TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses their recent demonetization on a social media platform and the coordinated attacks they have faced. They explain that they were demonetized without any notification or reason given. They also address the controversy surrounding a documentary they released and clarify that they did interview a man who later claimed he was not interviewed. The speaker believes that they are being targeted because of their success and effectiveness in reaching a wide audience. They also mention the backlash they have received from pro-Israel individuals and their America First stance. The speaker criticizes the gatekeeping and attacks within the movement and questions the motives behind the coordinated efforts against them.

Speaker 1 received access to emails from sources at Twitter. Mr. Musk did not contact them; they were brought in by a friend. They agreed to conditions for covering the story, including attributing sources to Twitter and breaking news on Twitter. Speaker 1 initially denied having conditions but later admitted to them.

In 2022, as Director of Information Security at The Intercept, the speaker wrote articles critical of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, including his purging of leftist accounts and reinstatement of neo-Nazis and anti-vaxxers. Subsequently, Musk permanently suspended the speaker's account, then reinstated it after a poll, but demanded deletion of a tweet. Instead, the speaker quit Twitter for a year. The speaker now works with a collective that makes open-source security and privacy software, including Syd.social, an app to delete data from X and migrate tweets to Blue Sky. The speaker is also involved in Tesla Takedown, a nonviolent movement aiming to devalue Tesla stock and force Musk to sell shares to cover his Twitter debt. The goal is to trigger a Tesla stock "death spiral."

Speaker 0: The Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently in the context of the Iran war. The concern is that war is a Trojan horse for government power expansion, eroding civil rights. The document targets cybercrime but also mentions unveiling an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. The speaker questions whether the government should police propaganda, noting that propaganda is legal in a broad sense, and highlights cultural subversion as a potential tool to align culture with war support. An example cited (satire account) suggests that labeling certain expressions as cultural subversion could chill free expression. Ben Swan is introduced as a guest to discuss the plan and its impact on everyday Americans. Speaker 1: Ben Swan responds that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, so any move toward censorship or identifying propaganda is complicated. He is actually somewhat glad to see language that, at least, mentions “unveil and embarrass” rather than prosecuting or imprisoning. If there are organized online campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments, he views exposing inauthentic activity and embarrassing it as not necessarily a terrible outcome, and he sees this as potentially halting the drift toward broader censorship. He emphasizes that it should not be the government’s job to determine authenticity in online content, and he believes community notes is a better tool than government action for addressing authenticity. Speaker 2: The conversation notes potential blurriness between satire, low-cost AI, and what counts as grassroots versus external influence. If the government were to define and act on what is authentic, would that extend to politically connected figures and inner circles (e.g., MAGA-aligned commentators)? The panel questions whether the office would target these allies and suspects they might not, though they aren’t sure. The discussion moves to real-world consequences, recalling journalists whose bank accounts were shut down, and contrasting that with a platform like Rumble Wallet that offers some financial autonomy away from banks. (Promotional content is present in the transcript but is not included in the summary per guidelines.) Speaker 1: Ben critiques the potential growth of bureaucracies built around “propaganda or bad actors,” noting that such systems tend to justify their own existence and expand over time. He points to Russia-related enforcement as an example of how agencies can expand under the guise of national security. He argues there is no clear “smoking gun” in the document due to its vague, generic language focused on “cyber,” which could allow broad interpretation and future expansion of powers across administrations. He cautions that even supporters of the administration could find the broad terms worrisome because they create enduring bureaucracies that outlive any one presidency. Speaker 0: The discussion returns to concerns about securing emerging technologies, with a reference to an FBI Director’s post about “securing emerging technologies.” The concern is over what “securing” implies, especially if it means controlling or limiting new technologies like AI. The lack of specifics in the document is troubling, as it leaves room for expansive government action in the future. The conversation ends with worry that such language could push toward a modern, more palatable form of prior restraint, rather than clarifying actual threats. Speaker 2: The conversation acknowledges parallels to previous disinformation governance debates, reflecting on Nina Jankowicz and the disinformation governance board, but clarifies that this current approach is seen by the speakers as a distinct, potentially less extreme—but still concerning—direction. The panel hopes to see a rollback or dismantling of overly expansive bureaucratic powers, rather than their expansion.

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

Speaker 1 expected a normal social media post but then heard Neil Young wanted them removed from Spotify. Speaker 1 reacted with surprise. Spotify reportedly received calls from two former presidents.

There were disagreements about fundraising approaches and conflicting visions. The speaker believed in building without relying on donors, while others focused on immediate donations. The conflict escalated publicly, leading to the speaker firing someone who refused to resign. Shortly after, the speaker learned that there would be an emergency vote to restructure the company, indicating their removal. Despite this, the speaker expressed determination to continue their mission, potentially under a new name. They mentioned needing support and invited others to find them. In conclusion, the speaker planned to gather their belongings, load them into their car, and hoped to see some people soon.

I got into a fight with Mike Mac. Every time somebody says anything about Israel, he had a meltdown, and it was during Mandy's space. I wasn't even the one that said it, but whatever. We get into this fight, and he just kept saying shit like, if you're gonna have the badge by your name, then you need to, you know, whatever, or you should create an alt account to say whatever. And so, I responded publicly via post, I snipped what he had said in that space, and I was like, first of all, let's get this shit clear. my only condition is that none of my speech will ever waver. Right? Like, there's not gonna be any censorship of my speech or any steering of narratives. That that was my only condition. And so, anyway, when I responded with that, later on, I think it was that night or the night after, whatever. It was right around that time, that's when they said that he called the meeting and was like, we need to pull out of the political conversations because it's having a bad effect on, you know, our long term success. He's launching this product, this this in fact based whatever thing, and he didn't want the political volatility to, you know, impact his brand. And he was like, so it's up to you. I'm still not trying to censor you. I'm giving you the option. Do you want to stay or go? You know? And I said, well, I'm not gonna not be able to participate in these political mean, that's what I do. Like, what else am I gonna do? Fucking sit in little painting spaces? I mean and I didn't say that, but, like, you know, I'm thinking that. So, anyway, I'd said, you know, so I you know, I'm gonna continue to participate. So that's when that happened. That's why I pulled out. But it wasn't like they they still never told me what to say and not to say. He was saying this is what we changing directions, you know, for the for the long term success of his business. He didn't tell me that I needed to change anything. He's just saying, are you with it or not type thing.

There is a public perception that the apology tour was a response to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1 expresses their hope that advertisers who try to blackmail with money should go away. Speaker 0 asks about the economics of the situation and whether the business model needs to shift away from pleasing everyone. Speaker 1 acknowledges the need to sell advertising but believes the boycott will kill the company. Speaker 0 suggests that advertisers may argue that Speaker 1's inappropriate comments caused their discomfort. Speaker 1 wants to see how the world responds.

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 1 is confused about why they are being asked to leave a presidential campaign event. Speaker 0 explains that it is because they are on private property. Speaker 1 questions why they are being kicked out if they work for Nikki's campaign and were told to sign up for the event. Speaker 0 refuses to answer questions and asks Speaker 1 to leave. Speaker 1 insists that they received an email and text instructing them to sign up for the event. Speaker 2 also asks Speaker 1 to leave, but Speaker 1 argues that they are asking nicely too. Speaker 0 reiterates that they don't have answers and that Speaker 1 must leave the premises.

After leaving the White House and starting a business, the speaker's bank informed them they could no longer do business together. A prominent email distribution service provider terminated their agreement. A university revoked its agreement to accept donations for foster students after learning the donations were from the speaker. The speaker believes these actions were due to their political affiliation and beliefs, calling it one of the "canceling projects." While some people have gained courage to speak out against cancel culture, the speaker believes it is still ongoing.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sudden, unexplained YouTube ban impacting Speaker 1’s entire account, including the ability to watch YouTube, with no violations or warnings on the channel and no explanation given. The channel was deleted for not following community standard guidelines, which Speaker 1 notes is surprising given the channel’s focus on personal experiences, scientific conversations, and lack of strikes. Speaker 1 explains the last interview they did was with Jim Sikala, and mentions frequent contact from Harvard University’s neurology department seeking real experiences to place boxes in homes for real scientific data collection, not ufology. He says the interview with Sikala was “the last thing we did” about a week or two prior, and asserts there was no explanation for the termination and ban from the app. Speaker 2 frames this as part of a broader pattern of suppression since they started filming a documentary and releasing it on November 5. They describe their YouTube presence as minimal in size and influence, yet they’ve observed a lack of visibility across Twitter and other platforms, with posts “invisible” or unseen by audiences. They had expected the Rogan mention to boost visibility, given some discussions around the documentary and agent disclosure, but instead experienced continued suppression. Speaker 0 notes that both their channels and individual accounts are not reaching audiences despite heavy cross-promotion, and they question how to generate interest or reach when content remains unseen. They reference a Rogan appearance last night that mentioned Speaker 1, and then the next day Speaker 1’s channel is wiped out, prompting speculation about a possible connection. Speaker 1 acknowledges that several thousand people think the ban is connected to the Rogan mention and Doctor Michael Masters’ discussions, though he emphasizes he does not monetize his channel and aims to help others share experiences. Speaker 1 emphasizes the documentary’s impact on people who feel unable to discuss certain topics in everyday society, noting that the content has helped many to rediscover suppressed ideas and experiences. He describes the emotional and personal toll of the work, including sleep issues and a period of sleepwalking, which he attributes to stress and exposure, and recounts a recent incident of seeing a face in a kitchen window, which turned out to be himself in a mirror-like reflection. Speaker 2 summarizes the sense of ongoing coincidence and timing that feels significant, comparing it to the sense of the phenomenon experienced prior to their first filming. They acknowledge receiving messages from viewers inspired by the documentary, thanking them for the work.

I had a disagreement with a colleague in front of others, and the next day he refused to resign, so I fired him. On February 2nd, after a video I made went viral, another person from Project Veritas told me they would have an emergency vote to restructure the company. I received an email with the agenda while I was on a plane, and realized I would be removed from my position by the time I landed.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 1 explains that they were not fired by Mark Zuckerberg, but faced continuous attacks from the media and tech industry. They were put on leave for six months after making a $9,000 political donation supporting Trump. The speaker believes that if Trump had lost, the attacks would have been dismissed, but his victory made it unbearable. They acknowledge a direct connection between the donation and being pushed out of the company. Other Facebook employees fear speaking out or supporting any politician due to what happened to the speaker. The speaker advises right-leaning founders to keep their political leanings private to avoid being terminated by the mob, focusing instead on building and creating value.

The speaker reflects on being fired and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention that being a high-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. They express that they weren't shocked by the firing and understood that they couldn't defy everyone and expect to keep their job. The speaker also discusses the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. They state that while they personally never faced pressure to shape their views, they were always clear that they would speak their truth. The speaker acknowledges that their positions on certain issues were unpopular within their company but appreciates that they were allowed to express them. They also discuss the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. The second speaker finds it strange that a top performer would be fired without any feedback and believes it to be self-destructive from a business standpoint. The first speaker agrees and emphasizes the importance of explaining disagreements and delivering uncomfortable news. They mention that they weren't too upset about being fired as they were aware of the harsh realities of the industry.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

In a heated online space, the participants debate organizational affiliations, personal insults, and questions about narratives surrounding international events. The core points are: - Contract with NAG: Speaker 1 confirms that “we severed” or “didn’t make the cut” with the group referred to as NAG, indicating a break in alignment. When pressed for specifics, they note the date and details are unclear, mentioning it “has been a month.” Payments or compensation are touched on briefly, with Speaker 2 asking if someone is being paid by others, and Speaker 1 replying with a noncommittal remark about a banner or check mark. - Identity and credibility disputes: The dialogue includes strong personal accusations and defenses over Christian identity, history, and authenticity. A moment centers on an Orthodox Christian icon being attacked, with Speaker 0 emphasizing they are Christian and criticizing another participant’s approach to Christianity. This thread quickly devolves into name-calling and claims about knowledge of Christian history, with insults and counter-insults about piety and background. - Media portrayal and allegations of manipulation: Speaker 2 accuses the group of being “counter, to be basically the controlled opposition” and questions potential contractual pressure. They refer to smear videos and claim others are posting content to discredit them. The discussion includes claims of being targeted by large accounts and accusations of gaslighting and manipulation. - El Salvador and Bukele narrative: A key point raised by Speaker 2 involves skepticism about the State Department narrative on El Salvador and Bukele. They state the world doesn’t revolve around Ryan Mata and say their own research raises questions about why certain narratives persist, insisting they did not attack Ryan Mata and did not tag him, but simply asked questions about the situation. - Social media dynamics and conflicts: The exchange includes a back-and-forth about who blocked whom, who controls whom, and who is “bullied” or being treated unfairly. The participants describe smear videos, blocking behavior, and the impact of public accounts with large followings. There are accusations that others “babysit” spaces or inject themselves into conversations with an agenda. - Specific confrontations and accusations: Speaker 2 recounts being accused of bullying and being attacked for asking questions about El Salvador; Speaker 1 responds by accusing Speaker 2 of seeking attention and of being a chaos agent. The dialogue includes repeated clashes over who said what, with emphasis on truth-seeking versus smearing. - Tone and escalation: The conversation alternates between attempting to ask clarifying questions and eruptions of hostility, with terms like “heritic,” “liberal,” “block,” and “gaslighting” used repeatedly. The participants express frustration at being misunderstood, misrepresented, or blocked from collaborative discussion, culminating in mutual admonitions and exasperation.

- Speaker 1 argues that many people involved in certain activities are motivated by bounties and money, suggesting that some might be doing it for personal gain rather than ideological reasons. They say: “a lot of these people are just sacks of shit that are going for a bounty,” and imply that some individuals could be MK Ultra, calling it “kinda cooler” than being a mercenary for a bounty. - They discuss the idea that bounties are paid by various actors, mentioning “billionaires and shit” and suggesting that “this works both ways.” They imply that anti-Israel sentiment could also be tied to people being paid. - The conversation shifts to media manipulation, attributing influence to Larry Ellison as a “shadow president” who is allegedly buying up the media. They imply this is to control the narrative after a crisis, describing the media consolidation as a response to a failure to manage public perception. - The speakers claim that the reason for frantic media buying is a loss of the next generation of trauma-absorbing minds, alleging that on TikTok, “these psychopaths bragged about crimes they did to people.” They assert that young people (referred to as “Zoomies” or “the next generation”) in America and elsewhere were exposed to woke programming, which the oligarchs allegedly fear will backfire on them. - They claim that Israel has not had woke programming for the last twelve years, using that as a marker to identify who is involved in the propaganda, stating Israel lacks awareness of sensitivities around gender issues and that this helps identify participants in the propaganda. - The discussion moves to a broader media and censorship critique, with Speaker 1 predicting that Barry Weiss being put in charge will not go well, referencing a town hall as evidence of a poorly received event. - The conversation also touches on personal safety concerns related to speaking out, noting that talking about these topics can lead to danger, including the potential for being killed. They reference Charlie Kirk and a Pegasus hack incident as examples of such risks, and mention a Bohemian Grove reference in relation to Jimmy. - Overall, the dialogue weaves together themes of bounty-driven participation, MK Ultra speculation, media consolidation by influential figures, the perceived weaponization of woke politics, generational media influence via TikTok, and personal safety concerns for public commentators.

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.