Best of the Program with Peter Schweizer | 10/3/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Hey, welcome to the podcast.

It's what day is it?

Please tell me it's Thursday.

Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday.

Oh, I hate that answer.

It is Wednesday's podcast.

There's a lot to talk about.

In fact,

we're going to go back to basics today.

A little vocabulary test.

A little vocabulary test.

Yeah, it's Wednesday.

Time for the vocabulary test.

Do you know the difference between a victim and an accuser?

They're not the same thing?

They're not.

Huh.

They are not.

And the media doesn't understand that, and they don't understand the word mocking

and relaying evidence.

I'm going to go on and let them say they do understand both of those things, but they're doing it that way anyway.

Well, the American people have to have a brush up on that, and so we'll tell you that.

And it's really, I think, really important.

Also, we're going to throw in social justice.

Yeah.

Social justice.

Something we should learn about.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like we've learned those lessons yet.

Also, Peter Schweitzer's on.

he's got a new documentary out.

You remember him?

You did the book Clinton Cash, among many other great ones.

But he's got a documentary out about what Google is doing, manipulating search results.

And Peter's not a guy who's just like making claims.

Like, he is backing us up with data.

Yeah, he's got a guy from Harvard University, you know, big egghead that actually is a Clinton supporter and was all for Clinton.

He did a lot of this research, and as he was doing the research and speaking out about it, guess who who got kicked off of Google?

That guy.

So it's something that you really need to pay attention to

because

there's some really frightening things happening.

We'll find out about it in today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glen Beck program.

It's Wednesday, October 3rd.

Glenn, back.

All right, I wanted to start with something.

This is very, very complex.

I got up this morning

and

I've been doing a whole bunch of research on the show.

The last thing I got to was the Donald Trump thing.

I was on our affiliate in Tulsa, and I was asked, what about Donald Trump?

And I should have just said, I don't know, I haven't seen it yet.

but I had read about it and I'm glad I didn't comment on it all I said was I'm not gonna comment on it because it's just

it's ridiculous to focus everything on Donald Trump however

it does deserve comment

the media has said

Did you hear Donald Trump mocking

the victim?

I'm going to get into that in a second.

No, I hadn't.

But in Clay, in case you have only read about it or you've only seen the headlines, I would like to play the audio.

Here is Donald Trump, according to the press, mocking the victim.

Listen.

I had one beer.

Well, do you think it was?

Nope, it was one beer.

Oh, good.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

What neighborhood was it in?

I don't know.

Where's the house?

I don't know.

Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?

I don't know.

But I had one beer.

That's the only thing I remember.

All right.

So this is Donald Trump mocking?

No.

This is Donald Trump.

stating the facts in the Kavanaugh case, period.

Facts that

MSNBC and everybody else don't seem to care.

Well, they've moved on.

I don't know if you've known this.

They've moved on now to

other things.

The lies.

The lies that he told.

Okay, well, let's talk about lies, shall we?

This is a letter to Grassley's office.

The names have been taken out.

I, so-and-so, am a current resident of California.

I first met Christine Blasey, now Christine Blasey Ford, in 1989, 1990 in California.

from 90 to 91 I was just friends with Ford from approximately 92 to 98 I was in a relationship so from 1989 to 1998 nine years this person knew and was very very close to her I found her truthful and maintained no animus toward her

During our time dating, Dr.

Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct.

She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh.

During some of the time we were dating, Dr.

Ford lived with Monica I.

McClain, who understood, who I understood to be her lifelong best friend.

During that time, it was my understanding that McClain was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

I witnessed Dr.

Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.

Dr.

Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs work, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.

Dr.

Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology.

Now, this is interesting because I do remember while she was under oath a very strange line of questioning that went a little something like this.

Have you ever had discussions with anyone beside your attorneys on how to take a polygraph?

Never.

Never.

And I don't just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips or anything like that.

No, I was

scared of the test itself.

She was scared of it.

I was comfortable that I could tell the information and

the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal.

I didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

Stressful.

Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

Never.

Never.

Maybe the FBI, I demand an FBI investigation on Monica L.

McLean,

who is a lifetime friend of Dr.

Ford.

Because

there is, now I want to use this word carefully, an accuser.

We have to define that here in a second.

An accuser saying

that Dr.

Ford and Monica McClain,

Monica was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

I witnessed Dr.

Ford help McClain prepare for a potential polygraph exam.

Dr.

Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs work, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.

Let me play this audio again of what she said under oath.

Have you ever had discussions with anyone

besides your attorneys

on how to take a polygraph?

Never.

Never.

And I don't just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips or anything like that.

No, I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that

I could tell the information and

the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal.

I didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

Never.

Never.

Never.

Well, we know somebody's lying here.

We know, we know

someone is lying, right?

Don't we, Stu?

Because we have somebody.

We have somebody who has accused her

of teaching someone else about a polygraph.

Well, she's innocent until proven accused.

I think that's important that we keep that standard.

She is innocent.

Now she's proved accused.

She is accused.

She's guilty.

So if we're going to use the same standard that the left is applying, she is a liar.

She has perjured herself.

Certainly shouldn't be a professor anymore.

She should not be a professor.

She shouldn't even be allowed to work at a fast food restaurant.

I don't think so.

How can you possibly believe a liar on anything she says?

You want this standard?

Because this is the standard that's coming.

This is the standard that we're now running to embrace.

This is the standard standard that our children.

This is the standard that we ran from.

This is why we're America.

Because in every other country, this was a new idea.

You cannot come into my house and just take me.

You can't just throw me in jail.

You have to have an accuser.

I have to know what the charges are.

I have a right to defend myself.

I have a right to know who my accuser is and address my accuser.

I have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is what America was founded on.

This is a uniquely American idea.

This was the genius of our founders.

You want to flush it away?

Go ahead, but I will not be part of it.

This

is the American idea.

Now listen.

It is so imperative that you understand

what this is.

If you do not understand what you're fighting, do you think we could have won World War II?

without naming the Nazis.

Do you think we will ever win this war on terror without naming what it is about?

What is driving people to the terror?

The Islamist ideas, not Muslim ideas, Islamist ideas, that Sharia law is the prevailing law, and if you're not under Sharia law, you're an infidel, which means I can kill you, I can rape you, I can turn you into a slave.

That is what the war on terror is all about.

And we will never win it unless we name our enemy.

We would have never won World War II if we were fighting the Germans.

We were not fighting the Germans.

We were fighting the Nazis.

We would not have won

in the Civil War had we been fighting the South.

We were fighting people who didn't believe in the Constitution.

We were fighting for the freedom of all men.

That's why we won.

And by the way, if you don't think that's true, we lost every single battle up until the point

that Abraham Lincoln said, this is about slavery.

Look it up.

We wouldn't have won the American Revolution if it wasn't against tyranny.

It wasn't against the king.

It was against tyranny.

And it was for certain ideas, like the idea

that you are innocent until proven guilty.

We are fighting postmodernism.

And until the American people understand what postmodernism is, you will lose.

You will lose every battle because you will only grow frustrated and angry, which will play directly into what they want to happen.

They want us at each other's throats.

They want us to be irrational.

They want us to be angry.

They want us just to start swinging in blind rage.

That's their plan.

And until you understand what they're doing,

until you understand

that this isn't really about Ford.

This isn't about the charges.

This isn't about anything.

This is all about the patriarchy.

This is all about

white men have put together, in this case, a rape culture, and they have kept people down.

And it doesn't matter if he really did it, because other white men have.

It doesn't matter if she was really a victim, because other women have been victims.

This is about collective justice.

Currently entitled Social Justice.

But make no mistake, this is collective justice.

And collective justice.

to put it into the terms that a Christian will understand, is anti-Christ.

Collective salvation is anti-Christ.

Collective justice is anti-Christ.

Individual salvation, individual justice,

that is Christian.

You cannot balance the scales by convicting someone who is not guilty because someone who looked like them

has done it anyway.

I don't think America understands.

And I think you feel it.

I think you feel it.

I don't know if your neighbors do, but I think you feel it.

We are extraordinarily close to the edge of the abyss.

And I am doing what I promised I would do.

I promised when it came when it came to that time and I asked you to do the same,

I would stand and say don't go there.

Stop where you are.

Turn around.

I know that's where the crowd is going.

Turn around.

Stop.

Safety is this direction.

I have

not known

how to explain it to you.

It has only been my gut.

But I know what it is.

And I've been explaining it on TV and I've explained it on radio.

On Thursday, we're going to go into it on depth.

That's tomorrow.

It is in the book.

Read it at the library.

I don't care if you buy it.

Read it at the library.

It is not a surrender.

It is a desperate plea.

Please understand

what's happening to us.

There is a way to win.

But we started this hour with Donald Trump.

You'll notice they say he mocked.

He didn't mock.

He stated facts.

People are not going to want to hear the facts.

That's okay.

State them.

State the facts calmly, rationally, and relentlessly.

The only thing that matters is reason

and facts.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Let me go to Al in Texas.

Hello, Al.

Al, are you there?

Yes, good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, I can.

How are you, sir?

Fine.

You?

Good, good.

What's up?

Listen, Glenn.

President Trump did not

mock Professor Ford.

Yep.

He merely attacked her testimony.

And after all of us have been sifting out the inconsistencies in her testimony, he merely voiced what we're all now thinking but don't don't want to express because we don't want to seem insensitive to a woman that was sexually assaulted.

Al, I have to tell you, I don't even think he attacked her testimony.

He just stated the facts.

That's all he did.

He stated the facts.

Now, that might look like an attack to some, but it ain't.

Al, do you want a copy of the book or the audio book?

I'm going to make one out while we're talking here.

I more like hard copy books.

Hard copy, okay, you got it.

Is this a new thing now?

We're just giving books away to everyone who actually gets on the air?

Yeah, if you get on the air, it's rare.

It's rare.

We don't take a lot of coffee.

I figure I've penciled in five books for the rest of the year.

To Al.

Make it to you, Al?

Yes, please.

All right, hang on.

Can you make it out to my worst enemy?

Al, hang on.

We're going to get you the book.

So

put him on hold, and we'll get his address.

He did not mock.

No, he said.

He didn't mock.

All he did.

Play the audio real quick as we go into the bottom of the hour.

This is Donald Trump yesterday.

Mocking or just stating the facts?

We have time.

I had one beer.

Well, do you think it was?

Nope, it was one beer.

Oh, good.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

I don't know.

That's true.

He's not mocking.

He's not mocking.

This is the best of the the Glen Beck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

All right, Home Title Lock is our sponsor.

Home Title Lock is awesome because they take some real worry off your plate.

Like right now, if I were to ask you,

is someone else borrowing money against your name?

You cannot answer yes or no unless you have Home Title Lock because home title lock prevents this from happening.

In fact, they have a hundred dollar search to see if it's already happened to you.

You get that for free when you sign up for home title lock and they'll protect you on an ongoing basis.

This is not dark web stuff.

This isn't Russia stuff.

This is just a guy who just got out of prison, learned how to do this.

This is really easy to steal your home right from underneath you.

The only people that can protect you, Home Title Lock.

Do what I did.

Do what Glenn has done.

Go to home titlelock.com for pennies a day.

Home Title Lock puts a barrier around your title and mortgage.

Really important.

Get the search for free at home titlelock.com.

It's home title lock.com.

We are entering a new time and everything has everything's being redesigned right now and people aren't really talking about the issues.

People aren't really talking about big fundamental things that are changing.

For instance,

America was based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nobody's talking about pursuit of happiness right now.

Pursuit of happiness is defined by our founders as ownership that you could own.

You could forge your own way in life.

And ownership is a big part of capitalism and a big part of America.

However, ownership is quickly going away.

When you buy a book on Kindle, do you own the book?

When you buy a movie from iTunes, do you own the movie?

The answer is no.

The end of ownership.

Aaron, and I want to get this right.

Say it for me.

Just ask him how long.

Just tell me how you say his name.

It's Perzanovsky.

Perzanovsky.

Okay.

It was a lot easier than it looks.

We can't pronounce easy words, so that was going to be difficult.

Yeah,

it's got more than one syllable.

There's a lot of consonants there.

How are you doing, Aaron?

I'm doing well.

How are you?

Good.

I'm really fascinated by how we make the turns in our society for the future.

And ownership is a big part of this because in the future, I don't know how many people will even own cars.

I mean, it's just all changing.

But do we really own things when we buy them online?

So I think there's a real concern here that consumers go into transactions when they're buying things, digital goods, especially digital books, movies, music.

They go into those transactions, assuming they work the same way as they do in the world of tangible goods.

Where if you buy a book, you can give it away to a friend, you can lend it to someone, you can leave it in your will in the future and

leave your book collection to your loved ones.

And the rules that control these digital transactions when you buy something on your Kindle or from iTunes are very different from the rules that we expect in the physical world.

And consumers don't really understand that distinction.

And I think that causes a real disconnect between what we all expect to happen and what happens in fact.

So, to give you a quick example, just

a couple of weeks ago,

a consumer, a customer of the Apple iTunes movie store, found that three movies that he had purchased

had been deleted from his account.

They were no longer accessible.

And I think that shocked a lot of people.

Those of us that have been following these issues closely for years would remember 10 years ago when Amazon remotely deleted books off of people's Kindles,

including,

ironically, George Orwell's 1984.

So these issues have been happening for a long time, but I think people are now starting to really sit up and take notice of them.

Okay, so I remember, because this,

it's easier for me to read everything on Kindle,

but I, and I have a large collection in my library of hardcover books.

And I read so much.

I read it all on Kindle, but I have recently really been concerned, not just because I don't actually own it and I can't have it in my library and I can't pass it on, but also because you watch things like it happening in China.

If you're in China, I mean, at first they wouldn't sell the book, but if they did sell the book, the government can just deem that that book is, you don't need to burn books.

You could just overnight just take all of that, every copy of that book out out of circulation if it's only digital.

That's really disturbing to me.

I think it's a real concern.

It's a concern

from the perspective of censorship, as you've just described it.

It's also a real concern from the perspective of preservation and sort of archiving our cultural history.

If these books are

stored on these centralized servers in only the hands of, you know, the the two or three companies

that dominate these markets, then there's a real risk that

we aren't going to be able to ensure kind of the widespread distribution of copies that will allow us to

archive and preserve these works.

And Aaron, with the movie, it wasn't because they found it objectionable or anything else.

It's because that particular provider, they lost the rights to that movie, right?

And so they

had to pull it from people's libraries because their rights had expired.

So there are a number of ways that this can happen.

This most recent example, I don't know that the facts are totally clear on exactly what went on.

So one way this can happen is that, as you described,

the deal between the digital retailer, Apple or Amazon, and the copyright holder expires.

They no longer have the rights to sell that product.

It can also happen when a record label or a movie studio decides that they want to put out the new updated remastered director's cut edition of a movie.

And when they do that, they pull the old version to help

new.

Oh my gosh.

So they almost force you to, I mean, because they've always done this where, you know, it's the masterpiece collection and it's, you know, additional footage and, you know, fully restored, but you still had the old copy.

now that's right you can't you I mean even I mean think of this even just for comparison you can't if they change something in a movie imagine when remember when George Lucas changed Star Wars well I want to see what it was like when it originally came out you wouldn't be able to do that would you unless the movie company decided to allow you to do that

That's right.

I mean, and the problem in this most recent case, in part, was that the consumer didn't have a local copy stored on their computer or or their device.

And this is just a practical tip for people.

You should always try to store as much as you can locally.

Now, these services are often trying to encourage consumers to rely on their own,

on the company's own sort of cloud storage solution.

And sometimes

with the Apple TV, for example, the Apple TV doesn't allow you to permanently download a copy of a movie.

You have to access it through

Apple's servers.

Exactly.

So I think that makes a big difference in your relationship with those guys.

If I downloaded something on Kindle, could I download it to another cloud and still be able to read it on Kindle?

So

the Kindle allows you to store those files locally on your own device.

But because the Kindle is tethered through software and network connections to Amazon, Amazon has the ability, as they showed 10 years ago,

to remove those files from unbelievable.

Yeah, you talked about

real quick.

Apple has the same sort of control.

We saw this several years ago, too, in a very different way.

I'm sure

some of your listeners may remember when they woke up and found a U2 album on their iPhone.

Oh, yeah.

They put it the other way.

They forced everybody to have it.

Exactly.

That's bizarre.

You write about this a little bit, and it's an interesting change in the way we think about commerce.

There is, in the past, you had a transaction where you'd go into a store and you'd buy something.

With these digital purchases that we're making from iTunes or Amazon, we're actually entering an ongoing relationship with them.

It's sort of an open-ended thing where they're constantly knowing what you do with that product, and you have that ongoing relationship where they can cancel that at any time without your knowledge.

Can you talk a little bit about the change there?

Because that's a real change that I don't think people have considered.

Aaron, you're right.

The switch to the digital platform offers convenience, but also makes consumer access more contingent.

Unlike a purchase at a broke bookstore, a digital media transaction is continuous, linking buyer and seller and giving the seller a post-transaction power impossible in physical markets.

Why is that important?

So I think this is important for

a number of reasons.

It leads to these scenarios that we were talking about earlier where the seller of the good has the ability not only to sort of reclaim or recall the good, but they also have some ability to control how and when and under what circumstances you make use of that product after the sale.

That's just not something that you could do in the tangible world, right?

Your local bookstore, put aside the publisher, your local bookstore can't tell you what country you're allowed to read a book in.

They can't tell you

how many times you get to read it.

They can't tell you who you get to lend that book to.

And they certainly can't keep records of all of those interactions.

And the digital world allows for

that form of control.

And importantly, it's not limited just to digital media.

We have all these smart devices in our homes, on our bodies.

You know, we've got our voice assistants and our fitness trackers and, you know, even our home appliances and cars.

They all have software.

They all have network connections.

And all of these sort of problems that I've been describing are going to play out in that space as well, where device makers are not only going to be able to track your behavior, but they're also going to be able to limit the ways in which you can use the products that you think you have purchased.

So you own.

So let me interrupt here and just ask you this.

I see when I go to iTunes, I see a movie I want to watch.

It says rent or own.

I'm not owning it.

I'm just renting it in a different way.

Isn't this false advertising?

So I think there's a really good case to be made here that companies like Amazon and Apple that use language like own and buy, words that have real meaning for people in their everyday lives, are misstating the nature of those transactions.

So

my co-author, Chris Hofnagel, and I wrote a paper a few years ago, a couple of years ago now, called What We Buy When We Buy Now,

that did a survey of about 1,500 consumers to figure out what people think this language means.

And it turns out that a significant percentage of consumers incorrectly believe

that they do have true ownership rights, that they get to keep these goods, that they can lend them, that they can give them away.

And we think that there is an opportunity here to correct this misinformation in the marketplace.

But think about the companies that we're talking about.

Apple and Amazon are two of the biggest corporations the world has ever seen.

And getting them to

convincing them to not communicate in a more clear and fair way is a real challenge.

Class action lawsuit?

So I think there is a possibility for class action litigation here.

There are a bunch of

legal and practical hurdles to making that happen.

I think it's something worth pursuing.

I think the Federal Trade Commission has a role to play here.

This is squarely

within their area of expertise and obligation to police the market to make sure that consumers have accurate information.

Aaron.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

The way the market works depends on consumers being informed.

People can't make rational choices.

People can't decide where to spend their money if they're being misled about the products that they're getting.

So, I think it's crucial for the functioning of the market to have that information be correct.

Have you done any look into

what a society without real ownership, I mean, we're down to renting clothes and everything else, and that's only going to get stronger as we move forward.

Have you looked into what that means for a capitalist society and for America in particular that has always been about ownership?

So my biggest concern here is

the way this changes kind of our conception of ourselves and the way we think about ourselves as individuals in a society.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

One of my favorite guys because he is, he does his own homework.

He rolls up his sleeves.

He looks and he tells the truth as he finds it.

Peter Schweitzer is here.

He's the president of Government Accountability Institute and a producer of a new documentary that's out called The Creepy Line.

And that is exactly the right name for it.

It is.

And it actually, the creepy line comes from a speech that Eric Smith, Schmidt, the CEO of Google gave.

It was an interview, in fact, where he was asked, how do you make these ethical judgments about how far you're going to go?

And the interviewer actually asks Schmidt, are you going to implant things in our brain?

And Eric Schmidt's response was, well, we like to go right up to the creepy line, but not cross it.

And he said, we're not going to implant anything in your brain, at least not yet.

Those are actually Eric Schmidt's word.

And

he's, I find him incredibly frank.

Yes.

He just, he says it like it is.

Yes.

I've interviewed him a couple of times and it is fascinating.

Yes.

Because he's just telling you.

He doesn't sugarcoat it.

And I think it's his background as an engineer.

And he's sort of very direct.

I mean, one of the other things we quote him when the film is saying is that Google has and takes very seriously its responsibility to change the values of American people.

You know, Google's mantra has always been: they are more than just a company to make money.

They have a certain ethos, a certain worldview.

And part of the reason that they structured the company the way they did, in which the founders always have controlling shares, is that that sense of social mission is part of it.

And Schmidt has been always very direct about saying it.

Yes, part of our mission as a company has been to try to shape and change the values of the United States.

And that's sort of one of the premises of this film: that it's not just about privacy.

It's not that they're taking all this information.

Glenn, they're using that information against us to try to nudge us or to move us into directions that we wouldn't ordinarily want to go.

Okay.

So

let's can you tie this all to Kavanaugh and what we've seen with the Kavanaugh case and how,

for instance, you know, there's, there's, um, uh,

there is this overwhelming

understanding from half the country that he is absolutely guilty and she is a victim.

Right.

And there's a lot of information on the other side, in fact, more information on the other side, but you're not really seeing that.

Right.

Yeah, it's very hard because this is happening in real time right now to sort of monitor what Google is doing.

But we can look at the past.

In fact, one of the things we feature in the film is a study done by Robert Epstein.

Epstein's a very interesting guy.

He's a Harvard PhD in psychology, studied under B.

F.

Skinner, was a former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine.

And by the way, and this is very relevant, was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2016.

Well, one of the things he did in the 2016 election was he had 2,000 people around the country doing Google searches, and they monitored the results that people were getting.

This is a very, you know, clear academic study, and this research was peer-reviewed, as his other work was.

And what came back was that Google was systematically skewing search results in favor of Hillary Clinton.

They were, in other words, they were suppressing negative stories about Hillary and the algorithm and they were pushing them in favor of Donald Trump.

And Epstein's point was, I actually supported Hillary Clinton, thought she was more qualified, but the bottom line is a company should not be doing this.

And it's secret.

You don't know that it's going on.

Nobody's monitoring the results they're getting.

They're assuming the results and the list that they're getting is representative of some objective standard.

Google is a verb now.

It's not a noun.

It's a verb.

I don't know.

Google it.

Yes.

Well, if you Google it and the algorithm is giving you the answer that is skewed.

Right.

That's like going to a dictionary that will always change the definitions of things as it applies to whatever's happening in the world.

Yes.

That's real a problem.

No, you're exactly right.

And so in the the context of Kavanaugh, I mean, I don't know exactly because it's occurring in real time, but the bottom line is there is a history here of Google doing this.

It was leaked a couple of weeks ago.

Tucker Carlson talked about it on Fox, about these internal emails where you actually had Google engineers saying, hey, you know what?

We don't like.

you know, Trump's policy on immigration, so we want to sort of suppress certain stories.

This is a thing, and Google does it.

And here's

the point that we try to make, Glenn, in this film and in general.

The whole conversation that Google wants to have is about fake news and this debate about fake news.

Here's the bottom line.

Fake news is competitive.

If you and I are having a disagreement about something, I put up my fake news story and you say, oh yeah, I'm going to put up my fake news story.

The point is, it's out in the open.

You have combat.

And by the way, fake news doesn't really convince anybody.

You know, if you like Hillary Clinton, that fake news ad that that the Russians ran of Jesus and Hillary arm wrestling is probably not going to convince you to vote a different way.

That wasn't a real arm wrestling competition.

But, you know,

the point is, is that that's not going to convince anybody because of confirmation bias.

You know, people tend to look for information they want.

What Google's doing is different because we don't know what we don't know.

The question that we should be asking people, Google and Facebook, is why will you not make make your algorithm transparent?

Right.

I've never believed in, you know, those dystopian movies.

I've always made fun of them and said, yo,

this is crazy.

You know, the corporation's out to get you.

Because of their algorithms, because they are so all-encompassing, that is the world we're headed towards.

What do they tell you when they say

algorithms?

Oh, no, we have to keep that top secret because.

Yeah, what they argue is it's for reasons of uh you know state secret.

Um, and and you know that they need to protect their trade secrets, they need to be uh you know making sure that nobody gets access to it.

There's some truth to that, but there are a lot of things that they could do to demonstrate um that they're offering a fair product and service to people.

And here's the thing, Glenn: they have lied about this before.

You know, 10 years ago or so, you had other companies like TripAdvisor and Yelp who were saying that Google was artificially suppressing their rankings in Google in favor of Google-owned companies, which, okay, you know, Google has the right to do that.

But here's the thing.

Google flat-out lied and said, absolutely not.

We don't do that.

Our algorithm is pure.

It's true.

The best results

are organically at the top.

Well, here's the problem.

The Federal Trade Commission, the European Union, professors at Harvard University looked at this and said, BS, you are fiddling with the algorithm.

You are screwing these other competitors and you're lying.

So the point is when Google says you can trust the algorithm, you can trust us, they've lied before and they're lying now.

And I think the only question that remains really is how are we going to deal with this?

You know, there's an old story that Henry Kissinger said when he's on the National Security Council, you give a president three choices, do nothing.

take my solution, or thermonuclear war.

Those are your three choices.

In this case, it's kind of like that.

We can do nothing.

We can try to deal with some sort of the regulatory issues related with Google, or we can break up these companies.

Those are the three options that we have.

And I think we're really at the point of point number three because this is not a monopoly like Standard Oil, Standard Oil that's going to dominate the oil market.

This is controlling the news flow in the United States.

This is in the end.

This is in the end, Peter,

controlling everything.

Yes.

Google is

the most likely company in the America, in the American world to come up with AI.

Yes.

Whoever gets to AI first controls everything.

There's no way to beat it once you have AI.

Yes.

This company is the most likely in the free world to come up with it.

If we don't have them

contained in some way or another, when they get to AI, we're toast.

Yes.

Yes.

That's exactly right.

And here's the thing.

It's not just Google the company.

A lot of people don't realize this.

I didn't realize this.

If you use Safari on your Apple product, you're actually using the Google algorithm.

And that is Google information.

If you are using Yahoo, you're using Google.

The point being, Firefox is Google.

All these entities are using the Google algorithm.

So even if you say, I am not going to use Google.com,

unless you are making very specific choices for other options.

If you're using any of those others, Google is the one that's dominating it.

And by the way, Google pays Apple $9 billion a year.

Google actually pays Apple to be the algorithm of choice for Safari.

That's how much they value this information and want to dominate this space.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.