Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
🚨#ADLFILES: ELON TO SUE THE ADL
Recorded: Sept. 4, 2023 Duration: 1:54:51Space Recording
Short Summary
Elon Musk has announced plans to sue the Anti-Defamation League for defamation, attributing a 60% decline in X's advertising revenue to their influence on advertisers. This legal action highlights significant tensions between Musk and the ADL, with potential implications for X's financial stability and public discourse on free speech.
Full Transcription
I've sent out all the advice. Can you hear me?
Yeah, that was fast.
No, hold on.
Yeah, I've sent out all the advice relatively quickly.
So feel free, Kaleith.
Speakers that are requesting, that will be good for the topic.
I've sent out all the invites.
We've got a pretty balanced panel today.
And just a heads up like me and Sully probably had our most heated argument today a few hours ago.
Unrelated to spaces, more business stuff, as I realize Sully's incompetence in managing people and being a businessman.
So it'll probably be heated in today's space as well, just a heads up for everyone.
Even though I'm not that knowledgeable on the topic, I'm here to kind of babysit Sully.
You're not knowledgeable on any topic.
All right, let me get more speakers.
All right, guys, so it's going to be a heated topic.
It's going to be an interesting topic.
Fidji was up, bro.
Kalisi, how are you?
Nathaniel, good to have you.
Nathaniel, I think it's the first time speaking on our space, is it?
Yes, it is. I'm happy to be here.
Pleasure is ours.
Thank you for the end of all.
And Daniel, good to have you as well.
Hi, Mario.
Thank you for having me.
Pleasure is ours.
So yeah, I think we could, when do we?
Oh, we wait for the thousand mark to start kicking off the space.
Maybe still you're going to tell us about yesterday's space.
Yeah, yesterday's space was hype.
It was amazing.
Oh, I did that mojib accident.
That space was fire.
We had the first segment, which was the majority of the...
Do you want to mute your mic?
I know you've not done spaces in a while.
Is it echoing?
Oh, cool.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, so...
It was amazing because the first one and a half hours we talked about how to increase engagement on X.
What are the different aspects of the algorithm?
How you can use it to boost your post?
How you can get more ad payment?
It was fire.
So much knowledge, so much information, so much data.
And then after that, towards the end, the last segment, we did it about the ADL.
So, but then since then, and obviously I'm going to give everybody an overview, but since then,
There's been a huge amount of indigagement and interaction about the ADL today and therefore we decided to do it again and run it back and do it.
Yeah, and I'll read out a few of the comments, Elon's comments and tweets on the matter.
Just going to give an idea of why we've actually decided to cover it because it seems to be having a pretty significant impact on X, possibly Elon on a personal level.
But my question would be, and that kind of goes to the co-hosts, you know, I'll ask maybe the speakers I know, the regular speakers, so Suli, Kilesi and Fiji, is that when did this become so polarizing? When did the ADL become a political, you know, some people consider it left-leaning and become so heated?
And just to give an idea for the audience, just to give you an idea, I've been a lot of people told me not to cover this.
Because everyone was trying to find a reason to attack me.
And Sully is one of those people.
Like Mario, don't cover this.
You don't want to cover this.
So maybe Sully, give us an idea of what makes it so polarizing.
I love Kaleisi and Fidji's as well.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll give it.
I'll explain why it's polarizing.
Then I'll pass it over to Kalees who knows a bit more depth about the subject.
But basically...
Unfortunately, why it makes a polarizing and why I thought it wasn't a great idea for you to cover it because people will try and cancel.
Obviously, I'm not bothered.
I don't care.
I'll talk about anything.
It's all good.
I am bothered about cancellation.
I'll smash these guys.
But the concern is that what happens when you're talking about this subject immediately, like as soon as you talk about the ADL,
immediately people start calling you anti-Semitic and then try and cancel you,
which is kind of a ridiculous argument to censor you, to stop you from speaking about it.
And why it's a problem that argument is,
there's a number of people from the Jewish community who we've had on our spaces
who also were cancelled by the ADL.
One example was Laura Luma, who was targeted by the ADL.
She is from a Jewish heritage background and religion.
And similarly, there was also Ben, who's an ex-federal prosecutor who's been on our space before, who also was cancelled by the ADL.
Both of them are Zionists.
but despite that being the case
but despite them being Zionist
despite the fact that they're from the Jewish community
they have a huge problem
with the way the ADL operate
in terms of the way they try to do censorship
and now Elon has become vocal
over the last few days about that
I'll give a brief overview, if you want, to the people about what's happened the last few days before I...
Actually, I'll pass it over to Kalisa.
Yeah, Kalisi, Phidji will be back shortly.
It needs five minutes just for a personal matter.
I'll be back.
But yeah, Kalisi, I'd love to get your thoughts.
So maybe just going back to what makes it so polarizing and then maybe getting an overview,
so it would be good.
Yeah, I think it is quite polarizing, Mario, because I think this is not just, okay, so if you just see it as one organization called the Anti-Defamation League, which is involved in this kind of board,
board that Elon set up in terms of, you know, the safety and trust board to advise and guide him as to the parameters
that should and should not be allowed with regards to hate speech on the platform.
If you see it in that context and that context only, then you just think, okay, this is an organisation,
one of maybe seven that are on that board who are now trying to dictate to Elon and that shouldn't
happen.
To that degree, it's fine.
Right.
But because it's the ADL, as Suleiman said, there's a lot more connotations that people do draw from it because of what ADL stands for.
And so therefore, the conversation becomes wider.
I mean, it becomes wider.
There's other sentiments involved and that's what makes it quite polarizing, let's say.
Yeah, I'll tell you my stance from my very limited knowledge just for the audience to know.
Like my stance when I look at this from the outside, and probably my stance could change or could remain the same after this space.
And this is like the old days we're in a space, you know, I'm here kind of moderating but still educating myself.
My stance is that, and surely disagrees on the first point, I have no idea why, but what they stand for, what the, and I put it in my tweet, what the ADL stands for, it's very, you know, I'm going to use the word honorable, very ethical, like they stand for something that I think we all tend to agree with.
Like if you, anti-deformation, no, anti-racism, anti-racism, anti-execism.
Let me go back and read out the terminology.
Anyone that's a neo-Nazi group, any black supremacist group,
any anti-Semitic groups, anti-Muslim groups, anti-Muslim groups,
anti-LGBQ groups.
So what they stand for makes a lot of sense.
Defending civil rights, promoting diversity,
providing support to victims of hate crimes.
So all of it sounds great.
And even Tucker Carlson is very critical of the ADL,
said that they've done some great things over the years
and they've actually generally been pretty good.
But what happens, and again, this is my limited knowledge,
and I could change my opinion,
but when power centralizes, which we've seen,
and Tucker touches on the head of the ADL right now,
and he was critical of him.
So when there's centralization of censorship,
centralization of power, and eventually power corrupts.
So whoever is leading the ADL could be,
one person could be a group of people,
in my opinion, I'm starting to abuse their powers,
and starting to go past the values that they initially stood for.
that's my stance
Sully I think
disagree Sully is a lot more critical
of them
but we'll see
and we'll go to the panel
in a bit maybe Sully
give us a quick overview
and I'll read a few of Elon's tweets
as well
and then by then we can start
opening it up for the
for the panel
Fidji's back as well
Yeah yeah
I'll pass it over to Lucas
in terms of
he did articulate quite well
in a previous space
about the inception
of the ADL
and I think that's an important
point to know
and maybe it isn't as
honorable as you may think
In terms of the overview, what's happened in the last few days is we had a number of people on social media who were posting against the ADL in terms of their attack on...
on free speech and the targeted or targeted implementation of censorship.
And so then the hashtag ban the ADL started trending.
I know Keith's posts went viral.
There was a number of posts that went viral.
And then Elon Musk posted and he said,
And remember, there are people who've been talking about the ADL for a while.
I know Kalees has been talking for a while.
I know Chiefs doing a number of threads about ADL.
I know there was one of Chief's friends who did an expose,
a video expose about how they basically control social media.
But what happened recently was Elon Musk came out
and he initially said that the ADL are suffocating.
suffocating Twitter and X.
And he then made a second post about that as well,
talking about how the ADL are trying to basically stifle free speech.
And then the hashtag ban the ADL start doing really well for a day or two.
There was a lot of posts about it.
There was a lot of spaces about it.
And then today what happened was he almost ramped it up a bit.
And he did again a number of posts talking about how the ADL have been one of the main factors behind why there's been almost a 60% loss in revenue.
How the ADL want to ban people on the most minor of infractions, the minor of reasons.
And so these are the issues that we all have.
And now Elon has just posted again.
Let me just read it live.
It says to clear our platform's name on the matter of anti-Semitism,
it looks like we have no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League or the irony.
So it looks like Elon is starting and has confirmed that there is going to be litigation,
defamation litigation against the anti-
So I'm going to change the title of the space breaking Elon to sue ADL?
Yeah, I mean, that's what he posted.
I mean, he did post it before an indicator, but he just...
Now, he indicated, but now he's actually doing it, which is a...
I think he's escalating the matter.
It just shows that they...
I think they've been battling with the ADL for a while,
now it's just coming to light.
They just reached the...
Yeah, and remember Linda did post and say,
look, I had a meeting...
No, no, actually was the guy from the ADL who said, oh, Linda came to us and she had a meeting.
And, you know, we'll take, I mean, if she doesn't do what we say, then obviously we're going to be vocal about.
If she does what we say, then obviously we'll be okay with it.
And then Elon posted a day later.
So there is a lot going on.
It looks like Elon's had enough.
And yeah, this is breaking news.
Elon just confirmed he is going to be suing.
the anti-deformation league for defamation.
Yeah, and I'll read out his tweets in a bit,
just so I don't want us to be hugging the mics the entire time.
I've put out, there's a tweet that I did
that Sully and Ryan from the team helped out in writing,
and it kind of sums it all up,
includes a few of Elon's quotes,
Tucker's quote on this as well,
and it adds my thoughts, which I mentioned earlier,
that I think the organization's values are noble,
but they're just not implementing the values as they claim they are,
at least from what we're seeing.
And so summarizes everything, but we do now know that Elon is going to sue the ADL.
And we'll see how that develops.
It's a pretty big step.
I'm actually going to research for anyone else to try suing the ADL and how that came out.
But let's go to the panel, man.
I think we've got a pretty good panel.
We've kept it relatively balanced as much as we can.
And we've done so on purpose because if you go to every other, I won't talk about other spaces,
but on X, considering that we're all on this platform and ADL's, you know, targeting X,
and.
I think they're targeting X and unfairly so.
It's become like an echo chamber of people very critical of the ADO.
So even though you might see me trying to keep the space balance,
I am more critical.
So that's my bias there and I'm critical on how they're trying to censor.
But we've tried to get a panel here that's going to be pretty balanced
and try to debate both sides of the argument.
Fiji, appreciate you joining, man.
You've, you know, you've...
You know more than I expected on this.
I would love to get your thoughts and maybe a different take.
What does the ADL stand for?
Why is there such a movement against it?
And now we're seeing them do more than what they say they do.
Instead of censoring for certain values,
they sound a censor for political preferences or potentially personal preferences.
So that's my first question.
In the hopes, and I think I need some foundational information.
I haven't seen ADL posts or other statements.
Am I missing something where they're calling Elon anti-Semites publicly
and that X is anti-Semitic publicly?
Am I missing something?
I think Elon stated it.
I don't know if they've made it public.
I'm going to check it out and let you know.
But that wouldn't be defamation then.
it's not defaming if Elon's saying that in private or in semi-public that they're calling him or the platform anti-Semitic.
In fact, the threshold is so high for defamation for public figures or public-facing corporations that this actually doesn't seem like a good faith suit.
Unless someone can prove otherwise, I just haven't seen it.
Otherwise, this seems like using the courts...
as a weapon of leverage, which I don't think anybody here would agree.
Okay, so the ADL has expressed concerns about Elon's acquisition of Twitter.
In a statement, the ADL said it was, quote, cautiously optimistic about Musk's plan for Twitter,
but that it was, quote, troubled by some of his past comments and actions.
The ADL specifically mentioned Musk's tweet about free speech and his support for Donald Trump.
The ADL said it was concerned that Musk's views of free speech could lead to an increase in hate speech and harassment on Twitter.
The ADL also expressed concern about Musk's history of making offensive and insensitive comments.
In 2018, Musk's tweeted that he was, quote,
considering making Tesla private at $40.20 a share.
This...
Okay, I'll skip that one.
The ADL also said it was, quote, hopeful that Musk would change his ways
and that he would use his ownership of Twitter to promote tolerance and understanding.
However, the ADL also said it would be watching closely to see how Musk's ownership of Twitter unfolds.
And yeah, that's what I found so far just on a quick search on Bard.
So it seems they've made some public comments.
You know, obviously we didn't have, we didn't prep him in advance.
I'll blame silly for this.
But there's been some public comments on this.
John, is there more you can add to that particular point?
Yeah, you know, my question just would be, right, honestly, right, is if the ADO had this, you know, was harboring these doubts about Elon Musk, why are they just saying it now?
And the one thing that I've been, that I'm kind of generally, I think I would generally tend to disagree with most people in this, on your spaces, but I think I'll probably align more with them on this issue, right?
Why is all of a sudden, now that Elon Musk is kind of voicing more and leaning more right,
why is all of a sudden the ADL getting involved, right?
And I think the political jockeying that the ADL consistently gets themselves involved in tends to go against their mission statement, right?
Because they're supposed to be what, the Anti-Defamation League.
And I guess, yeah, maybe you will lobby, you know, the Senate and in Congress in some other aspects.
But they talk about how they have 24 regional offices around the world and the country and things like that.
And it's awfully reminiscent of some other things that I'm not going to say in this space for the simple reason of we're talking about the ADL.
But it's very reminiscent of a group in the 1930s in Europe that I'm not going to say their names.
But it's really reminiscent of, you know, just the kind of way they're talking about how, just to quote them, they talk about,
our regional experts across the country advance our mission in local communities.
I mean, that's this almost...
verbatim what someone else's mission statement was.
So it's just awfully weird that all of a sudden,
now that Elon Musk has been voicing some Republican,
you know, talking points and other things
that all of a sudden the ADL is coming after him.
Yeah, and the team just sent me that the ADL has never lost a case.
Ryan from the team, you guys know Ryan, he comes up on stage a lot.
The ADL has been sued several times.
The most notable lawsuit was in 1999, when the ADL was sued by Sammy Al-Aryan and his family for $10 million.
Al-Aryan was a Palestinian-American professor who was accused of being a terrorist by the ADL.
The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
When there's a settlement, you know, it depends what the settlement is, but generally speaking, it could be perceived as...
Fiji, would you consider a settlement as a win or could be both a win or an loss?
it depends on the type of suit that was filed so i need to know what the the causes of action was
but usually it's a win another one here in 2000 the adels also it's a win a win for who yeah i was gonna say
yeah so if if adl pay sammy as an example you think you think that's still a win for adl
Is that way that phasing?
So settlement is always a balance of cost to optics and impact, depending on the case.
So I'd need to know what the causes of action were, and I'd need to know what point in litigation is settled.
But it depends on the situation.
For example, Elon will not win a definition suit.
If it gets settled, the ADL has won.
Yeah, in 2000 it was, it said the best settled for one.
I don't know.
I don't know if that's accurate.
It depends on the context.
It depends on the amount.
So a lot of times you don't know.
For example, if, for example, let's take this Sammy as an example.
The Sammy lawsuit, let's say it was settled at like 100K, then you'd probably say ADL1.
But if it was settled at 9 million, then obviously Sami's one.
So I don't think there's any information to say that ADL is one or the other way around.
And say when Musk, if Musk was to sue them for like, I don't know, 50 billion.
and they were to pay out a huge number, then it doesn't mean the ADL a loss.
So again, everything depends on the context, the time, the situation, and what the settlement was.
And just to, I just want to point out the serious of this matter.
You know, this is not just a game of optics.
For Elon to be that vocal about it, I'm seeing the amount of tweets.
The team sent me all the tweets he's put out so far, including the one just now.
And there's a lot there.
He's been very, very vocal about it.
And that's someone's got a whole bunch of things to do.
That shows that it is, based on what I'm seeing,
it is having a significant impact on X.
And Elon did say that it's having impact on advertising.
Scott, what did he say?
Elon shared that X's US advertising revenue
is still down 60% primarily due to pressure on advertisers by ADL.
That's what advertisers tell us.
So they almost succeeded in killing X Twitter.
So US advertising today is still down by 60%.
And he says primarily, imagine a company's revenue has been down.
So Elon took over Twitter a year ago.
The company's revenues down by 60% a year later.
And I was talking to a finance guy.
Exx's bond prices do show that the platform is going through a tough time financially.
So I think what the ADL is doing, assuming that what Elon is saying is accurate,
I wouldn't have any reasons to believe it's not.
It is a concerning matter for Twitter.
Not sure if anyone else disagrees.
Nathaniel, where do you stand on this?
Yes, I was just going to briefly add that, in my opinion, just as an overview, the ADL for the entirety of its existence, let's say, has been a corrupt, very draconian, very censorious organization that has never stayed on message in terms of impartiality, and which has effectively run what some might call a protection racket at
at every level of the media and media dissemination that exists in this country and worldwide.
So Elon, in this instance, is so vocal because he is one of the few brave enough and powerful enough
to stand up to people who have literally censored the entire media complex in this country as we know it.
This is the degree of power that these individuals have, even if some perhaps are not aware of it.
And we see the results here.
He's really struggling, and he will continue to struggle
as long as he makes an enemy of these people,
and that's why we need to support him.
Thank you.
Daniel, like, do you think, does anyone,
can anyone give me a bit more clarity on how much power the ADL has
and how, why?
Look, I guess I should tell you guys where I'm coming from here.
Just a bit of breaking news.
Sorry, Daniel, we'll go back right to you, man.
Yeah, so we'll go back right to you.
Another...
Another post by Elon, he says, in our case, interesting, in our case, they could potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company.
So roughly 22 billion.
This is insane.
So you've already given an example of some of the damages that he thinks are going to be.
22 Billy.
Yeah.
I just really quickly, I just want to add something.
It is not true that ADL have never lost a lawsuit.
They have settled many times out of court, therefore they paid out.
And also a judge did fine ADL 10.5 million in a Colorado defamation suit in the year 2000.
And that's just with a quick search.
So the ADL have.
lost
Yeah, so I wouldn't, yeah, I wouldn't say so getting, first I agree with you.
It doesn't mean they didn't lose and like I think my team sending it to me is they didn't
lose in court, but a settlement could be a loss depending on the amount and the optics of it,
but mainly the amount.
But they were fined by a court as well.
Yeah, fine.
Oh, fine by a court.
Is that based on a lawsuit?
So fine by a court or regular?
Yeah, it's defamation.
Okay, okay.
So they did lose.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, cool.
Yeah, cool.
May I quickly add something?
Guys, Lucas,
then we'll go back to Daniel because I know he's speaking.
Go ahead, Lucas.
So they actually in court,
the ADL pays up again for stealing police files and spying on US citizens.
This was in 1994.
They had to pay $175,000 to our legal fees of the plaintiffs.
And see, that's right there, them doing illegal activity, getting police files, you know, illegally from to spy on Arab Americans.
So this is not just an organization that looks out for mean words on the internet.
They have been doing a lot of bad stuff, as Soleiman alluded to, their history is not as honorable as you may think.
And we don't have to get into all that because we're focusing what we could.
But just want to point out that they have been in court and they've, you know, paid off to the side and all that.
It's not what you guys think.
and yeah they're not a good group so just wanted to throw that in there yeah we appreciate that
Lucas look Daniel I did I did interrupt you please go ahead and then we'll come back to a couple of
questions I have everybody that's fine I listen guys I'm I apologize if I'm a little scratchy I'm in
Sydney Australia I've been up working all night on a little project but I'm from Melbourne bro
good good to have another Aussie here yeah great I love it I love when I have another Aussie
stage sorry go ahead Daniel
I'm quite a distance away from this topic, but, you know, as a cursory glance at this, there's a lot of moving parts to start with.
And I'm personally not, you know, for the longest time, I should catch this in.
I have never really been a Elon Musk fanboy, but I've never been really one to,
to hate on him either.
Since he's taken over Twitter,
I've got my issues with him,
but that's not really what I'm here about.
Directly to the notion that he is anti-Semitic,
I don't see that.
Perhaps it's just something that I don't understand enough to comment on.
But with regards to this all coming about...
All of a sudden, I'm not sure if that's quite the case.
From a brief search on this, it looks like this sort of stretches a little way back.
I mean, they took issue with Elon Musk criticizing George Soros.
And, you know, the ADL was quick to label Musk's comments as, you know, potentially emboldening.
emboldening extremists, excuse me, I'm reading from a quote here.
And, you know, they've got an article here from even, where is it, March in
2023, March this year.
When trust and safety was still under Ella Irwin, they were complaining about, you know,
only 28% of their reports were being actioned by Twitter at the time.
Now, for someone...
What do you mean?
Actually, two seconds.
Sorry, Daniel, what do you say?
27% of their reports are being action?
Action isn't acted upon because 27% is pretty high rate.
That's what I was about to say.
Yeah, so I'll read the quote here.
This is directly from ADL's site.
In a tweet from January 29, 23,
when the company's vice president of trust and safety
outlined Twitter's enforcement priorities.
Erwin emphasized that threats or incitement to violence based on an individual or group identities would not be tolerated.
Yet, the ADL Center for Technology and Society has found that tweaks fitting this description remain on the platform long after we reported them.
We being the ADL, obviously, in this quote.
Anti-Semitic tropes also persist.
On average, only 28% of anti-Semitic tweets that ADL reported as a trusted flagger, you know, I would question that descriptor, as a trusted flagger in brackets here, an organizational partner that can report content and get it prioritized.
were removed or sanctioned in some way.
Now, I would, as you say, argue that 28% of actions
from an outfit that is quite obviously aggressive,
they have made a name,
and this is coming from an outsider that knows really shit all about these guys,
and also not a fan boy of mask.
But I'm coming to this with defence here,
because these guys...
They're known for inadequate enforcement, lack of transparency, you know, inconsistency in their policy applications.
And, you know, they just really sound like a militant force.
And if I can go really briefly to the Laura Luma thing, she has been breaking a lot of moving parts just in the last 24 hours.
With regards to the Azov Battalion, which I know is a sort of a different subject altogether.
Before getting to lower rumours, sorry, Daniel.
Okay, go ahead, Sally.
There's a bit of break news, Mario.
Oh, do you want to say?
No, go ahead, bro.
Yeah, so Libs of TikTok posted and obviously Elon responded.
Remember, Libs of TikTok is another person who is from the Jewish community.
So again, just to let people know, this isn't, this is like, and what happened was, she's from the Jewish community.
Right.
And she was also, sorry, the ADL attempted to censor her as well.
So she posted, quote, dear Elon, please consider releasing all communication and providing full transparency on the ADL.
And all other organisations who have pushed to censor certain accounts on Twitter and X.
Sincerely, thousands of users who have been suspended, throttled, silenced and shadowband.
And then Elon responded, quote, great point, a giant data dump would clear the air.
Yeah, I want to go to
I'll let you finish up
and I want you to go to Vivian
and Fiji afterwards
I'll be,
I'm just working with my team
on some of the news as well
to get some more updates
so I'll let you lead with Kilesi
Yeah, cause
Yeah, yeah
So that's basically
Elon saying that he may even
Release
The communication in regards to the ADL, I mean, that will be some interesting things to see in terms of that information. Vivian, let me go to you and then I'll go to Ben after that. Go ahead, Vivian. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Yeah, I think I'm just going to listen.
I'm a little bit shocked at some of the stuff I'm hearing a lot of very strong comments with no actual cogent evidence to back it up.
But very sweeping claims.
We'd love more context on this, Vivian, because I do want to understand the other side.
Like I don't want to be looking at the ADLs.
I'm not a side.
So go ahead.
So go ahead.
Yeah, I'm not a side.
I'm someone who's reading about this and has read about it over the last few hours.
And I'm hearing people make, I mean, I've been writing down the quotes in the comments.
But there's absolutely, you know, you have a lawyer who's speaking there.
I'm a lawyer too with decades of experience.
Before you make these very broad, sweeping allegations about a group,
concentration of power, they target free speech.
Musk said that they're suffocating Twitter,
that the ADL is behind the loss of revenue
of at least $22 billion of revenue
because Elon's made a lot of comments that are not substantiated.
Just keep that in mind, okay?
Just because it comes out of his mouth doesn't make a gospel.
These are pretty serious allegations that people are making.
that they are hang on that they uh they that he uh jonathan greenblatt went to a meeting with linda
and he said uh we came we had this meeting and somebody commented that uh the guy who runs the adel says
if she does what we want great if not we'll have stuff to say and then turned it into this
very sinister sounding kind of mission to shut down free speech.
Someone else said ADL is targeting Twitter and trying to silence debate,
censoring for political purposes.
Someone made the comment that the ADL's conduct is reminiscent of a group in the 1930s in Europe.
Gee, that was subtle.
I'm not going to say who.
But refers to a network of offices.
Should I go on?
I have pages and pages of quotes.
Someone else said that the ADL is corrupt, very draconian,
censorious organization, and it is a protection racket.
That's a quotation.
You've got this recorded.
These are outrageous comments.
Not at all.
And I've not heard one.
substantive piece of evidence to back any of it up.
Well, the ADL buy a lot.
This is a feast.
The way, there'd be a question.
They brag about it.
The ADL brag about getting Trump censored.
It's on their website that they're boycott that they organized with Media Matters.
Trump says a lot of...
...and multiple corporations.
Hang on, come on.
The ADL brags that it got in band off multiple social media platforms.
What are you talking about?
That's their whole modus operandi.
But Trump, I mean, Elon brags about all kinds of things too.
Elon says all kinds of things.
The fact that people...
Oh, so they're lying? Are they lying?
What's their purpose when they organize advertiser boycotts?
What's their purpose when they organize advertiser boycotts?
I don't know. I'm not in their head, but I'll tell you, if you were in a court a law...
They say, they say what it is. You can look at their public statements.
What I'm saying is that's, they can say, I don't know, you're saying it's in a public statement, I don't know.
That doesn't mean anything.
Go and look at their website.
You've come in here on Educated and you're...
You spouting off.
You wrote down what people said.
Yeah, we'll go look at the website.
Keith, Keith, Keith, let's stop.
Let's stop.
Let's stop the personal.
Guys, everyone, can you?
I'm trying, everyone, just please.
I'm trying to have a, Keith, I'm trying to have a discussion,
trying to understand both perspectives.
So if you have someone that's giving you a different view that you disagree with,
I'll avoid personal attacks if you can.
So Vivian, I mean, that wasn't a very personal attack.
I mean, Vivian said people spoutre nonsense.
They said back her about that she spout.
She didn't mention, she didn't mention, yeah, go ahead, Bisi, but she didn't mention anyone specific.
Go ahead, Bisi.
I'll be very brief.
Hello, Mario Suleim.
Vivian, I hear what you.
Hello.
Hello.
Vivian, I'm also Jewish.
I was born in Israel.
I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors, also a lawyer.
I want to just say something.
So I hear what you say and I can appreciate your concerns.
I can tell you my own experience and I'm a very pro-Israel, I'm pro-Jewish people, whatever.
But let me just give you my experience with the ADL.
So several months ago, they blocked me.
They blocked me because I tagged them in a comment to the Auschwitz Museum and the Memorial that I believe it was on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
they said they were disinviting the Russians.
And I said, you know, a commemoration like that transcends politics
because my own grandparents were liberated from all the camps from the Russians.
And I tagged Greenblatt and the ADL, and they blocked me.
And then in any case, a couple days ago, this gentleman who, this Keith Woods there,
who, look, I'm probably not going to agree with his politics, but that's fine because he won't agree with mine.
I sent out a tweet to the...
what the pit cabbage the gentleman who's with the a the a send out a tweet in support of this keith guy
saying that look while i probably disagree with what he's saying i agree with his right to say it and i
don't view criticizing any group whether it's jewish muslim whatever criticizing somebody in a you know
open dialogue i don't view it is anti-semitism and they called me antisemitic and then he blocked me so
I hear what you're saying, but as a Jewish person and someone who believes in free speech, I just don't like that, right?
Now, I can't comment to these other claims about how powerful the ADL are.
I mean, that's not my purview, right?
But again, I believe in my heart of hearts that...
There's a difference between criticizing Israel or criticizing this and that,
and then, you know, between that and saying something,
well, the Jews are destroying the world.
The Jews are doing this.
I have not heard this Keith Wood person say anything like that.
Look at his timeline.
Chief Trump is here.
I've talked with him.
You know, I don't view that criticizing anyone or asking questions is necessarily anti-Semitism.
And I think that by, you know, flexing a muscle or trying to flex a muscle
or trying to silence people who criticize one specific group,
that promotes anti-Semitism. It promotes it. Well, the Jews control the world, right?
Why isn't the ADL trying to silence people who are Islamophobic?
Or why aren't they trying to, look, there's full of hatred towards African-American people on Twitter.
Why aren't they, why isn't the ADL trying to silence those people or people who are against the women's rights,
repeal all these amendments, the women's rights to vote?
And I understand that's not in their charter.
And Fidgital made that point a few days ago.
That's not their mission. I get that. But maybe it should be.
Right? Like, I'm from Israel. I have thick skin. I will engage with anyone, anywhere, at any time.
And I'm just, I don't run and hide under my bed every time somebody says something I don't like or that hurts my feelings, right?
So I think that, and I'll finish with this, my own personal opinion, I can only speak for myself, that, you know, if you really want to combat anti-Semitism, you know,
maybe it should be a little bit more of an even playing field.
And some people got to develop thicker skin.
You know, Khalisi and I, we used to do spaces together.
We disagree completely on politics.
But at the end of the day, we get along.
You know, when the space is done, we DM, we laugh.
And there's nothing wrong with that, right?
And dialogue is dialogue.
Sorry, BZ, what I do want to say is,
what I do want to say is,
It's fine to have an opinion here or disagree with somebody's opinion, but to say that they're talking nonsense when they have evidence of these claims, it's just not going to fly, is it?
At the end of the day, Elon Musk owns this platform.
Back in October 2022, Jonathan Greenblatt, who is the CEO of ADL, said that, and I quote, he laid down the gauntlet about what he expects Elon to do.
So when you read statements like that from the minute that Elon Musk has taken over this platform,
you know, we can read all the statements from Jonathan Greenblat.
We can read the information on the ADL, what ADL they themselves have said, as Keith was saying,
and I agree with Keith, because when you see ADL claiming something, then Vivian, I don't
understand how you can say, well, it doesn't really matter.
They may have claimed it, but it doesn't really matter because you shouldn't be quoting it on this website.
So...
Then what I'd really like to welcome you to share is your opinion, Vivian, of what you think.
You disagree with everybody fine.
But then what is your opinion of what's happening here between Elon and ADL?
Sorry, first of all, I wasn't saying that it's on their website, so it doesn't matter.
What I was saying was...
The fact that they make that comment doesn't make it a fact or nor would it be evidence in court,
or nor does it prove any of the things are being said, just as Elon has made some very outrageous comments in public that have been, you know, demonstrated over time to have been
Whatever, not terribly credible.
I'm not going to put myself up, nor did I come on here to take aside.
I'm not defending anyone, and I'm not against.
What I was reacting to was hearing very strong allegations being made.
I'll go back again to the $22 billion point.
Elon made it, and then it's been repeated here a number of times.
Is that true?
Is ADL responsible for $22 billion of Elon's loss?
is true that they're responsible for that because they've been exercising
censorious anti-free speech behavior.
I hear it repeated.
Anybody have evidence?
But so, so Vivian,
I just want to clarify.
So wait,
so no one says,
so no one says evidence.
I just want to make one more point.
I want to make one more quick point.
Go ahead.
To the gentleman who was speaking earlier
and expressing his sort of,
you know,
credentials or sharing his credentials with us.
you know, for having various opinions.
I'm coming here.
I mean, I've already received some really lovely comments
from some of your listeners, which speak for themselves.
I'm really actually not judging people.
I'm coming here because it's a huge issue
and I wanted to hear what people had to say.
But what I'm more interested in hearing
is actual fact and evidence
and not just repetition of mean-spirited allegations.
People, I've heard things said about a Elon online
and I'm like, really?
Is that substantiated?
You guys have all heard the same kind of stuff.
Is it true?
I don't know.
Pretty strong things being said here.
So the guy, you know, who's Israeli and American and all sorts of fabulous things,
I think we all bring our basket of credibility and credentials to a discussion like this.
It's not a contest.
No, but my credentials are nothing to do with whether or not this or that.
My credentials that I'm a Jewish person.
I'm a supporter of Israel.
I'm a supporter of the Jewish people.
I'm a supporter of free speech.
And for me to be called anti-Semitic, I'm a veteran of the IDF.
My grandparents are all Holocaust survivors.
My father was a judge in the Israeli judiciary.
To call me anti-Semitic simply because I said...
basically that this Keith Woods guy, while I might disagree with him, I absolutely support his right to say whatever.
Yeah.
I mean, that's just, you know, it's a little bit of an extreme in my opinion.
That's all.
Maybe I may I ask you a question because you are a lawyer?
Sure.
Sure.
So, okay, so if the Anti-Defamation League is, first of all, they're promoting this international
Holocaust, remember, alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which expands that to mean virtually
anything offensive.
And if you can look at it at state.gov, it's like even comparing Israel to Nazi Germany
or things that are not anti-Semitic that are opinions, I think anti-Semitism is you hate Jewish
people no matter what.
You hate Stan Lee, even though he's Jewish and he was a comic guy, you hate Gal Godot
because she's Jewish.
You know, if you hate Soros for his actions, that's one thing.
But if the ADL can call you an anti-Semite and then suddenly you lose your job,
your platform from banks, isn't that a problem?
That's defamation if they can't prove it.
And so you want to talk about unsubstantiate, and I'm not trying to attack you.
I'm just saying if the ADL is engaging in defamation, like they can call me a Nazi because I said Israel did this.
And that's too much power.
And what's my recourse as someone with virtually no money compared to an organization that's funded by the millions and donations and even possibly gets federal assistance in some way?
You see what I mean? So that's not fair.
Yeah, look, I mean, if you're describing a situation that actually is real and they're like, yeah, I can't comment out of the blue just, you know, because I'm a lawyer on what I expect a pretty complicated facts.
I don't know if you're describing it.
Can I ask you a question?
Before you do, Vivian, I'll let you answer the other question.
Go ahead, Vivian.
I was going to say, apropos all of those.
What you're saying, if that happened to you, then it sounds awful.
And I can't say much more than that without actually knowing the fact of the case.
I can't.
But I can say this.
I can say this.
I've been accused of all kinds of horrible things personally because I'm Jewish.
And a number of listeners here, and maybe they'll have the courage and integrity to speak up.
have already messaged me on Twitter saying, you know, oh, well, we know what side you're on,
don't we? Oh, a dual citizen. Ergo dual Canadian is rarely citizen. Therefore, she can't be trusted.
Can she? I get those. I get, I get, I, any of the people who wrote those messages, any of the people who wrote those messages have the integrity to speak up now and tell me.
Well, Vivian, I have a question.
If we're talking about conflicts of interest,
is it true you work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube?
No, who are you?
Keith Woods.
Nice to meet.
I think we're going back to the, moving away.
No, it's on our Wikipedia.
It's on a Wikipedia.
Sure, sure.
You can state it.
People can check out on the Wikipedia.
I just want to go back to the specific points.
And there's one point you made earlier.
She didn't really answer.
Yeah, but she jumped off.
That's like, I wanted to keep it on the particular points.
I wonder why.
But let's go back to the.
You know, great guys.
This would be a great conversation.
If you keep on the other thing, I mean.
Yeah.
Fantastic. Go ahead, Fiji. You had your hand up for a while, Fiji. Sully, you'll jump in?
I said, fantastic. Just great to foment nonsense instead of having a logic. And please mute your mic, Nathaniel.
I want to start by making a couple of quick statements. One, you do not have free speech on this platform. Period.
Until Section 230 is changed, this is not a public forum. You do not have the right to free speech. Second of all,
a private or even semi-publicly funded, I'd like to get into that,
because I see a lot of tweets about the ADL is basically our money.
So, wait, is it the ADL funded by the government and therefore not by Jews?
And so your argument is fallaciously construed from its core?
Or is it funded by Jews, and they happen to also get some money from government,
and therefore, like, the hypocrisy and the lack of nuance is insane.
What is actually happening?
Remember, ADL can do whatever the fuck they want.
Period. It's a corporation.
Unless you're making an argument that they're using public funds for misuse,
we can have a discussion there.
The entire argument is based off the fact that they are supported and funded by Jews.
Therefore, they're the most powerful.
And the inference and the dangerous part is that a company that is fighting to protect Jews
in whatever form they choose to do so, including putting pressure against
private or public companies to advertise on Twitter or not,
and or to impact Twitter, a private corporation, is their prerogative.
The problem that this leads to is all the inference is that these conversations are so,
Mario, you're afraid of having the conversation?
It's not because the ADL isn't allowed to do what they're doing with Twitter.
Right.
It's not that Twitter is a public forum for free speech.
What's really happening here is Elon Musk is using fighting the ADL or the ADL's impact on money by getting you guys all riled up.
And you're doing the work.
He's not going to win a defamation suit.
And he knows that.
If he ever files a defamation suit,
it's to get everybody here riled up
to do his work to fight back against the ADL.
I think that is insidious.
We don't know.
Can I just summarize what you just said there?
So what you're basically saying is,
Yes, the ADL do use their power, whatever that power is from.
It could be from the government.
It could be from, as you could just quote you, this is not from me.
It could be from the Jews.
It could be from a variety of aspects.
Whatever that power is from.
Yes, they do use that power.
Yes, they do basically stop.
They do censor.
They do use that power to basically create this platform to be ideologically driven.
Your whole premise is, yes, they do all that.
No, no, no, I did not say ideologically driven.
No, I did not say ideologically driven.
I said towards their charter and whatever they want to do as an institution.
Your charter is your ideology.
When you put a chart and say, this is our values.
These are our thoughts.
This is what we're going to propagate.
That is your ideology.
And so what you're saying is...
Please use the word mission instead of ideology, though, because you're using...
You're using incendiary words intentional.
Tomato, tomato, your mission is your ideology.
Ridiculous, semantical argument about your fidgetal.
And it won't wash.
that in reality what you're saying is
and just to summarize your argument
so what if they do this
deal with it but that's why the people are speaking up
because they're saying you know what
we also have the right
to speak up against you
because you are using your power
and your control whatever the source of that power
and control is to propagate
your ideology and we're
going to say no and they have the ability to
So, yeah, Fiji, I wanted to make that same part.
I agree.
Yeah, go ahead.
Before we...
Okay, Lisa, I'll let you jump in.
Yeah, I just want to say something here.
Look, okay, so the thing is,
if we're going to have a discussion about this,
I think we've got to really address the concerns that people have
and have an honest discussion about it.
So we can say, you know what,
Elon may have not been truthful in the revenue loss,
and it's not a free speech platform, etc.
Fine, but that's semantics, okay?
The reason why people are...
from everything that I've heard concerned about ADL is because of the power that ADL holds.
Why is it that an organization, as you called it, digital, you know, whatever their funding comes from,
let's just say the money is their own. Let's just say all of these people within the ADL are wealthy enough to fund it themselves.
So, okay, let's take funding off the table. It's not even an argument anymore. Okay. Why is it that the ADL
have such an influence within the FBI.
Why do they train FBI agents?
And I'm looking at a post on the 2nd of June
on the ADL's Twitter page,
and it says,
after 25 years in the FBI,
Rusty Rosenthal is now ADL's head of security and law enforcement.
I'm looking at documentation,
a legal documentation,
that in 1992,
FBI agents noticed that some of their intelligence
had appeared in article written,
articles,
written by the ADL staff and they raided ADL's offices in 1992.
Guys, I'm going back, what, 20, 30 years?
And they found, like, I'm looking at the number of documents in it.
You know, they found dossiers from and spying intelligence on 950 organizations.
950 organizations were being spied on by the ADL in 1992.
Illegally?
I don't think of how it decreased...
Well,
illegally?
They raided it.
So if the FBI are raiding them,
I'm assuming it wasn't with anyone's permission,
digital.
I'm just assuming that.
I don't know.
I'm actually asking.
The FBI's estimates were that about 75% of the records
that they'd obtained in 1992 were obtained illegally at the time of the raid in San Francisco.
Sorry,
that's just adding my two cents there.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Okay.
And just to add, I want to have just, didn't Lucas, yeah,
well, Lucas didn't use that in 1994.
These people have been caught.
I want to go, Lucas.
Yeah, sorry, go ahead, Lucas.
And I want to move on to the point on why the ADL is being sued.
As there's a report that name redacted sent me.
He's always, you know, he's great at researching those things.
And he sent me a report that could be very interesting in why Elon chose to sue or
X chose to sue the ADL and could make more sense from a legal perspective.
rather than just being a PR play, which is a good point to bring up Fiji.
Is that a PR play, which is a good PR play?
There's nothing wrong with that.
Or is there legal grounds to sue the ADL?
So I'll read the report in a bit, but go ahead, Lucas.
So look, we're not just saying let's ban the ADL because they say things we don't like.
And they have no levers of power in the background.
And it's just like any other user on here.
We just don't like what they say.
That's not what's happening.
Right.
Looking at the history of the ADL, and I'm talking about since it's inception until today, they have been caught doing illegal thing after illegal thing after illegal.
They have been caught literally setting up neo-Nazi marches.
with their former or their people leading it and saying,
oe ve anti-semitism.
So this is a very bad group.
I call it a mafia.
And you can quote me on that.
You can take me to court.
I don't give a damn what that one lady was saying.
It's on substantial.
When they admit shitter comes out in public later on through records, I
I don't need some lawyer telling me, what the hell is that?
That's, I don't care.
And this group has done nothing but harm everything.
They even backstab Mark Zuckerberg, right?
So this,
how did that,
that's not,
that's not a good thing?
Yeah, go ahead, Lucas.
What happened?
What happened with Mark Zuckerberg?
Continue.
Mark Zuckerberg said,
you know what?
Okay, in regards to Holocaust,
we'll let people speak about it on the platform.
So what if they get something wrong?
That was Mark Zuckerberg's,
His idea.
Can you, hold on, can you, on that point, sorry, continue, finish off, sorry.
Yeah, so let me just tell you here.
Okay, this is from the Jewish Telegraph Agency, how the ADL went from working with Facebook to leading a boycott against it, right?
So, you know, Mark Zuckerberg said he would allow Holocaust on this platform.
The Anti-Defamation League realized its partnership with Facebook wasn't working.
So the social media giant, the Jewish civil rights group had been working together for years to curb hate speech online.
Then nine months later, Zuckerberg told the tech site record that while he personally found Holocaust denial deeply offensive, because he's obviously Jewish himself.
And it would offend many Jews, by the way.
I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong.
And what does the ADL do?
They go and boycott Facebook doing that.
And so after years of seeing the largest social market.
Hold on, but you're saying that the ADL boycotted Facebook because Facebook would not remove content relating to, to Holocaust denial.
So this is what happened.
The shift culminated and the ADLETA campaign urging to stop advertising on the Facebook for the month of July in the collaboration with the NAACP and other civil rights group.
Check how many companies.
The campaign has attracted a growing list of brand names.
More than 230 companies have signed the pledge.
And last week, Facebook's dipped more than 8%.
Their stock in one week, 8%.
though it had since rebounded.
So after this, what is your point?
Yeah.
So the point is they're extorting people.
What do you mean?
It's not extortion.
Dude, okay, you know what?
If you don't do this, I'm going to destroy your company.
What's that?
Yeah, but have they explicitly said that?
Have they explicitly said to Mark?
Is there any, so what's the evidence?
Because this is, so I'm critical of the ADL,
but for you to go to a level, because this is not another level.
And if there's evidence to support this, that's pretty crazy.
But you're saying that the ADL asked Mark Zuckerberg to keep content related to Holocaust denial,
which is, you know, crazy for me to fathom.
And then when Mark Zuckerberg didn't want to keep that content, they boycotted him.
No, no, no.
Mark Zuckerberg said he'll allow it on there.
The ADL didn't like that.
So the ADL realized that Facebook wasn't going to change its policies, so they needed to be pressured.
Then the ADL went on a boycott mission with the NACP, got 230 companies, and the stock did by 8% in one week.
And then Zuckerberg announced a series of changes in Facebook hate speech policies.
He also pledged to meet with the organizers of the boycott.
And then there you go.
Can I add some context to this?
Yeah, because it just sounds.
But let me ask you guys this.
Forget all the stupid legal terms.
What is that when someone says,
Hey, listen, if you don't, if you don't do this,
what I'm going to break your life.
Yeah, okay.
This is, you know,
I just want to know because a lot of people,
okay, actually that's not really how it works.
I just want to know when someone says,
if you don't do this,
I don't like what you're doing and we're going to destroy your,
what does that mean?
Just someone tell me, please.
I have an IQ of one.
It's called business.
Business.
So you're okay with this kind of mafioso stuff.
If you don't pay protection to the fucking mafia,
we're going to destroy your company.
You're cool with that.
Just publicly state.
Wait,
wait,
did they ask Facebook to pay the money?
Did they ask Facebook to pay the money?
The advertisers themselves,
the advertisers themselves didn't have a problem with the content moderation
policies until the ADL gathered them together.
and got them to make this promise to engage in this collective blackmail. So how is it business?
It's an activist push. It uses business for its ends. The end is censorship.
And to add some context to that, what actually sparked that boycott of Facebook was...
So Facebook, Facebook is a public forum as well? I'm mistaken. Just confirm if Facebook is a public forum.
Yeah, Facebook and Twitter are the public square. They're protected under Section 230.
That means that they're not supposed to be...
They're not. Clip this.
They have Section 230 protections.
And if they're not, that's what they should be.
The Internet is effectively.
We can have a conversation about Section 230.
But are you saying publicly in a recorded space right now that Twitter, Facebook, are public forums,
and you are entitled to the protections of free speech from the intrusion of the government.
But the ADL is not government.
Why would the ADL have any say with Elon Musk once?
Phenom, I'm asking you get the question.
Hold on. I'm saying that that's how it should be. And I'm saying in 2016, Jonathan Greenblad agreed
with that. And he said that the only concern of the ADL was that there would be violent threats on
these platforms. Now gradually the ADL got an end to these platforms from 2017 onwards. And they
gradually started this push of forcing more and more censorship using this financial leverage.
In the case of Facebook, what started that boycott is comments that Trump made during
during the BLM riots, but when the looting starts, the shooting starts.
And that's what forced the boycott of Facebook.
Now, it was only after they gathered all those advertisers
and they had Facebook in this position where they had to negotiate with them.
And, you know, this is a mafioso style.
You know, Zuckerberg had to sit down with the ADL leadership
and come to an agreement so we could get this revenue back.
And then the ADL pushed for more.
They push for removal of Holocaust denial.
They push for expanded hate speech laws with a huge bandwave.
And this is the process.
They push a little bit extra every time, a few more bannings, changing hate speech laws.
And eventually you get to the position that Elon Musk was in in 2022,
where he wants to restore free speech.
He wants to just turn the clock back a couple of years in terms of free speech on the internet.
And it's almost an impossible task because what's happened?
Every other platform has moved way, way to the left on censorship.
And if he has one man even just makes a promise about free speech,
you know, this was pretty much before he took over.
This was when the ink was just right.
As soon as that happened, the ADL organized this huge advertiser boycott just because he made the promise of free speech.
And they even put out this threatening tweets in that Elon had put Twitter on Death Watch.
Now, what is that if not a threat?
So, yeah, the purpose is to move towards more extreme censorship and to control the public square like this.
And it's intolerable. People have to come together.
As they have with the hashtag and the ADL, and say enough is enough.
People have to push back.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
So guys, just two seconds.
Yeah, so Sam, your mic is really bad.
So you gotta fix your mic.
I know you try to jump in.
Fiji, I'd love you to respond to your mic, Sam.
Just heard you again now.
Definitely needs fixing if you don't mind.
So I will go to you, Sam.
Fiji, I'll respond to Keith.
I do want to go to Tira and then we'll go to Sam if his mic is better.
Go ahead, Keith.
Fiji, sorry.
Sure.
First of all, our friend, name redacted, has confirmed.
He's run through the financials.
ADL has zero funding from the government.
Yeah, so we're, yeah, so two, six,
on that point, my team disagrees and someone from my team disagrees.
So they're debating, discussing it now behind the scenes.
I'll let you know because I got that message from name redacted.
But, anyway, perfect.
That is important.
It is, it is, yep.
Go ahead.
Now, go ahead.
Now, finish off.
So that's important.
That's important.
So did Kid Rock and everybody who boycotted Bud Light?
That's...
That's...
that's any different or because you can identify a specific corporation all of a sudden it's bad and
it just happens to be against your interest as well let me be very clear that was individual
on twitter which please don't repeat my please don't repeat my exact words back it's not the
second of all second of all second of all second of all second of all
you may call it a public square until section 230 is repealed and this is either considered a
public square legally or not it is not therefore you are not entitled to free speech if you don't
like it go to another platform the
The fact is the ADL is allowed...
The Enoch,
the moderation policies,
the way he wishes.
He can.
You're right, he can.
Yeah, Seam, he absolutely can.
He absolutely can.
Here's a beauty of free speech.
You can say whatever you want,
but I can say whatever I want.
The point, yeah, Phenom, yeah, go ahead.
I think the phenom, the point you're making,
and I'll let you make it yourself,
but it's actually...
Elon should have the ability,
and let you add on to it, Phelan,
because I heard what you said,
Elon should have the ability to moderate,
or X should have the ability to moderate,
as they wish, as a private company,
and the ADL shouldn't be moderating for them.
Now, Fiji's argument is like,
no, ADL's a private company.
That's the influence they have.
Great, it is what it is.
It's welcome to capitalism.
And what Fianam, you're saying is that,
no, this is too much power in one organization,
and this is not right.
Phelan, did you want to add on to what I said,
and then I'll let Fiji continue before going to Tehran.
Yeah, so I mean, what...
I mean, the World Federation of Advertising and their affiliate group, which is the global
Association for Responsibility in Marketing, these are the groups that represent, you know,
pretty much every conglomerate from pharmaceutical to clothing, to agriculture, to energy,
to just, you know, media, okay?
They are who...
The NGOs like the NAACP and ADL and many of these social justice organizations that really are politically driven towards a specific national security policy cloaked with this idea of social justice, uses this power and these global marketing agencies to all agree to a certain
initiative, which they plainly state that they use global power to set national initiatives
to affect local behaviors and change. And so this is not just free market stuff. This is particularly
forcing, forcing advertisers to message and promote a message specifically about specific ideas
ideology of climate science, of health care, of foreign policy, of speech, right, and about even
gender issues. And so this group put together that phone call they had. It was like a Twitter space
at the time before it was X with Elon and met with them and basically had several of the advertisers
that are part of Garm and the website.
the World Federation of Advertisers to boycott.
And then these companies also are pressure that they won't be able to belong to this organization
if they go against it as well.
And so to Fidigil's point, you know, the ADL is not the government.
So they are overreaching and putting this pressure on Elon as to, and the advertisers who might wish to,
participate in this public square.
So this is much different than somebody,
the average person getting together with their family,
saying we don't want to buy Bud Light.
This is like saying that somebody can't sell Bud Light.
Yes, so on that point,
and Fidji, I'll let you respond before going to T-Rone.
By the way, the team did conclude that it seems yes,
name redacted is right this guy is good at researching and they're going to look into it further but
i'm going to say it seems that they have not received direct money from the government direct funding
from the government but if anyone has data to to uh that that that disagrees with i just said please
do let us know you can DM me i send the source to Mario that they received funding from the
federal government for the start of this year, including $305 million and just one grant.
I'll send it to them.
Could you please?
All right.
So I went through a whole series of tweets today about how they were not because
Galise said they were a federally funded organization and I said no, they're not.
Keith, since their total revenues are only about $80 million, I believe, $85 million.
Could you please describe the $305 million contract you think they received?
In fact, post evidence in the next place.
I've posted the message.
Yeah, I've posted to you.
I've posted to your message.
I've sent it to you guys on WhatsApp.
But you go ahead, Keith.
Yeah, no, I've posted you the message.
I was just looking through quickly there as you were speaking.
But I mean, they've absolutely received federal funding.
There's no doubt about that.
They also work training FBI agents and police officers.
But yeah, I mean, comparing it to the Bud Light boycott, I think, is ridiculous.
Look, one is a consumer product.
Twitter is very obviously the center of political discourse, not just in the U.S., but really across the world.
It has huge ramifications on elections, on the democratic process.
You know, whatever technicalities one wants to argue about the law.
I mean, the fact is in 2023, right, these platforms are the public square.
And the idea that, well, you know, if your mafia happens to be successful, you know,
if these private guys get together and create this mafia and pull this off, well, more power to them.
I mean, applying that kind of like free market logic to something like Twitter is just makes no sense.
Can I say something really important, though?
Wait, the First Amendment, Keith, is not a technicality.
Now, I don't know if you're from the United States, but the first amendment...
I wasn't...
I was referring to the arguments that were being read around...
You said a technicality.
All right.
Twitter is not a public...
Excuse me, Twitter is not...
the same as the government is not, it free speech is not implicated here. Fiji is right about that.
Now, you can say it should be. You can say you feel that that's correct, but that is in fact not the
current state of the law. So what we have is a- That's also the last thing that Elon Musk would
ever want is to lose his Q30 protection. That's right, because if you think about it, if Elon Musk becomes
responsible for everything,
If we get rid of 230, that means Elon Musk is responsible for every comment made on this site.
And that is the very last thing any social media company wants,
because then they would have to censor much more than they do now.
Think about it, okay?
Yeah, but the reason Section 230 was published, part of it is that they wouldn't be an editor.
It was that they were an impartial publisher.
That's why they get these protections.
So therefore they can't just go ban on people whose opinions they don't like or who the ADL's opinions.
It is not a, it is not a, it is not a, it is not, the First Amendment is not implicated.
So what you have is one,
NGO or one 5013C company basically attempting to put pressure on another private company.
That is what we're dealing with.
Now, whether or not Elon has evidence, I don't think defamation is actually relevant here,
whether he's going to claim extortion, coercion, it's not really blackmail because that is
threatening to not give away a sequence.
The discovery in itself will be beautiful.
We do not have a secret here that the ADL is saying, I'll keep this if you give me money.
That is, it's not blackmail per se, okay?
It might be, it might be tortious interference.
I think could be, could be.
And that would be his claim.
I'm sort of suspicious of defamation because in honesty, I don't see that one at all as a relevant cause of action.
Okay.
But I do think if Elon Musk has some of these claims, fine, but right now what I'm seeing is a lot of,
and I said this to Mary, okay?
I'm seeing a lot of hateful comments.
I'm seeing some real negativity directed towards Jewish people.
And I would really hope that it would stop.
We're talking about an organization that is not...
Does it just not represent the country of Israel, the Jewish people, or anything?
It represents its own view of certain political beliefs, right?
Political and social beliefs.
Speak for the Jewish community.
That's the exact problem.
No, no, no, no.
Wait a second.
Lucas, I am Jewish.
And let me just say that it is one of the multitude of organizations that says they represent Jewish people.
We are not a monolith.
I know that.
We are not a monolith.
And we are not represented by one or two or three organizations.
So if we could move back from this.
I would hear my argument.
I'd like to ask one quick.
ADL increases the anti-Semitic tropes because of the way they speak for the Jewish community.
As Jonathan Greenblank pretends, he's the king of the Jews.
Anybody does to Kanye or Kyrie or whoever else, Elon even.
How does this help?
That's why I've gotten a lot.
We got a lot of Jewish people say, yes, the ADL does not represent me.
They actually reinforce the tropes that, you know, look, he,
Elon said that Soros is like Magneto and they attacked him for that.
I mean, he is like a Bond villain.
When he said, because Magneto is actually Jewish, maybe that was the problem.
But Soros to me is like a Bond villain.
I don't care if he's Jewish or Japanese, right?
He's doing bad things across the world.
A lot of Jewish people don't like Soros.
A lot of people do.
My thing is, before going back to the boycott,
comparing the boycott of Bud Light to what's happening here,
the ADL can call you an anti-Semit or Nazi and destroy your life.
And they can write articles upon articles.
Next thing you know, you lose your PayPal.
Next thing you know, you lose this.
That is not cool, guys.
That's not okay.
That's not the free market.
That's called bullshit, if you ask me.
One quick question before.
But that doesn't change the basic facts.
The fact that they are powerful is somewhat irrelevant, okay?
But they're abusing their power, tier.
That's what we're talking.
Well, you might say that.
As I said, I think that Elon, if he's really going to make these claims, he should just sue them and shut up about it.
Okay, sure.
Because listen, Lucas, what he's doing is the same thing you're accusing the ADL doing.
He's making all these comments.
He's fomenting all this.
Oh, my God, oh, my God.
But at the end of the day, either he sues or he doesn't.
And that's what I think is the problem.
Let me ask you a question.
So put aside, one second.
So having you know,
Just one question, one point.
I feel like everyone's getting into the weeds of this and getting into the semantics.
Like let's be clear what you're saying.
You're saying they've got the power.
So what?
But guess what?
They're using that power.
And the way they're using that power and everybody's like, so what? It matters. When they're using that power to censor people, they're using that power to destroy people's lives. They're using that power in all these ways. Then the people have an opportunity to voice their concerns and say, you know what? This organization has got too much power. They're using it for nefarious purposes and we're going to speak out about it. I think that's a,
Completely.
We're paying customers now.
This is this isn't a free platform.
Let me just have one question and I got to jump up.
We're paying money.
Hold on, hold on for a second.
Then stop paying and leave.
We'll see there you go.
Yeah,
just let the mafia abuse you,
bro.
Like,
what are your answers,
man?
Like,
you're,
what are you something like?
How about,
but if I'm paying,
listen,
if I'm paying money and Elon says,
this is about free speech,
then comes this mafia saying,
actually,
it's not about free speech,
and we're going to do it and destroy the company that I want to support and
believe in,
because I do want free speech,
because you can't go to Zuckerberg,
you can't go to Instagram,
you can't go to YouTube,
you can't go to Reddit,
you can't go anywhere.
So this is the only,
place and I'm going to just suck it up and quit because you said so how about we fight it
and while we're fighting it we're all being called the anti-supremises so the next to susan
just think about what fidgettsoil just said that he just said if you don't count to the ad
Exactly.
I wonder if the agenda of the ADL leave the platform.
You have no.
So they have more.
So you admit they have the power.
Let's get.
Let's get.
Let's get.
Let me ask you.
Come on.
Guys, can you, Suli, can we just have busy speak, please?
Go ahead, busy.
Yeah, I've got to jump up.
This is, this is my bottom line here.
Keith Lucas, I'm an Israeli-born Jew.
Do you hate me based on that fact?
Yes or no?
I absolutely hate you.
Of course, we spoke before.
Okay, there you go.
Guys, guys.
I know.
Here's my question.
Here's my point.
And on Keith, I know that.
That's why that hit cabbage guy blocked me because I sent it a tweet.
So they're, they don't hate me because I'm an Israeli-born-Jew.
That's my test of anti-Semitism.
They don't seem anti-Semitic to me.
Let them say what they want.
I just, you know, I think people who disagree with that from
from the Jewish community.
Maybe we've got to develop a little thicker skin.
That's all.
Thank you, everyone.
So do you think so, Suli, and that argument, hold on Keith.
Two seconds, Keith.
So Suli, I'm just on that argument.
Actually, I'm going to go to Fiji on this one.
So is there a level when you think the ADL would have too much power, Fiji?
Fiji.
Again, I don't understand what the word too much power means inherently.
It's what you're doing with that power.
Sure, sure. It's a fair point.
So let's say BlackRock begins to censor or force companies they invest in to do or not to do certain things.
That's obviously a whole debate by itself.
Right.
But let's say BlackRock starts to do that.
We know BlackRock is invested in pretty much everything,
their own big stakes and all the fortune, whatever, companies.
So if BlackRock starts to implement and starts to apply their values,
their beliefs to the companies they're invested in,
is that something we should accept as just capitalism
or we should stand up for us too much power?
So let me be very clear.
Everybody has the right, I mentioned earlier to Phenon, the beauty of free speeches.
You do have the right to say whatever you want, but so does the other people that you're saying it to.
So I'm all for voicing your opinion that you don't like...
that the ADL is impacting speech. You don't like that the ADL has this power. And in that
paradigm, it is up to Elon to create a balance of power, obviously it seems financial, to not have
the ADL be able to impact the advertisers to impact X. If you want to help and voice your opinions and say that you don't like
The outcomes, that's one thing.
The problem here, first of all, Keith, it has been confirmed.
No money to the ADL.
Money was given to ADL supported initiatives for other companies, but not to the ADL.
So before you speak in public and you mislabel, because if it was money from the government, that's a huge, huge difference.
It is not.
Back to my point is, back to my point.
Go ahead.
I know what you're referring to,
so I just want to make,
I want to provide a bit of accuracy to your statement.
So, yeah, there's no direct funding to the A.
Funding their initiatives.
But that's it.
So ADL is almost like a shell for other initiatives
that where they're getting funding for.
So for example,
they got $305 million for the non-profit security.
They did not get $305 million.
Let me, no, no, you're not listening.
Those were your words.
You said they got five and three and familiar.
No, they said, okay, let me quote exactly,
because if you're playing semantical games,
and I'm all for it.
I get the game.
So what they did was the ADL-led efforts
on the following provisions included in the final bill and the ADL basically caused this funding because they led the provision to get these organizations to get a huge amount of government funding, all related to causes, which is essentially...
ideologically driven by the ADL.
And so, yeah, they didn't get direct funding.
But come on, they're causing $3.5.5 million from the government to go to one organization.
The point, the point is, it's important because, Sully, if the money was going to the ADL.
Sully, can you have him, Silly, do you want him to respond or not?
I don't know.
I don't know if you know you're a co-host, man.
Do you want him to respond?
You made a very good point, but it's good to have someone else to respond.
I thought it would be nice.
I know, I just thought I mean, I complete my point.
Can you, okay, Fiji, your point is made.
They find it is a very good point.
Like, they're not getting direct funding, but there's initiatives,
ADL initiatives that are getting funded by the government.
So Fidji, I'll let you respond to this.
And what I'm trying to say is if they were directly funded,
then yes, there's a much bigger concern here
because that is government money, our money.
Right.
making impact on on speech it's still speech it's still speech it's just not necessarily free speech
because they support money going to an initiative does not incur the same issue as if they were
directly funded and back to my point all do i think awesome they were so smart that they didn't get it
directly they just kind of like siphoned there they were like a shell company genius play bro genius
Okay.
Well, Sully, you do understand that it is...
Okay, so listen, one of the initiatives, for example,
was hardening or giving money for initiatives to harden certain areas,
certain offices that might be attacked, ports, things like that.
Okay, so not all of them are what you think of things.
Here again, you're not being directed.
No, no, no, no, I'm actually the person...
Can she finish, hold on, Sully, can she, can she finish, please?
So...
So I spent all afternoon looking at their 990s because Colise had made a claim and I didn't think it was correct and I was correct.
It was not correct.
It was not correct. It's semantics, Tira. It's semantics.
No, it's not.
Okay, I'll let you finish your point and then I'll come back to you.
I'll let you finish your point and then I'll come back to you.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, so listen.
It is not semantics. They are not funded by the government. They actively supported certain initiatives which were passed and they're very happy they got passed. Some of these initiatives are things that are not quite as direct as Suleiman is saying, but in no case are they getting direct money from state or federal government. And that is a big difference. Certainly it's a difference legally, but it's also a difference, I think, in how they handle things.
They are funded by private donors.
There are a lot of wealthy people who want to support them.
This is not unusual.
I'm sure their board members give a lot of money.
They do a lot of fundraising.
They do what every nonprofit does is what I'm saying.
They're not doing anything different.
By the way, lots of lots of people.
Sully, no, no, Sully, Sully, if you've had enough time to speak, please.
Can you say I want to love you to respond to Nira?
No, no, let me respond, ask you a question.
Sully, can you stop?
Tira, let me ask you a question.
So on the fact that they're not getting direct funding,
you said it's different, other than being legally different.
If it's not legally, how is it different?
Because Sussuii makes a very good point that
If they're funding indirectly, they're still funding it.
They're just doing it in a very strategic way.
But the goal is, okay, so what they're doing is, for example,
if they say we would like Homeland Security to have more money to harden offices
that are being attacked or potentially being attacked, let's say, okay?
Is that...
What is that?
To me, that's a policy they support.
Other people support other policies.
They get earmarked things.
They get, they got, you know, there's a lot of pork.
And as we know in the federal government,
I'm not saying all these things are wonderful,
but I'm not understanding why the level of acrimony here.
What's wrong?
People do this all the time.
So, here's why I think this is a bit disingenuous.
I completely agree with what Suleiman said.
Okay, so here's the thing.
I'm just going to quote what you've just said.
If they say,
ID, they being ADL,
we would like more money
for a cause we support.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That is really disingenuous because...
to intentionally just make this about the money
and use language like we would like,
you're completely just blindsiding the influence that they have.
They do not request they demand.
Let me tell you, in 2021, Congress budgeted 180 million
for causes that the ADL said it wanted money for,
and in the end, it ended up getting 360 million for their causes.
and Jonathan Greenblatt made some statements, right?
And I'm going to read them to you that he said, right?
So this is this is all about, I don't care.
Okay, let's just say, let's just say hypothetically they don't get a penny from Congress.
for any of their programs or supports.
And remember, ADL has lots of offshoot branches as well.
So let's just assume there's no way,
until we get a freedom of information request in there,
you're never going to find out,
because they cover it really well,
and I've had people looking at this all day.
Now, to have that kind of cover,
there's a reason for that.
But let's just say they don't get anything from Congress.
Nobody does.
Why is it that they are dictating to the owners of all of the social media platforms?
Let's even take it away from Elon's kind of defamation suit.
You don't think he's going to win, you think he's got no rights, etc.
Okay, I accept that, right?
Let's just say Elon's not going to win this.
Is there not even one part of you that feels uncomfortable that they dictate policy on here,
that they can spy across all social media platforms,
that they can make somebody's life so difficult that they have such a reach inside Congress and the FBI and legislature?
Like, this is the amount of power this organization has, not now, but for decades.
And this is the first time that somebody like Elon Musk has called it out.
In October, Jonathan Greenblatt said, I've thrown the gauntlet to Elon as to what we expect.
This is like a master slave relationship is the way that Jonathan Greenblatt has always written about ADL.
Always.
We have demanded.
We want.
We've told them what we expect.
He's letting us down.
How dare he let Trump back on?
This is good.
This is bad.
And we're going to keep telling them.
I mean, no other organisation does that.
And there are many on this trust and safety board.
There are many other organizations.
The trust and safety board that was set up in November, it has seven organizations, I believe.
and ADL is one of them.
You name me one of the other organizations that behaves this way.
None.
You name me one of the organization that spies this way, that has this much power.
So when you take it into a rabbit hole of pennies and dollars and whatever cents and dollars of funding,
it's deliberately missing the point, right?
That people are not sack here complaining because of the,
funding. They're sat here complaining because they do not want to be spied on to be censored.
Okay, free speech, let's say it doesn't exist. We talked about boycott earlier.
You know, ADL was one of the big, big propagators of making BDS illegal. So certain
boycott is good, certain others is not good based on what ADL wants. You can carry on down that
conversation. I'll pause there.
And Tira, I'd love you to respond.
And I do want to kind of link to a comment that was made a couple of years ago by Tucker Carlson,
who's obviously very critical of the ADL.
It's in my tweet.
Let me find it quickly.
But in brief, he was praising the ADL previously before the current person,
the current person heading it.
He says, oh, fuck him.
And then he says, the critical point, he says, operated by a guy who's just an aparist.
A pirate chick of the Democrat Party.
But before that, he said something different.
He said, even Tucker previous said,
the ADL was such a noble organization that had a very specific goal,
which was to fight anti-Semitism.
That's a virtuous goal.
That came from Tucker Carlson.
So I'm curious because I know a lot of everyone's being critical,
and I'm obviously trying to take the different...
different side of this to balance out the panel.
But I want to go to Fiji and Tira.
My concern of the ADL is how much influence they have,
how much power they have.
But yet, Tucker seems to praise the ADL over the past previous years,
but recently under the person heading it right now,
he's a lot more critical of them.
Do you have any more insight into this?
Has the ADL changed in the last few years?
Or are they always using their powers in corrupt ways?
The ADL was founded for what I believe was a very good purpose, okay?
And I understand there are people on this stage who seem to feel that it was not.
But in point of fact, when Leo Frank was accused of the murder of Mary Fagan, that is a...
a very disputed result, okay?
We can, frankly, as a legal matter, my view is,
were that case to be tried today,
Leo Frank would be found innocent
because the evidence is extremely...
Let's just say there's a lot of evidence that points to the fact that he was not guilty.
Okay, so the ADL came into play.
And in fact, I want to do this because I've been really upset by what Keith wrote.
In 1982, Alonzo Mann, who was an office president,
worker, 14-year-old office worker at the time of the Mary Fagan murder, went to the Tennessean
a newspaper and said, you know, it's been weighing on me all my life. I'm like 83 now. I'm going to
tell you that I saw someone else carrying the body of Mary Fagan. Okay.
Okay. So you right now what all we have,
or we don't have any proof that passes,
we don't have total proof, but we have a lot of reasonable doubt.
So the ADL was founded because they felt that
They felt that Leo Frank got a raw deal, as did many people, as did the governor of the state who commuted the sentence, as did the judge in the trial who allowed a sentence of death but then said, please show mercy because I don't really think this is the right result. Okay. So it was-
-to-the-Respondit.
Yeah, once she's done, once she's done,
it was founded for good purposes.
It did a lot of good things.
I have never actually looked into what it has done recently.
It's not a cause I've ever supported or given money to, to be honest, okay?
So it is possible that Jonathan is taking it in directions that are wrong.
I'm not even going to speak to that.
What I'm going to say is it does have some noble...
purpose, okay? It was attempting to stop anti-Semitism. And I understand people get upset,
it seems to me, because Jewish people tend to...
They say anti-Semitism a lot and they're very quick to find anti-Semitism.
But I think part of that is because of the history and because of the fact that it's a small group of people who has been targeted a lot.
Not that we are the only people who have been targeted.
Not at all.
But just because people tend to react strongly and people tend to band together quickly when they see things they think are anti-Semitic.
So I think the ADL was...
Can you show some examples?
Yes.
Wait, just let me, I got to respond to these claims that he did.
Can I respond me?
Can you show them?
Guys, guys.
Yeah, hold on.
Are you going to actually let me?
Yeah, yeah, sorry.
I get there's only two people on a panel about this.
dominant.
I think Salyas is pretty unfair.
I think the panel's mostly critical,
including me and you and Tiliac.
Numerically, but not in terms of time.
Every other space is an echo chamber of not this conversation.
Okay, so just to your other.
I'm not looking at Mario.
I'm not.
Who's saying that?
I'm just saying you guys have had a lot.
Yeah, I'm not saying, I don't think it is an echo chamber.
So I think I've been, yeah, T.
So, so, I've got a question for you, but I'll ask it afterwards.
I'll let Keith and Lucas respond because I've got a question of something I'm more critical of.
But yeah, and then we'll go back to Phenom's question, Fidji, you could respond to that.
But on the Leo Frank, and I've researched this while you were speaking, Tira, I just kind of just update the audio.
So Leo Frank.
So the ADL was founded back in 1913, so a very long time ago.
So it was right after the trial and lynching of Leo Frank.
So Frank was a Jewish factory superintendent who was falsely accused and convicted.
So obviously Keith or Lucas, one of you wanted to dispute the falsely accused
and convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old girl, Mary Pagan.
His trial was marred by anti-Semitism and he was lynched by a mob two years later.
So the ADL was founded, so they were founded after that case.
and their initial mission was,
and I think all of us would agree in what that mission statement is.
Now the implementation, et cetera, obviously this is what we're disputing,
but the mission statement is stop the defamation of the Jewish people
and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.
I think everyone would agree with that statement.
Now, whether they implemented that statement from the beginning, in the right way, that's what being discussed in a very heated manner today.
So they played in that Leo Franklin.
So they did do a lot of things.
They provided financial assistance to his family during his trial and he was.
imprisonment, they also got a pardon,
apostomist pardon for your Frank.
They lobbied the Georgia governor to commute Frank's death sentence.
They investigated the Frank case and helped expose the anti-Semitism
and had influenced the trial.
So obviously I'm just reading here.
If you want to read,
say that again, sorry, Silly.
Yeah, so.
Lucas, go ahead.
I respond first, Lucas.
My name was Brodow.
You want to go first, because I want to, the death blow is that whole, well, Mr. Mann said that, look,
Joe Connolly, the black man admitted helping Frank to move the body.
His name was Jim Conley.
Get it right at least.
Oh, please.
Okay.
Excuse me there.
Jim Connolly.
He admitted helping to move the body.
That doesn't change anything.
He also admitted writing the note to frame Newt Lee, the watchman who Frank tried to blame it on.
And the racist jury...
did not believe anything in regards to frank being innocent in fact five jewish people
were on that jury they all sentenced him that they all agreed he was guilty every
appeal from every level of court for years and years even after he was dead none of it
was ever overturned.
And fact, now, right after, too.
Right after.
Now, he was pardoned posthumously.
He was never absolved of the crime to this day.
He's still guilty.
And when the ADL put their legacy up of Leo Frank on X, this is the magical part, and
everyone corrected them, the community notes disappeared.
Not once.
not twice, not three times, but almost five, I think five times they pulled it down.
Because everyone's like, no, no, he's guilty.
I even posted a documentary, a hundred reasons why Leo Frank is guilty.
And no one's refute, they refute to this book, all this one book.
Okay, so the guy, you know, you could, we could argue that he's, you could believe he's not guilty, but even five Jewish people on the jury, the guy who's commuted his death sentence, he never said anything.
He said, I'm going with what the jury said.
I don't know.
Where are these people pulling out quotes?
He was innocent.
The judge, where?
Just quickly, sir.
I'll let you, I'll let you respond.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I know.
I know this is a side.
It seems like a side issue to many people.
But let me just say why Alonso Man's testimony was relevant.
And the reason, just for the audience is why it's important.
So the reason we're discussing that case is because the ADL was founded based on that case.
And if that case was founded.
in between the guilty verdict and the lynching, by the way. 1913, the lynching was 1915. Now,
the reason why Alonso Mann's testimony was so, was different than what Conley had said,
was because Conley had said that he was with Leo Frank the entire time that they took the elevator
together down to the basement to dispose of the body together and that they were not apart until the body was
down in the basement and had been disposed of.
What Alonso Mann said was I saw Jim Conley alone carrying the body.
He was walking downstairs.
He wasn't using the elevator.
And I saw him.
And when I saw him, the girl might have still been alive.
He said, don't you dare tell any of it.
You better not tell anyone about this or anything like that.
thus disproving Conley's main claim, which was that Leo Frank was with him at the entire time.
That's why Alonso Mann's testimony actually refutes Jim Conley's testimony.
So I want to move away from Leo Frank.
So I just want to move away from Leo Frank discussion.
Let me respond.
On the Leo Frank story, very briefly, Keith of the Leo Frank story, because I think we're moving a bit off topic.
But feel free to respond briefly on that.
Yeah, look, honestly, I don't think it's worth dwell on that too much.
I do just want to add, as an aside, I do think this is relevant, you know, when we're talking about outside actors trying to interfere with this conversation.
The lady who spoke earlier, Vivian Berkovici, she works for an Israeli intelligence company.
She was an ambassador to Israel.
No, you made those allegations.
You made those allegations.
They're in Wikipedia, I know.
It's on a Wikipedia.
Everyone got to speak without being talked over.
Let him finish.
Excuse me.
She was followed by Jonathan Greenblatt on her Twitter as well,
and she deactivated her account as soon as I asked her about her history with Black Cube.
Hold on.
She's not.
I think that word.
If we're talking about conflicts of interest.
She deactivated her Twitter account.
Yeah.
I can send you the...
I have the username because she's on the list of speakers, but that's...
Yeah, yeah, I've been sent...
I've been sent a number of articles and evidence that are saying that she does work for Black Cube.
I just didn't bring it up because she left, but yeah, you're right.
that is another lot of it.
Having someone that speaks from BlackCube,
I don't mind anyone that comes from BlackCube
or intelligence.
Like, I'm very, anyone who's not come to the panel.
I think she should be clear that.
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Because she was, she was pretending not to know what the ADL is,
but she's followed by Jonathan Greenblatt.
So I find that very hard to believe.
If she's an ambassador to Israel,
so she just doesn't know what the ADL does.
Look, I appreciate bringing this.
Obviously, I don't want to dig.
I don't want to, go ahead.
As far as the Leo Frank case,
I don't want to dwell on this.
Look, the fact is he was found guilty by 13 different courts and judges.
He had two private investigation firms that concluded he was guilty.
There was 20 of his former female employees that testified that he had sexually assaulted them.
The myth that was motivated by anti-Semitism is just the myth.
The ADL has lied that there was mobbed, shout and kill the Jew, hang the Jews kind of thing.
It's totally fabricated.
I mean, if anything, you would expect, you know, a mob crowd in the South in 1913 to go after the
Black accused, right?
But I just want to, for moving this conversation forward,
I just want to point out, you know,
when we're talking about, well, it's a civil rights group,
it was founded with this noble purpose.
Let's remind everyone why this came into view in the last couple of weeks.
One of the first things that Elon replied to that brought attention to this
was the fact that the Eddie L says that the Kill the Boer song
is not a call to action. It has nothing to do with targeting white people.
And defendant Julius Malema, this activist politician in South Africa,
calling for the murder of white people.
Now, this is an organization that said it was anti-Semitic for Donald Trump to make comments
about warmongers and communists.
It says that criticism of George Soros in any context is anti-Semitic.
And, you know, some of the people that are critical of this organization are just being painted as like rage and hateful anti-Semites.
But, you know, what that Israeli caller said earlier was very correct.
You know, the ADL is driving anti-Semitism with this kind of behavior.
And people recognize this double standard.
You know, you talked about Tucker Carlson.
That was another one of these boycotts the organizers.
They organized a massive advertiser boycott of Tucker Carlson when he was the most popular talk show host in America.
Right.
What did they do that for?
They did that because he talked about replacement migration.
He said the US shouldn't accept mass numbers of immigrants
if it's going to disrupt the identity of the US.
Now, the ADL opposed that and tried to cancel him for it.
And as Tucker himself later brought up, on the ADL's own website,
they oppose the extension of voting rights to Arabs in Israel
because they say it would disrupt, subvert Israel's sovereign existence
and its national identity.
So, I mean, this double standard is what's active in people.
It's clearly it has this anti-white bias.
You know, it has definitions of black nationalism and Jewish nationalism and so on that
that said that they're perfectly fine expressions of these people's sovereignty.
But then it talks about any expression of social conservatism as it relates to white people or Christians.
And it defines it as head. It defines as extremism.
I posted something on my Twitter today.
It did a hit piece on Substack earlier this year.
And the main example it highlighted of so-called extremists on Substack is Calvin Robinson.
Calvin Robinson is a mixed race deacon in the Church of England.
And the example of extremism they pinpointed is that he wrote an essay on sub-sac, arguing against gay marriage and trans ideology.
So merely for expressing his Christian beliefs regarding the morality of sexuality,
he was labeled as a hater, an extremist, someone promoting hate speech.
And on the basis of examples like him, the ADL demanded that substack links be banned from Twitter
and their payment platforms be targeted. So this is insane. This is an anti-free speech anti-white
organisation. So I'd love to, TRI Fiji, I'd love you to respond to the points that KISS has made.
Now, I've got a question afterwards.
Tia, Fiji?
I'll let Tia respond.
I'm going to go into the same things.
I wasn't sorry.
I was doing something else for most of it.
I'm so sorry.
Tidji, did you want to respond?
Yeah, I mean, again, if we're not going to have honest conversations about whether there is free speech or not,
and whether the core of the question is, is it...
Should they not be doing these things?
And I still don't understand.
Nobody's made a cogent argument as to why it's wrong.
I can understand why you don't like it.
So the power is in the people to push back.
I agree.
But I don't see anything wrong with it.
Fidgital, do you think it's right that when we push back, we all get called racist, anti-Semitic Nazis, literally people who are not even white?
You think that's cool because they have the power to do it?
Let me go to.
The question I wanted to ask you is that when, when is that the question I ask Fiji?
Like the debate on whether the ADL was a noble organization or whether they always corrupt, et cetera, is one discussion that we've been having.
And I haven't researched the history of the ADL,
so I don't know enough about it.
But the other question, that even if they were noble,
and when does it, and even if they are still noble
to this day, like their intentions are good,
let's just take that argument, just for the sake of it.
Even their intentions are good to this day,
when would you say is this too much power
within one organization, like the ability for an organization
to be able to impact a platform like X
and reduce their revenue by half,
according to Elon, again,
that's according to Elon, hasn't been proven in the courts,
But $44 billion to cripple a platform like X.
And I tend to believe Elon seeing how vocal he is over the last 48 hours,
that a lot of advertisers have left the platform partly because of the ATO.
So when is it too much?
When is it too much power?
When should action be taken?
When is it too monopolistic?
Because this is actually...
Well, I guess...
Wait, Mario, can I ask you a question?
Why would the courts, why would you need the courts to prove that,
that Elon and X have lost half of their ad revenue because of the ADL
when Elon himself owns the platform and knows why people are canceling their,
their advertising here?
Why would you need courts to prove that?
I'm honestly curious.
So if Elon is saying he's suing the ADL for $44 billion, it's important to point out that the ADL.
advertisers might have left because of the ADL, and I tend to believe it is because of the ADL.
But how much did ADL play as a role?
Because if it is because of ADL and purely because of ADL,
then Elon should win the case, the defamation lawsuit.
So if he's suing them, I think...
But not really, though, Mario, because what we've seen here is that ADL is...
quite savvy in the way they conduct themselves.
So they might even have done it not indirectly.
And then Fiji and these lot will be like,
true, true.
We don't know.
What I'm saying is we don't we don't know.
We don't know that part.
But I'm saying we don't know.
But we don't know anything.
I mean, we have.
Do you remember when they put,
do you remember when they put X?
It was Twitter at the time on Death Watch?
Do you remember that?
Did anyone here see that?
I guess I'd like to continue.
I'm asking Mario, do you remember when the ADL put out a tweet saying that Elon and X are on Death Watch?
I could read the tweet and I could pin it to the top.
Please do, actually, if you can put it in the other, if they use the words, death watch.
I look at, do sex.
Can I just jump in one second, Mario, on the advertising thing, right?
When we talk about the advertising,
I mean, we can have a lot of statements in front of us.
If we still choose to ignore it, then I think we're just being disingenuous.
So Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted on the 8th of June this year that if Linda Yaccarino wants to attract Fortune 500 advertisers and Elon Musk wants to create a genuine public square...
He advises them, it might be wise, not to give this obvious antisemite such a huge megaphone.
He's talking about Tucker Carlson.
And he says, let Tucker and his ilk push their hate somewhere else.
Just search advertisers on Jonathan Greenblatt's Twitter account, and you will see him mentioning time and again, Tucker scared major advertisers off.
You know, time and again.
So if we're still going to sit here and say, oh, no, it's not because of them, even though Jonathan Greenblatt himself is saying it, then I think, again, it takes me certainly back to the point of,
the power that this organization has.
I have a video, it's a 30 second, 20 second video
where Jonathan Greenglat is saying,
we've got agents in all of the...
Can you? So, Calici, yeah,
I'd love you to play that clip right after.
I'd let you hear I respond to the question I asked,
but I'd love you to play that clip as well.
I think it's really interesting.
Yeah, so, so look, if Elon has...
proof, he would have to prove it in court, obviously.
If he has proof that they have tortiously interfere with his business relationships,
he can bring that claim.
If he has proof that they have defamed him in the legal definition of defamation,
which is different maybe than what you and I might think of his defamation,
he can come and prove that.
He has not actually instituted a suit.
I also might point out that one of the problems Elon is probably going to have here is,
I don't know...
When I looked at their financials, you know, they have, what, $100 million?
This is a drop in the bucket to what Elon might be claiming.
So regardless of what he does, I'm not sure suing the ADL is necessarily going to be the most effective solution from a monetary standpoint.
Does that make sense?
It's not their money that he wants.
It's the money he's lost because of them.
It's not he's not,
it's not suing because he wants the ADL's money.
They control money outside of the money that they have, Tira.
He would be suing for $22 billion in damages, arguably.
Correct.
They don't have that sort of money.
He's not going to be able to recover.
He'll just put them out of business, which is fine.
But at the end of the day, I don't know that,
first of all, as I said, we have to be very careful.
You do have to prove things in court.
Elon might feel legitimately or illegitimately that the ADL is responsible for all of these advertisers,
but it's possible that some of them are acting on their own because they've seen some things
on the platform they don't want to be associated with, correct?
Right.
We've even had these discussions.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
I don't think it's going to be an easy job for Elon to prove it.
Because we've seen, I mean, the ADL is extremely savvy, extremely smart.
Someone would say sly and deceptive and devious.
but what they'll have is, because what Elon will have to show is directly that these guys have caused the advertisers to leave the platform.
And so will he have that kind of concrete example or proof?
I don't think he will.
We saw just on the funding how you and Fidjit Sula keep on talking about direct and like this clear examples of indirect.
funding where they've led efforts, for example, what I was mentioning before, before I was
cut off was 7.5 million for domestic violent extremism research, 20 million for targeted
violence and terrorism prevention grant program, increase funding to investigate
extremist violence, domestic terrorism and increase funding to further support
prosecutions related to the Jan 6 attack and the capital and domestic terrorism cases.
So this is the ADL basically using offshoots, not direct, and getting funding, leading funding,
and getting funding for these. So that's how they do it. So they're extremely smart. So yeah, I think
In terms of the actual legal case, maybe it won't be as strong because this is a very sly and savvy organization that's able to have denied.
How many discussions have we had about monetization on the platform?
And most people on this stage who have been involved with them have said, well, advertisers don't want to be associated with X, Y, anything controversial, right?
So that's why I didn't say that. I disagree with them. Okay, I'm sorry. Other people have said that. You've heard them say that. You know, advertisers don't want this sort of thing or don't want that. It's not really the advertisers. But the differences that dictate with the advertisers can and can't advertise. Right. And who's giving those associations. So the advertisers, the advertisers weren't aware that they were advertising next to child.
sexual exploitation for years because the ADL didn't care. So the ADL picks and chooses what they
want to tell the advertisers, oh, just letting you know Elon Musk posted up a pepe meme. So you might not want
to be advertising on the platform. Meanwhile, you had been advertising for years with CSC material
on the platform, but we just decided to not let you know about that.
that. So if I were an advertiser finding out all of this, I would actually be assuming the ADL as well.
So you're saying the advertisers don't know where their ads are appearing and have no
ability on their own to see where they are? Is that what you're suggesting? No, the organizations
tell them. They send that you know this.
Go ahead.
Garm and the WFA, they make determinations. They have people that they put out. They put together
like a whole report. They've got the 2023 report. I could put it down on the bubble if you'd like.
And they say specifically what is considered disinformation, what topics are considered hateful.
And let's just, I would just like.
say something that's sort of just common sense here in 2020.
Just I want to say,
hate is more the important,
Joe,
Joe,
which is not phenomenal.
I just want to chime in and just say that Joe is an expert.
Doc,
let her finish what she's saying.
Guys,
guys,
can we just let phenom finish.
Can you just let me just let me just let me know him.
Yeah, yeah,
just let phenom finish.
Go ahead,
Thin on.
So hate is morally abhorrent.
However, hate is a natural human emotion that it has existed from the beginning of time.
And look, my children are half Jewish.
I know that there are people in every country, every religion, every race that hate other people.
And it's just going to happen.
We already have laws against harming somebody's body or their property.
We have to get out of this idea that people can't, it's okay that they can love who you love.
Love is love, but hate can't be hate.
You know.
You know, it's just, it just, it burns the fire hotter when people are told what they can or can't think because that's not even humanly possible.
It's not humanly possible to feel different than you feel.
And so the fact that we're legislating this or saying that it's against somebody's civil rights for somebody to not like you or to not believe some part of history, it might be abhorrent.
But it should be freedom to do so.
And let's talk about, you know, safety, brand safety.
No brand is going to be unsafe because somebody doesn't like someone.
This is all just manipulation.
It is specifically for, you know, foreign policy.
We all know this.
And we just should stop pretending that it's anything different.
Thank you.
So, Doc, what did you want to say?
Peter, go ahead.
Yeah, I was going to say, go to Tyroa right after.
Doc was saying something quick, I think it was about Joe.
Yeah, I was just, yeah, I was just trying to suggest that we've had that conversation with Joe, at least I had.
Yeah, he can't join today.
He has a surgery tomorrow.
Yeah.
Yeah, so he discussed, and people who don't know Joe is sort of an expert in advertising in the agencies.
And the processes that Elon has had to deal with in, and, and,
coming to the conclusions that he's talked about in the suites the last 24 hours.
Then Joe has confirmed that, yes, that's the process.
The advertised, the corporations trust in these agencies to place their ads in such places that they reach the target markets.
that the corporations identify.
And as to the exact processes and how that's all done,
that's it in large part at arm's length from these corporations.
I just want to support.
Yeah, so Tira, I want to go to you, Tira, just to respond to what's been said so far.
Fidji's been pretty quiet as well, so Tira, I'm going to you a lot because Fidji's quiet.
But, uh, I...
I'm trying not to yell.
And I do want to, you could yell as well.
I do want to just refresh for the audience and maybe silly, give a quick update, just objectively, quick update what we've got so far from what happened yesterday to today, how it was trending for a while.
And now Elon announcing that he will potentially release a giant data dump of censorship requests.
I've tweeted, pinned it above as well.
It's the last tweet on my account.
and talks about a giant data dump.
It was a reply to Libs of TikTok,
and he says that there could be a giant data dump
of censorship requests by the ADL
trying to censor certain accounts on Twitter.
And I think earlier today,
he said that they were trying to censor accounts
on very minute things.
I'm paraphrasing.
So hopefully we'll see what we did with the Twitter files.
We'll do ADL files if it comes to that.
I don't think that will be the case.
If he is suing the ADL, I don't expect any ADL files on his time soon,
just because of the lawsuit, but we'll see.
Also, yeah, I'll let you give the quick overview for the audience
before going to a question for Tiro.
Let's hope he doesn't get suicidal before he gets them files out.
But anyway, in terms of the overview on the last day,
basically Elon Musk has been posting regularly.
Even now he's posting, he's done an article.
He's posted an article which talks about the ADL.
There's a documentary that talks about the negative impacts of the ADL.
So he is using Twitter to basically provide people with an insight
of what issues he has with the ADL and has got to do with...
censorship is got to do with the fact that they've basically caused at least 60% of Twitter's
sponsors to leave the platform. So essentially, let's be clear, they're trying to kill Twitter
because the Twitter does, an ex, does rely on sponsors and they try to basically destroy it.
And what's the reason for it? What's different about Twitter compared to other platforms? It has
more free speech compared to other platforms and that's the
the reason for it. So that's the overview of what's happening. Yeah, and broad, like just, I know you
make jokes, but those things are sensitive. You're saying hopefully it doesn't get suicidal.
The jokes like this probably in polarizing topics like this one as a co-host, we should try to
avoid them. I know it's a very sensitive topic for you as well. But just going back to the point.
Or sly and sneaky and pejorative. Go ahead, Sam. Go ahead.
Yeah, I've got a question for Tira and Fidgitl.
I've been, you know, I've been listening quietly.
I've had some microphone problems, but I've just been kind of taking it all in.
And a lot of guys are making a lot of the same points I would.
But I just want to ask Tira and Fidgettel a question, an AB choice.
What frustrates you more that the ADL is using its consolidated power and influence
to censor legal, nonviolent free speech?
Does that frustrate you more or does it frustrate you more that we're fighting back against their influence in that regard?
Which one of those things frustrates you?
The fact that...
Neither.
Neither.
It doesn't frustrate you that the ADL censors free speech.
Just let me...
It's not free speech.
It's not free speech.
It's not free speech.
You don't have a constitutional right to not have your free speech impeded on this platform.
I'm not talking about the first amendment.
I'm going to draw.
I'm going to draw the stage between the First Amendment and three speech.
Hold on. Hold on. I haven't talked this whole time.
What, about an hour worth of talking?
Let me talk. Let me talk now, please.
All right.
There's a distinction between free speech and the First Amendment, and people like to conflate
these two things. Free speech is a concept. It's an idea. The First Amendment is a constitutional
amendment that enshrines that idea for purposes of government involvement and whatnot. But they
are not the same thing. The free speech and the First Amendment are not the same thing. Absolutely,
we can have free speech on a platform if we want. I see Andrew Torba,
is in here.
He owns and started a company called Gab,
which allows any speech that's legal.
All right, and that is called free speech.
And we could have that on Twitter, but we're being censored.
We're being throttled.
It's being blocked.
Okay, so we don't have free speech, but we could have free speech.
And I'm not talking about First Amendment.
I know that Twitter is a private company, all right, and it can't enforce constitutional amendments or whatever.
Okay.
So I'm not making that legal distinction.
Free speech is just an idea.
It's a concept.
So does it frustrate either of you that Twitter, in large part, because of the influence of the ADL, does not allow free speech, legal speech on his platform?
Does that frustrate you that they abridged?
Or are you in favor of them using their influence to censor a free speech?
I'll let, Tili, if you don't mind.
Fiji, Tira, I know that question is for you both.
So do you want to respond to it?
Fiji, you're responding already?
Sure, very calmly.
Do I think that...
curbing anybody's speech in general is a good thing.
Do I think that the ADL might be overreaching potentially systematically?
Yes.
Do I think it's inherently right or wrong?
Is it good or bad for larger purposes or larger constructive ecosystem of conversation?
I think on balance, it's bad for it. Not wrong, bad. What I think is wrong is wrong.
is that by starting, stoking this conversation,
so make no mistake, Elon Musk,
because he can't fight financially
or is choosing not to fight directly financially,
he is the biggest troll on the face of the planet,
and I love him for it.
Right now, he is,
where did this come from out of nowhere with the ADL?
He's,
He's choosing it because he knows it's divisive at the moment, and he's stoking it to do the fight that would otherwise cost him a bunch of money either to lose or to fight back against the financial pressure from the ADL.
So are you saying it's okay for the ADL to fight against Elon, but it's not okay for Elon and us to fight back?
Is that what you're saying?
No, no, no, no, no.
I said what I don't like is that it's opening up the gate for a lot of,
conversation for people that is not logically clear and is not financially clean and it's
leading to anti-semitic statements and it's leading it's not financially
