1: outlets need to deal with the misinformation. Watch I make
Speaker 1: a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets,
Speaker 1: please deal with the misinformation and disinformation. It's on your shows.
Speaker 1: It has to stop. COVID nineteen is one of the
Speaker 1: most formidable and amas America's ever faced. We've got to
Speaker 1: work together, not against each other. We're America. We can
Speaker 1: do this. Sure, shutdown free speech? Why not the president?
Speaker 1: All right? At least one member of Congress has been
Speaker 1: vocal in her support of free speech when it comes
Speaker 1: to social media. And we come back, Tennessee Senator Marsha
Speaker 1: Blackburn's going to join us to discuss her efforts to
Speaker 1: take on the big tech juggernaut. Stay with us. The
Speaker 1: fight against big tech censorship has made its way to
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill, where a few brave senators have continued to
Speaker 1: push back against the power hungry tech giants like Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and Google and stand up for conservative voices that have
Speaker 1: been silenced on these platforms. Republican Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn
Speaker 1: has been a force in DC against big tech. From
Speaker 1: pressing major tech executives over their biased practices and shadow
Speaker 1: banning rules to being lead Republican on the App Store Bill,
Speaker 1: Senator Blackburn is on a mission to hold tech giants accountable.
Speaker 1: Joins us now to explain center great to have you,
Speaker 1: It is good to be with you, and you're exactly right.
Speaker 1: I am determined that after a decade of trying, we
Speaker 1: are going to put some guardrails around what big tech
Speaker 1: can do with your data, your information. You know, buck,
Speaker 1: when you are online, when you're on one of the
Speaker 1: social media platforms, you are the product. And it leads
Speaker 1: us to ask who actually owns the virtual you? Which
Speaker 1: is you and your information? When you're online, you send
Speaker 1: the past center of that American The American people no
Speaker 1: longer trust big tech. Least a lot of us don't.
Speaker 1: So what steps are you and your Republican colleagues going
Speaker 1: to take when you're in the majority to address that. Yes,
Speaker 1: the very first thing is establishing a federal online privacy standard.
Speaker 1: This means passing a bill like the brows Act, which
Speaker 1: I first filed a privacy bill believe it or not,
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve. So this has taken a while. But
Speaker 1: what it would do is give you, the consumer control
Speaker 1: over your data. If you wanted to share your information
Speaker 1: with the tech platform, then you would have to give
Speaker 1: your explicit consent. In other words, you would have to
Speaker 1: opt to in, and then for nonsensitive information like your
Speaker 1: browsing history, then you would be able to opt out.
Speaker 1: This means the tech platform could not track you, They
Speaker 1: could not mine your data, they could not share or
Speaker 1: sell your data. You would be the individual owning your data. Also,
Speaker 1: what it would do is established one set of rules
Speaker 1: for the entire Internet ecosystem with one regulator, the Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission. That is how we think is the best
Speaker 1: way to ensure that people are safe online. Likewise data security,
Speaker 1: so that if there's a breach, they have to notify
Speaker 1: you within a given period of time like forty eight
Speaker 1: or seventy two hours, and also that there are penalties
Speaker 1: and enforcements for people that are committing these breaches. And
Speaker 1: then section two thirty is where you get into censorship,
Speaker 1: where you get into these platforms that allow human trafficking,
Speaker 1: sex trafficking, drug trafficking on their platform. Reforming section two
Speaker 1: thirty so that these platforms have to be accountable for
Speaker 1: what they allow to be accessed, viewed, heard, and shared
Speaker 1: on their platforms would be the way for us to
Speaker 1: in censorship and the selling of a lot of fraudulent
Speaker 1: and counterfeit products and end these cartails and trafficking organizations
Speaker 1: from using these tech platforms to handle sex trafficking or
Speaker 1: drug trafficking. Senator Blackburn the big tech companies, of course,
Speaker 1: have all kinds of answers and responses for a lot
Speaker 1: of this stuff on the Section to thirty point. Their
Speaker 1: spokespersons will go to the media, of course, and they
Speaker 1: control a lot of the media themselves, to suggest that
Speaker 1: if they don't have Section two thirty protection, they will
Speaker 1: have to be even more strict in their censorship because
Speaker 1: they would then be liable. What's the truth of that,
Speaker 1: I mean, is there enough to reform Section two thirty?
Speaker 1: Is that really the heart of this? The heart of
Speaker 1: it is the reforming of Section two thirty to be
Speaker 1: more explicit in what is allowed and to be more
Speaker 1: explicit in the companies. The size of those companies that
Speaker 1: can seek two thirty tections now buck news sites like
Speaker 1: sagettor or Parlor or some of these, they still need
Speaker 1: that Section to thirty protection. They're small, they haven't stood
Speaker 1: up yet. And Section to thirty was put there in
Speaker 1: the mid nineties to allow these platforms to be able
Speaker 1: to grow. Now you have Facebook, Instagram Meta as they're called,
Speaker 1: you have Twitter, you have YouTube, you have Amazon. You
Speaker 1: have companies that are some of the biggest, wealthiest companies
Speaker 1: in the country. These people know what is taking place
Speaker 1: on their platform because they're constantly data mining and they
Speaker 1: are constantly surveying, so no people realize you can no
Speaker 1: longer let them hide behind section to thirty. They have
Speaker 1: to be held to account and that is an area
Speaker 1: where we have bipartisan agreement. You mentioned Getter Parlor. There
Speaker 1: are some of these conservative or really just free speech
Speaker 1: dedicated social media platforms that are finally getting some real
Speaker 1: attention usership, and we've been talking about them here on
Speaker 1: the program. Are there any measures you think have to
Speaker 1: be taken from a legislative perspective to make sure that
Speaker 1: there aren't anti competitive practices, say collusion between some of
Speaker 1: the big tech companies. We know that Parlor, for example,
Speaker 1: was kicked off of Amazon Web servers out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: and that certainly was a huge benefit to Twitter, which
Speaker 1: was Parlor's primary competitors. So is there any legislation about
Speaker 1: anti competitive practices that you foresee? Is that a concern? Yes,
Speaker 1: those anti competitive practices are a tremendous concern to us,
Speaker 1: and yes, looking at this is something that we are doing.
Speaker 1: The Open App Market Bill is a good example of
Speaker 1: something that will help to make the app market marketplace
Speaker 1: more competitive because what you would do is allow these
Speaker 1: apps to work with somebody other than Apple. Right now,
Speaker 1: Apple kind of has the stranglehold on that. What innovators want,
Speaker 1: they want choice and options, and they don't want to
Speaker 1: have to give thirty percent of their profits over to
Speaker 1: Apple just to be in the app store. So there
Speaker 1: are different components that will make basically antitrust legislation that
Speaker 1: we will be bringing forward. Many of our bills, like
Speaker 1: my App market Bill, are written, they're filed, and we're
Speaker 1: going to be pushing to pass those, get them signed
Speaker 1: into law. Not sure we'll get them done this year,
Speaker 1: but I have no doubt that in twenty three we
Speaker 1: will get them done. Senator blackburn always appreciate you make
Speaker 1: the time, Thanks for being with us. Thank you. That's
Speaker 1: all the time we have for this special edition of
Speaker 1: Hold the Line. I'd like to thank my guest Jason
Speaker 1: Miller and Senator Marsha Blackburne for sheridoner expertise. Have a
Speaker 1: great night. As always, Shield's high