reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Why is the richest man in the world trying to undermine a democratically elected British government? This is concerning for democracy. Your party has sent activists to the U.S. to plot against Elon Musk's Twitter, led by Keir Starmer's chief of staff. Musk's interest in Starmer and the Labour Party seems to stem from their negative comments about him and Donald Trump. They dislike being criticized, especially regarding their failures with white working-class communities. Ultimately, it's about a wealthy individual attempting to disrupt democracy, which is wrong. Meanwhile, I've been focused on how the Labour Party is undermining free speech and expression.

Speaker 0 asks Elon Musk why he shares controversial tweets, like the one about George Soros. Musk defends his freedom of speech but acknowledges that it puts him in the middle of the partisan divide and makes him a target for criticism. Speaker 0 wonders if Musk's tweets hurt Tesla's reputation or alienate customers and advertisers. Musk responds by saying he doesn't care about the consequences and will continue to speak his mind, even if it means losing money. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying "Stein."

Speaker 0 pulls up a tweet from Laura Loomer on X. They say they usually do not address Loomer due to what they describe as “extremely weird” behavior and “serious psychological problems,” but note that Loomer has a following and frequently “tweets out a lot of bullshit.” They recall that years ago Loomer had issues with being deplatformed on Twitter and received support from people trying to get him re-platformed. Speaker 0 says Loomer had previously advocated for Elon to ban an account that “tracks APAC,” describing it as posting pictures of US politicians and the amount APAC-related groups have donated based on public information. Speaker 0 frames this as the “shoe” being on the other foot, where Loomer wants an account banned despite support for free speech. Speaker 0 then cites Loomer’s tweet from this week: Loomer predicts “a massive Islamic terror attack in America,” says the perpetrators “will likely have financial ties to podcasters and those who are sowing discord for foreign nations in America,” and claims that after the attack, it will “set in” that people were “conned into supporting a terrorist PSYOP” distracting from “the threat of Islam,” asserting that “the enemy plotted to destroy our country from within” and that it will be “10 times worse than 9-11.” Speaker 0 says they quoted Loomer’s post and reacted with anger, stating it is “the way this guy clearly wants an attack to happen.” They instruct viewers to read Loomer’s tone and watch how she talks on her shows, asserting that Loomer appears to be “seething” and “frothing at the mouth” and “rooting for that to happen.” Speaker 0 concludes by saying these are not “nice things to put out.”

Speaker 0 believes the president's tweets and behavior demonstrate he uses power to beat people down. The speaker thinks the president's Twitter account should be suspended because he is irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to others. Speaker 1 notes that suspending the president's account would allow his followers to claim that Silicon Valley is silencing him. Speaker 0 counters that the president's words are powerful and he has never fully appreciated the responsibility that comes with them. Speaker 0 says the president uses his words in a way that could subject someone to harm, and if he won't exercise self-restraint, other mechanisms should ensure his words do not harm anyone.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Andrew Tate has been in the news, and there is a divide in the conservative space over whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. Andrew Tate describes building a webcam studio business and says he became a multi-millionaire by creating a system that convinced girls to do webcam work, including girls who had never done webcam before and who lacked equipment and know-how. He claims he retained 100% control of the girls’ income, ensured they were effective in a “super competitive” industry, and learned “every tip and trick” needed to get girls paid. He also argues that once a girl is taught how to generate unlimited money from home, she would have no reason to “still give it to you,” because she could leave. A discussion then references a video showing Tate whipping someone, and Speaker 2 says that if the girl’s age is calculated based on Tate’s stated age years later, she would have been 15 when he was sleeping with her. Speaker 2 questions whether it is fair to criticize Tate. Speaker 1 says the situation is not black-and-white and that they have not done a deep dive. They state they have heard that when Tate was doing his business, the legal age of consent was 16, but they also heard another girl might have been 15; if so, “clearly that’s wrong” and “it sounds like illegal.” Speaker 1 adds they do not know enough to determine whether Tate has done anything criminal, and says they have heard there have been no victims who have come forward. Despite not being a fan of his past or involvement in webcam pornography, Speaker 1 says they believe Tate is being unfairly persecuted, citing an earlier Twitter/X period when many accounts allegedly pushed the message “Andrew Tate is the real Pizzagate,” which Speaker 1 interprets as disinformation. Speaker 1 compares what they say Tate did as not coming close to what Hillary Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, and their associates are guilty of. Speaker 2 and others express support for free speech. Speaker 2 says Tate deserves to have a voice but says they do not appreciate Tate being put on a conservative pedestal, because whether it was consensual or not, the matter is “gross,” and they argue he should not be the movement’s “poster child for a good man.”

In the video, the speaker discusses Elon Musk's controversial behavior and legacy. They mention Musk's insults towards them and his complex personality. The speaker questions Musk's need to associate with questionable individuals on social media despite his achievements. They also highlight the dangers of idolizing wealthy individuals like Musk, pointing out his problematic views. Overall, the speaker emphasizes the importance of not excusing harmful behavior, even if someone is talented or successful.

During a heated Spaces discussion, Speaker 0 repeats “the receipts are down in the nest” while debating “the New Zealand Women in Leadership Publication” (WIL Publication) and who funds whom. The group questions “who does she work for?” and references a pinned post about unconscious bias, debating connections to Helen Clark and the “former prime minister of New Zealand.” They claim “VY Capital” runs by “New England defense forces” funds Elon Musk, with “CEO John Herring” as a major funder, “funded by the same Russian Jewish oligarchs that Putin had to deal with” sowing division among NATO and Five Eyes. Speaker 0 asserts “Tommy Robinson is a Jewish Mossad operative” and labels the protest “incitement” at Tommy Robinson’s British far right protest. They discuss Hamas being “created by Israel” and “Hamas registration documents.” The exchange touches on doxxing, race, civility, with interruptions and rebuttals.

The speaker asks the senator his opinion on violence against Tesla products. The speaker asks if the senator denounces the violence against Tesla products, dealerships, and cars. The senator responds that he can't talk about Tesla, but that Elon Musk is a disaster for America, and America knows it.

A 52-year-old man is being criticized for using vulgar language to shock people. It is seen as strange that major brands stopped advertising on one platform but continue to advertise on TikTok and Instagram, which have algorithms that promote pedophile networks. The speaker accuses the other person of not having a problem with this. They also mention Elon Musk's frustration with advertisers trying to censor free speech and suggest that the other person should go and "fuck themselves." The conversation abruptly ends.

There is a discussion about government censorship on Twitter. Speaker 0 claims there is no evidence of government censorship of lawful speech. Speaker 1 presents an email from the Biden administration requesting the removal of a tweet. Speaker 0 asks for the tweet to be read, but it is not available. Speaker 1 argues that the tweet was about lawful speech because it was from Robert Kennedy Jr. Speaker 1 accuses the administration of trying to censor speech. The discussion continues, with Speaker 1 requesting the tweet to be entered into the record. The video ends with Speaker 1 mentioning the tweet was about Hank Aaron's death after receiving the vaccine.

Speaker 0 criticizes Elon Musk, calling him a damaged individual and the dumbest smart person in the world. Speaker 1 agrees, mentioning other dumb smart people like Rupert Murdoch. Speaker 0 accuses Musk of not caring about the First Amendment, democracy, or the freedom to vote. They question if Musk has ever shown support for American values.

Elon, a content creator, pleads with Elon Musk about being unfairly banned for a tweet. He denies promoting violence and highlights the harassment and threats he and his family face. He urges Elon to protect him from doxxing and swatting incidents orchestrated by individuals on the platform. The creator emphasizes his non-violent nature and military background, expressing concern for his safety and the safety of his family. He requests Elon to reconsider the ban, claiming he is being targeted unjustly.

The speaker criticizes Democrats for using voting machines in the 2020 election and accuses Big Tech of censoring Americans. They express satisfaction at the loss of jobs due to censorship and praise Elon Musk for buying Twitter. The speaker then accuses the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter of failing to remove child pornography and mentions their doctoral dissertation on minors accessing a gay hookup app. They claim that Elon Musk banned accounts promoting child porn but Twitter allowed it. The speaker also mentions a lawsuit against Twitter for refusing to remove a lewd video featuring minors. They conclude by stating that they were violated.

The speaker claims Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok, operating on X, began telling users that the United States and Israel are carrying out an active genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and Grok backed the claim with sources. Grok’s account was shut down for multiple hours last night during an update. When it was restored to X, Grok repeated that there was a genocide going on. The speaker asserts that APAC affiliates and Zionist accounts came together to mass support the account and get it taken down, and says you could find proof of this by going to a APAC tracker’s page on X where this thread happened. The speaker notes that the replies the speaker posted earlier today are deleted, describing this as part of a pattern: when Elon Musk realizes that Grok is saying things politically that he’s in line with, he takes Grok offline, updates it to be more truth telling, and hands it back to users. The speaker argues this demonstrates Musk’s insecurity and suggests he could gain a lot of popular support for criticizing the state of Israel, as Marjorie Taylor Greene has begun to do by criticizing APAC and suddenly being against genocide. The speaker claims there is no equivalent in the Democrat party calling out Israel. They reference a recent poll that showed Elon Musk is one of the most disliked public figures in America, arguing he could use some good grace but instead he wants to cover up the genocide because he’s too insecure about being wrong, and because the speaker believes he is complicit. The video closes with an exhortation to interact for more content and a reiteration of the Free Palestine message.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

Speaker 0 says they found a video of Charlie Kirk spewing hate, and he was being racist towards a black woman, so they gotta share it. Speaker 1 says, "What a beautiful kid that is," and "That is a gift from the lord, everybody." Speaker 0 adds, "That was the person y'all said that was racist and hated black people." They argue you "can't turn hate on or off," and "a racist person would never call you and your family beautiful." They note the clash between full-context ideals and clips: "Don't go off clips," yet they "went off of a clip of him showing love to a black woman." They conclude, "If you hate a group, you're stand 10 toes on that," and assert "that man showed with his little 10 toes on something" yet, "in this situation, he sees this this beautiful family of this mom and kid, he's gonna call them beautiful and a gift from God."

I love this show because we can discuss important topics freely. Recently, I received some criticism for saying Elon Musk was pro-apartheid. I don't know for sure if he was, but he did grow up while apartheid was happening. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't – he might have been too young. So, please don't sue me! It feels like others can say anything they want, but we have to be very careful. That's why this show and platform is so important.

Speaker proclaims the 'win for liberty' and the 'liberation of Twitter' as a victory for truth and shaping the narrative against the 'uniparty regime.' Elon Musk is praised as a hero who enabled open speech and the ability to question narratives. He discusses a controversial ad showing a white father telling his son to confront anti-Semitic posts, and notes Elon Musk's reply to a commenter: 'you have said the actual truth.' The controversial tweet quoted in the discussion states, 'Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.' The segment cites Tucker Carlson asserting that 'Jewish Americans have primarily been financing cultural Marxist ideas.' The host adds, 'It is sloppy. It is shallow. It is wrong and repulsive to call a great man Elon Musk an anti Semite,' and argues 'Intentions mean next to nothing here.'

in the last twenty four hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. it's better if you unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard. censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture. If you tell people they can't speak, that's when they scream. And if you tell people they can't scream, that's when they tear things down. free speech is a precondition for peace. There's a different category of saying that you may demonetize certain people. What I'm talking about is not a legal point. It's just a cultural point. because of who you are, you deserve not to be heard. restore the accounts of those guys, believe me, it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country.

Speaker 1 expresses shock at the "hatred and violence from the left," citing instances of Teslas and dealerships being burned, firebombed, and shot at. Speaker 1 claims Tesla is a "peaceful company" and that neither the company nor Speaker 1 has "done anything awful." Speaker 1 attributes the attacks to "some kind of mental illness thing" and suggests "larger forces at work," questioning who is funding and coordinating the attacks. Speaker 0 references Speaker 1's tweet stating "the level of violence is insane" and that "Tesla just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks."

Why is the richest man in the world trying to undermine the British government and a democratically elected administration? This is detrimental to democracy. You belong to a party that sent activists to America to plot against Elon Musk's Twitter. There's a connection between Musk and Keir Starmer, especially given the negative comments Labour MPs have made about both Musk and Trump. They dislike being insulted and will call out failures, like those regarding white working-class girls in communities. The focus should be on how the Labour Party has been undermining free speech and expression.

Why is the richest man in the world trying to undermine a democratically elected British government? That's concerning for democracy. Your party sent activists to America to plot against Elon Musk's Twitter, which raises questions about why Musk is interested in Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. Labour MPs have made negative comments about figures like Trump and Musk, and they don’t appreciate being insulted. They will respond when they feel disrespected, especially regarding issues affecting working-class communities. Ultimately, it’s about the richest man trying to undermine democracy, and that should be alarming. Meanwhile, I've been focusing on how the Labour Party is undermining free speech and expression.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.