reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 firmly rejects the idea of allowing advertising and expresses a strong stance against anyone attempting to blackmail them with money. The speaker's message is clear and direct.

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."

The speakers discuss the potential consequences of tweets hurting a company's reputation and advertisers pulling out. They reference a scene from The Princess Bride and emphasize the importance of speaking their minds, even if it means losing money. The conversation then shifts to a character named Yenigo Montoya seeking revenge for his father's murder. Yenigo shares his backstory and his determination to confront the killer. The video concludes with a comparison to a chess game, where one player is in checkmate and the outcome is inevitable. The speakers acknowledge the humor in the situation.

Speaker 0 firmly rejects the idea of allowing advertising and expresses a strong stance against anyone attempting to blackmail them with money. The speaker's message is clear and direct.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and advertisers leaving. They mention speaking to Bob Iger and express their disinterest in having advertisers if they are being blackmailed with money.

Speaker 0 hopes "they" stop advertising. When asked to clarify, Speaker 0 states that if someone is going to blackmail them, they should do it with money directly, not with advertising. Speaker 0 repeats "Don't advertise" to emphasize this point.

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 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 expresses strong disapproval of being blackmailed with advertising or money, telling the blackmailer to go away. They emphasize their point by repeating the phrase "go fuck yourself." The speaker then addresses someone named Bob in the audience.

I believe in the freedom of speech, even if it means losing advertising dollars. It's acceptable to choose where your ads appear on Twitter, but it's not acceptable to dictate what Twitter will do.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

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.

Speaker 0 firmly rejects the idea of allowing advertising. They express their strong disapproval towards anyone attempting to blackmail them with money. The speaker's message is clear and direct. They conclude by addressing someone named Bob.

Speaker 0 firmly rejects the idea of allowing advertising. They express their strong disapproval towards anyone attempting to blackmail them with money. The speaker's message is clear and they address someone named Bob.

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 states that the questions posed to people in his organization were inaccurate, false, and unfair. Speaker 1 argues that questions cannot be inaccurate by definition. Speaker 0 clarifies that the questions were posed in such a way that they became statements. Speaker 1 references comments from five or six people in the financial community, but Speaker 0 interrupts, asking if it was only one or two people and why they are focusing on the negative. Speaker 0 then terminates the interview, stating that Speaker 1 is a very negative guy and the reporting is unfair. Speaker 1 expresses regret that Speaker 0 feels that way.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 0 expresses their hope that advertisers stop and criticizes those who try to blackmail with money. Speaker 2 asks for Speaker 0's response to the criticism. Speaker 0 mentions their experience interviewing people and questions the New York Times character. Speaker 1 agrees and criticizes the weak moderator. Speaker 0 comments on Elon Musk telling Bob Iger to "fuck himself" and expresses their perception of people who care about looking good while doing evil. Speaker 1 asks for Speaker 0's thoughts on signaling versus action. Speaker 0 describes their agreement and mentions the hand of god massaging their central nervous system. Speaker 3 emphasizes the importance of actions over thoughts and helping others.

Speaker 0 firmly rejects the idea of allowing advertising. They express their strong disapproval towards anyone attempting to blackmail them with money. The speaker's message is clear and direct.

The speaker says they expected “this day” because MAGA has become “everything that we fought against” over the past decade. They accuse MAGA supporters of trying to “call out Candace’s sponsors” and “ruin her livelihood,” while also taking away “our First Amendment.” They reject comparisons to a boycott of Bud Light, saying Bud Light is a huge corporation and not the same as the issue involving Candace, and they argue that “no one needs Candace to tell them that Erica is acting odd.” They say the MAGA movement is being led by people who are the minority and claim they will not “go after your speech,” warning that doing so would be a “slippery slope.” They criticize MAGA supporters for “naming all of her sponsors” and say this is defending Turning Point “to the death.” The speaker states that Michael Aquino is a high military figure for decades, wrote a book called Mind War on psychological warfare, co-wrote it with another person, and works at Turning Point. They claim the group is using psychological warfare, that attendees are being “brainwashed” and “under psyop,” and that these activities involve “satanic people.” The speaker says people are being “punish[ed] … for not believing their bullshit” and compares MAGA supporters to the left for being “just like the left” and being in a “cult.” They claim that “everything that the Democrats have been saying about MAGA is coming true,” and conclude that “ninety-eight percent of us” are leaving or “fucking out,” placing MAGA supporters “on the wrong side,” aligning them with “evil, manipulative pieces of shit” who have “turned our country into shit.”

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.

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?

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of coarsening public discourse and exacerbating divisions. Speaker 1 defends themselves by pointing out that Speaker 0 also uses harsh language. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's YouTube videos with provocative titles, suggesting they contribute to the problem. Speaker 1 argues that they have no control over how others describe them and that people are free to express themselves.

Speaker 0 expresses strong disapproval of being blackmailed with advertising or money, telling the blackmailer to go away. They address someone named Bob in the audience.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and clarifies their stance. They express their disapproval of advertisers trying to blackmail them with money and emphasize that they don't want them to advertise. The speaker discusses the potential need to shift away from advertising in their business model. They mention Linda Yaccarino's role in selling advertising and argue that the advertising boycott will harm the company. The speaker predicts that advertisers will blame them for the company's demise due to their inappropriate statements on the platform. They challenge Earth's response to this accusation.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and clarifies their stance. They express their disapproval of advertisers trying to blackmail them with money. The speaker suggests that the business model may need to shift away from advertising if it means being beholden to those with opposing views. They mention Linda Yaccarino's role in selling advertising. The speaker believes that the advertising boycott will ultimately kill the company, and they plan to document it. They anticipate that advertisers will blame them for the company's demise due to their inappropriate statements. The speaker challenges Earth's response to this accusation.