0:03

Politics, music, technology,

0:06

roller coasters, golf carts,

0:09

and the greatest country on Earth. National

0:12

Review's new show, the Charles C. W.

0:14

Cook podcast, that's me, explores

0:16

the scenic highways and byways of

0:18

American political and cultural life. Featuring

0:22

interviews with leading writers, thinkers, and

0:24

public figures, every episode offers

0:26

a fresh perspective on the promises

0:28

and challenges facing America. Don't

0:31

miss out. Tune into the Charles

0:33

C. W. Cook podcast on Apple

0:35

Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your

0:37

shows. Social

0:56

media companies in the doc and E. Jean

0:59

Carroll hits a jackpot. We'll discuss

1:01

all this more on this edition of the editors.

1:03

I'm Rich Lowry, and I'm joined as always

1:05

by the right honorable Charles C. W. Cook, Madeline

1:07

Maddie-Kerns, and the notorious M. B. D. Michael,

1:10

Brendan Doherty, you are, of course, listening to

1:12

a National Review podcast. Our sponsors this episode

1:14

are the podcast, How the World Works, and

1:17

Bound by Earth. More about both of them and due

1:19

course. If for some reason you're not already following us

1:21

on a streaming service, by the way, you can

1:23

find us everywhere from Spotify to iTunes. And if you like

1:25

what you hear here, please consider giving us

1:27

a glowing five star view on iTunes. If you

1:29

don't like what you hear here, please forget. I

1:32

said anything. So, M.B.D.,

1:35

we had these social media hearings

1:37

where Mark Zuckerberg was the star

1:40

witness and Josh Holly, who generally I'm not

1:42

a huge fan of Josh Holly, but I

1:44

think he had the most effective five

1:46

minutes interrogating a congressional

1:49

witness since Elise Stefanik and

1:52

the Ivy League presidents. There's always

1:55

when you quote unquote own someone this

1:57

way, there's always an element, you know,

1:59

unfair. or there usually is, and that was present here, but

2:02

he had Zuckerberg on his back foot. He

2:05

was blinking and licking

2:07

his lips and then really was pressured

2:09

and forced into standing up in

2:13

a dramatic moment and apologizing to

2:15

these parents sitting behind

2:17

him of victims of various forms of

2:19

online abuse. What

2:22

do you make of it? You know, it was a little

2:25

unfair to Zuckerberg, as

2:28

you said, but it was a dramatic moment. I

2:32

mean, the stories of some

2:34

of those victims are horrible. I

2:37

mean, you know, it's true that, you know,

2:41

some young girls have had, you

2:44

know, pornographic images or

2:47

just images of themselves naked, uploaded, and

2:51

distributed on social media, and

2:53

then they take their lives out of

2:55

the humiliation that that

2:57

causes, or their lives are just permanently

3:01

scarred by it. And,

3:04

you know, of course,

3:07

if you're asked how

3:09

much child sexual abuse material is

3:12

acceptable on Facebook, the answer should

3:14

be zero, and

3:17

that's true. It's

3:20

not necessarily Mark Zuckerberg's fault

3:23

that that material appeared on Facebook, and

3:25

you have to, you know, I think

3:27

you have to judge whether

3:31

Facebook took reasonable steps

3:34

to prevent that material from being uploaded and from

3:37

being spread by the

3:39

algorithm when it was. I

3:43

think in some cases they took

3:45

great steps to prevent that, and in

3:47

some cases they've made mistakes. You

3:50

know, this is separate from, you know, my

3:53

views about Facebook more generally.

3:55

So I thought it was unfair, but it was true. dramatic

4:00

and it illustrated I think

4:02

a larger point, a political

4:05

point, which I think is that there

4:09

is a growing, an emergent

4:12

policy consensus on the

4:14

Hill that social

4:16

media is bad for teenagers and

4:19

maybe should be restricted from them

4:21

in a serious way.

4:24

And having seen

4:26

state age limit

4:28

laws on pornographic

4:30

sites start to actually

4:33

work and be really effective.

4:37

Congress has more of an appetite I think now

4:39

to experiment with this than they ever have before

4:41

where previously it was considered a

4:45

totally fruitless enterprise

4:47

that you know, parents

4:50

will just figure out a way around them,

4:52

parents will help them around any regulation.

4:57

Now I think at least Congress

4:59

is willing itself to try. So

5:04

we'll see. It was a dramatic moment

5:06

and it speaks to

5:08

the way that Silicon Valley has like

5:10

lost so much luster in

5:12

the last decade. I mean, first with

5:14

the left after Trump and

5:17

Brexit, after it was decided

5:19

that Silicon Valley was somehow to blame for those

5:23

elections, which I don't

5:25

think was fair either. Silicon

5:28

Valley was just reflecting what was actually happening in

5:31

the real world. And

5:34

now the rights come in with as

5:38

child sex abuse has become

5:40

like a huge issue on

5:43

the right and they're taking the

5:45

height out of Zuckerberg now. Yeah,

5:48

so Maddie, I think

5:50

there's this constant back and forth

5:52

about how many safety officers Facebook

5:55

has and there's this email from this

5:57

guy, Nick Legg, is that his name?

6:00

saying, you know, I need 50 safety officers and

6:03

Zuckers say, no, we're not going to do that.

6:05

And just to me, that seems mostly

6:08

irrelevant. It's the medium of itself that

6:10

is likely harmful

6:12

to teens. And I say likely.

6:14

Jonathan Haidt has been

6:17

on this case for years now. And

6:19

it certainly, you know, there may be

6:21

confounding variables or something else going on,

6:24

but it certainly seems to line up

6:26

pretty well with the ubiquity of

6:28

social media, the rise of the ubiquity

6:30

of social media with this

6:33

incredible rise and at least

6:35

self-reported depression and anxiety

6:37

among teenagers, especially girls. And not

6:39

just self-reports, you know, there's also

6:42

more suicide attempts and

6:44

hospital visits for self-harm.

6:47

Maybe something else is going on, but

6:49

it seems likely this is

6:51

the culprit or the

6:53

main culprit. And I was looking at something

6:55

last night. I think from kids 13 to 17, like 95% are

6:57

on social media. In

7:01

theory, they're supposed to be a ban. So you can't get

7:03

on when you're under age 13, but

7:05

about 40% of 8 to 12-year-olds report being

7:10

on social media as well. Yeah.

7:12

So I think this actually came up

7:14

when Zuckerberg suggested that

7:17

the bulk of scientific evidence does

7:19

not support the idea that

7:21

there's a direct causal relationship between

7:23

social media use and

7:25

mental health issues. And

7:28

this is something I think Holly challenged, respectively.

7:31

And you mentioned Jonathan Hight and

7:34

he's pointed out that part of the problem with

7:36

these scientific studies that suggest there's maybe

7:38

not a problem is that they define their

7:40

terms so broadly. So it

7:42

would be kind of like defining candy

7:45

to include vegetables and saying

7:47

that like, oh yeah, if you live

7:50

only on candy or if you consume too

7:52

much candy, that is essentially not harmful

7:54

because you're including all these

7:56

other things. I mean, it's- So those

7:58

studies include other forms. of screen.

8:02

Exactly, yeah which are not

8:04

the things that people are objecting to. They're not objecting

8:06

to the use of screens for educational

8:08

purposes or the internet, the source of information

8:11

or source of connection.

8:13

They're objecting to unwanted

8:15

sexual advances or the

8:17

type self-content that produces

8:21

mental health effects. So

8:23

we had the Instagram whistleblower case

8:26

a while ago. It

8:28

was like 37% of Instagram users

8:30

between the ages 13 and 15

8:32

had encountered unwanted

8:34

nudity in the previous seven

8:36

days. 24% had

8:39

encountered unwanted sexual advances which again

8:41

suggests that they know

8:43

this is a problem, they know this is going on and

8:46

Michael said it was unfair. I don't

8:49

know if it was unfair. I think it was over the top.

8:51

I mean I had a

8:53

censor, Marsha Blackburn saying that

8:56

Jessica works trying to be the premier

8:58

sex trafficking site in the country. That's

9:00

obviously a bit overblown. Senator Lindsey

9:02

Graham saying he has blood on his hands. This

9:05

is a big problem and I think something Johnson

9:07

High said a lot when people say oh

9:10

but it's not been proven to be causal.

9:13

He says well okay if you look at the 2010s

9:15

you see this huge uptick

9:18

in suicide dialysis, mental health problems

9:20

in teenagers. Do you have another

9:22

explanation for what it could possibly

9:25

be? And it's great

9:27

to generally don't to be honest sometimes

9:29

say things like oh well it

9:31

may be climate change or something

9:34

like that but then it's like well okay but how are kids

9:36

learning about climate change? How are they becoming obsessed about climate change?

9:39

Could that be TikTok? Could

9:41

that be you know social media most

9:43

likely? I mean my experience anecdotally of

9:46

interviewing parents whose

9:48

children have become or

9:51

started identifying as transgender and going

9:53

down this very depressive

9:56

anxiety-ridden rabbit hole is that it

9:58

the social media The huge role

10:01

to play in are often isis

10:03

kids will kids on the. End

10:05

up finding this like online community. Some

10:07

of them are adults. That

10:10

having sort of the cyber relationships that

10:12

wouldn't existed when success in any other

10:14

contexts on and it was a decent

10:16

make the argument that okay but itself

10:18

parents to police that parents want to

10:20

say that the can have. Fallen.

10:23

Span the the have that power but

10:25

you know not everybody actually does has

10:27

a pair of city of oh wow

10:29

one. Period I interviewed His daughter has

10:31

to say that she was. Really

10:33

a boy and then. Ultimately,

10:36

Cipparone life. And that

10:38

was me. that this is partly. In the

10:40

pursuit but as. This woman was and emigrants

10:42

is the single mom said for kids to

10:44

have no choice but to send her daughter

10:46

to public school. Were

10:49

all over. Peers are also have

10:51

very online. I'm and you

10:53

do things like to some feeling that benefit.

10:55

From a regulation which which

10:57

teeth and. The

10:59

suspects is based on the suffice it to be

11:02

dangerous for for kids, for teenagers and makes a

11:04

little bit harder for them to access and I

11:06

think. Probably gets a problem with and

11:08

hell yeah per person chooses oil say

11:10

it so hard his are all that

11:12

he other teenagers are. Are

11:14

on it Charlie! I'm.

11:17

Saying that this was

11:20

a repellent example of

11:22

cynical, secular populace demagoguery.

11:26

And the Jones Holy should be ashamed of

11:28

himself. I do. I

11:30

think this was an example

11:32

of. Problems. That

11:35

are the product of. Irreplaceable

11:38

technological chains. Being.

11:41

Blamed on the people

11:43

who designed. The.

11:47

Core. Systems that under good those

11:49

changes rather than. Those.

11:53

Who. Abuse them. Or. Who are

11:55

responsible for monitoring. Abuse.

11:58

know have no doubt Social media is

12:00

bad for kids. We can stipulate that. I

12:04

don't think that's the question here, though. I

12:07

personally work hard to keep my

12:09

kids away from social media. I've

12:12

locked down the family computer and

12:16

their devices, the Apple TV.

12:20

But I don't think the problem here is

12:22

Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk or Sergey

12:24

Brin or anyone in that

12:26

mall. I read

12:28

an AP story yesterday, which

12:31

starts like this. Let's bring this up.

12:35

Sexual predators, addictive features,

12:37

suicide and eating disorders,

12:39

unrealistic beauty standards, bullying.

12:42

These are just some of the issues young

12:44

people are dealing with on social media and

12:46

children's advocates and lawmakers say companies are not

12:48

doing enough to protect them. It's

12:51

the last sentence there that's the problem, not doing

12:53

enough to protect them. The

12:56

AP story has a quote from Dick Durbin,

12:58

Senator from Illinois, a Democrat. They

13:00

are responsible for many of the dangers our

13:03

children face online. Their

13:05

design choices, their failures to adequately invest

13:07

in trust and safety, their constant pursuit

13:09

of engagement and profit over basic safety

13:11

have all put our kids and grandkids

13:13

at risk. I just don't think that's

13:16

true. I'm sure

13:18

it helps the career of Josh Hawley

13:21

to ask whether or

13:23

not he's personally compensated the families,

13:25

whether he apologizes. But

13:29

this is not a design choice so much

13:31

as it's a result of the way the

13:33

Internet works, which in America is extremely open.

13:37

And the thing is, Americans

13:39

want to keep it that way. The

13:43

moment companies start spying,

13:45

people get angry. The

13:49

moment companies start deciding

13:51

what can and can't be said, you

13:54

see a backlash often from the same people

13:56

involved in this circus

13:59

act. The other case against

14:01

big tech that I hear all the time is it's

14:03

intrusive. Barack

14:05

Obama was killed in the polls, I

14:08

think quite rightly, for the

14:10

metadata inspection. Americans

14:13

don't like the negative consequences of

14:15

social media, and I don't either.

14:18

But they also hate any of the things that we would

14:20

need to do to fix it. So

14:23

what do we do? Instead of having

14:25

a serious conversation about those trade-offs, we

14:29

put Mark Zuckerberg in

14:32

front of Congress and

14:34

pretend that these

14:36

issues are the product of

14:39

choices that he has made to make more

14:41

money. And it's just not

14:43

true. All

14:46

right, so, MBD, instead of asking you

14:48

directly to tangle with Charlie, I'm going

14:50

to ask an exit question, which will

14:52

have great implications for the

14:54

different views of

14:57

this matter. And that question is, if

14:59

you're in Congress and the

15:01

bill was advanced, maybe you'd draft it.

15:03

Maybe I should ask whether you'd draft it. I'm just

15:05

going to ask whether you'd vote for it if someone

15:07

else drafted it. A ban

15:11

on kids under age

15:13

18 using social

15:15

media, and let's stipulate it's an intelligently

15:17

written bill. It's what you've all of

15:19

in and others have set out. You'd

15:22

have real age verification. You'd have real

15:24

teeth in the bill and punishment for

15:27

companies working around it. And you'd have

15:29

an opt-in for parents who really

15:31

want their kids to be on social

15:33

media when they're younger than age 18.

15:36

Would you vote for that bill? I

15:40

think usually they've been framed as at 16, which

15:42

I would definitely, which I would support.

15:46

18 feels a little bit dramatic.

15:50

I understand it fits with other age and majority

15:54

lines already, but if

15:57

you can drive... I think if you

15:59

can drive... of, you know, two-time vehicle,

16:01

you can have an Instagram

16:03

account that's at the age of All

16:07

right. So you offer an amendment to do it at 16. Maddie?

16:10

Yeah, at 16, I think I would vote for

16:13

that. Charlie,

16:15

assume you're a no. Well, I mean,

16:17

no, not because I don't think that

16:19

there is a bright line to be

16:21

drawn between minors and adults. I am

16:24

a classical liberal who leans libertarian when

16:26

it comes to the rights and responsibilities

16:28

of adults. I understand that to children.

16:32

I am a no because there is no

16:34

technological way to achieve that without

16:36

materially damaging the internet and access

16:39

to it for everyone. I don't

16:41

want to see those

16:44

powers being

16:46

granted to Congress. So

16:50

how would such a, you know, in theory

16:52

there's a ban at age 13. It is

16:54

not, you know, it's kind of meaningless. But

16:57

why would a ban at 16 or 18

16:59

materially harm the rest of the internet? Well,

17:02

because the way that you would verify

17:05

the age of potential

17:07

social media users would

17:10

apply to everyone by definition. The computer

17:12

doesn't know how old you are. It's

17:14

not as if it

17:17

scans your face, heaven's fore friend,

17:20

and determines how old you are. So

17:22

a 50 year old would be subject

17:25

to the same restrictions

17:28

as an eight year old. That's

17:32

how it would work. If you

17:34

look back to the creation of

17:36

the internet and then the world wide web,

17:39

the whole point in it is

17:41

that the backbone systems,

17:45

DNS, HTML,

17:47

HTTP and HTTPS are accessible

17:52

to anyone. You can quite

17:54

literally plug a computer

17:57

into your home internet connection. Route

18:00

a domain name to the IP

18:02

address in store

18:05

a server of some sort on that

18:07

machine and share

18:09

your thoughts or whatever

18:11

it is. With

18:14

the world the moment we start

18:16

getting into. This

18:18

territory with determining which website

18:22

are and are not subject to

18:24

age verification which is draconian regulation.

18:27

And we are making everyone who engages

18:29

with some of the most popular sites

18:31

in the world. Give

18:34

their personal information over. The

18:37

only way you could do this is to have it

18:39

reviewed much as you have to when you

18:42

open a bank account. I can

18:44

see the case for it in banking i

18:46

think on the internet that's the disaster it's

18:48

also a security nightmare. Because

18:50

that has to be stored

18:52

at least temporarily somewhere this would make you

18:54

really change the way the internet work i'm

18:57

not denying that there is a problem here

18:59

i just think this. So

19:02

called solution is. Is

19:06

that i see change that people want

19:09

to think much more carefully about and

19:11

i do think that this question. Is

19:14

really one that ought to be

19:16

posed to parents and hopefully fixed

19:18

with free market

19:21

solutions where parents are made

19:23

much more aware of the

19:25

dangers. That their

19:27

children face and they are there

19:29

for. Expected to

19:31

monitor their use more closely themselves

19:34

or install software on their devices

19:36

to do that not

19:38

at the central level mandated by

19:40

law. Well, so

19:43

i can i just want to jump in just

19:45

on two things Charlie. I

19:48

agree with you, I want to see more I

19:50

want to do I do want to see more

19:52

products offered to parents and you know you

19:54

and I know how to you know run

19:57

a home server and block access.

20:00

you know, at the home level to a

20:03

lot of, you know, unsavory content. I'd

20:06

love to see products that made

20:08

it easier to do that on a

20:10

cell phone that's just connecting to the

20:13

local, you know, 5G network. Um,

20:16

make that easier for parents to do on

20:18

their kids' phones when they're teenagers. But

20:22

I'm curious about these laws in

20:24

Utah and Arkansas that I've been

20:26

passed on pornography sites

20:29

that require users to give a

20:32

legal ID. And

20:35

it drove MindGeek, you know, one of the biggest

20:37

sites on the internet, you're right, to block

20:40

access in some of those states.

20:43

Um, you know, in

20:45

the case of pornography, I mean,

20:48

the fact that there's a security issue

20:50

that MindGeek would hold the personal ID,

20:52

I mean, that's almost like

20:55

an enhancing feature of the law,

20:57

enhancing way of dissuading people from

21:00

using these sites that are socially

21:03

destructive. Um,

21:06

so I mean, I think that's why these things

21:08

are coming up because there's, at least

21:11

for now, Arkansas's legislators seem happy

21:14

with the results they've

21:16

had on. Sure. And they fundamentally change

21:18

the internet in those states. I'm not

21:20

suggesting that you can't do it. You

21:22

could also cut access to the internet

21:24

in Utah and Arkansas, and that would

21:26

work too. But it would change the

21:29

way that our information flows in

21:32

the United States. And I think

21:34

we were to be extremely skeptical toward

21:37

that. No, I mean,

21:39

I agree with you. I mean, I,

21:42

I, I think there's been, you know, there's a lot

21:44

of deep thought on this now because, you know,

21:47

China has its own lockdown internet.

21:49

Russia kind of has its own

21:51

internet world. It's almost like they're, we're dividing

21:53

the internet into, uh, you know,

21:56

1984's civilizational

21:59

sphere. Even

22:01

Europe, the United States is

22:03

an outlier once again. Right,

22:06

and I support in some

22:09

ways, like my old friend

22:11

James Poulos advocates for

22:13

a second amendment to compute, like

22:16

a right for Americans to use

22:19

computer technology and not just to use

22:24

it themselves, not just have large companies use

22:27

it for them as mediators.

22:31

But I think

22:34

you can do age regulations on these things legally,

22:37

and I don't know if it totally

22:39

disrupts the internet to

22:42

do that. So

22:45

I would vote for such a thing pretty

22:47

much without hesitation. Charlie's created some hesitation, but

22:50

assuming that the age verification can

22:52

be done in some plausible

22:56

way, Yevall and Scott

22:59

Griswold, who read a big piece for National Affairs

23:01

on this, have an idea involving the Social Security

23:04

Administration where the companies would

23:06

just get the age verification.

23:08

I don't know whether that's actually workable, they

23:11

think it is, but I just think this

23:13

is kind of out of control for

23:15

parents and they need something

23:17

that tips the balance more

23:20

in their favor. And

23:22

again, I'm enough

23:25

of a libertarian to say they should be able to opt

23:27

into it and get their kids on Instagram at age 15

23:29

if they want to, but the

23:31

norm should be no. And I

23:33

just think this is a vast psychological

23:35

and emotional experience that's been, through no

23:39

one's volition really, been

23:42

visited upon our teenagers and the

23:44

outcome has not been healthy. It

23:47

was fine if 10 years from now the mental

23:49

health crisis was driven by something else, just

23:52

get the 15 year olds back on Instagram.

23:54

But I just think the loss

23:56

to teenagers of not being on

23:58

Instagram or TikTok. and

24:00

snapchat it's not like we're denying them

24:03

you know the collected volumes of Shakespeare.

24:06

It's that they ten years ago or

24:08

so they're perfectly fine and more fine

24:10

in fact without this and

24:12

I think they'd be fine without it again

24:15

at least let's run that experiment. Well and

24:17

then when it turns out

24:19

that children who want to bully

24:21

one another stop using Facebook and

24:23

Instagram and instead just send their

24:25

harsh words or photographs

24:28

by email or via text

24:30

message are we going to start locking that

24:33

down as well or perhaps we could have

24:35

Washington DC super in ten

24:37

Minecraft where people talk to one

24:39

another or call of duty. I

24:41

mean there's just no way of

24:43

preventing the transfer of

24:45

information across the

24:48

internet between people who wish to

24:50

talk to each

24:53

other and I

24:55

see no limiting principle here whatsoever

24:59

that wouldn't turn the internet

25:01

into this walled off

25:05

environment in which to get so much as a

25:07

Gmail account you have to put in an ID.

25:12

But surely you know you could

25:14

have I don't

25:17

think it is this limitless thing I

25:19

mean the technologies themselves

25:22

suggest how they be used

25:24

I mean it is true that like

25:27

I could technically set

25:29

up a multi-party phone call

25:32

on which you know and then call someone

25:35

in my in class and

25:37

say you're fat in front of 28 other

25:40

people on the phone call but

25:42

nobody really ever did that

25:45

before because it takes extraordinarily well

25:47

they did it. There's

25:50

been bullying since time immemorial it's just

25:52

the evidence is that this this forum

25:54

media is amplifies it

25:57

It's addictive. It drives obsessions.

26:00

In security is so that's why you know

26:02

I think you've used to pay slip argument.

26:04

Why are we stopping kids from seeing. Are.

26:06

Rated movies you know I will out why

26:08

we want to stop them from seeing. I

26:11

don't understand how this possibly a slippery slope

26:13

argument from what I'm saying. But

26:16

what atlanta because if you

26:18

gave a child's phone they

26:20

by definition have a connection

26:22

to are the people there

26:24

a million ways by which.

26:27

Other people can convey information to them.

26:30

That's not. An analog of going

26:32

into a movie theater when you're under

26:34

age. I don't understand how much like

26:36

the about the principle that we try

26:38

to keep children from certain. Activities

26:41

and content that are probably for adults

26:43

as does what it is. The principal

26:45

out well job I agree. I conceded

26:47

the principle of the stocks. The. Principal

26:50

is that. Minus. Be

26:52

treated differently than adults. I

26:54

agree. I. Don't think

26:56

they're very much as shows are just a practical

26:59

a practical concerned that it it's it be impossible

27:01

to do it. And away.

27:03

So they say it's this ago. This without

27:05

changing the internet, would you do it? I

27:07

guess a Utah is not a landslide campaign.

27:10

or you know if we the put a

27:12

camera in every have to stop domestic violence

27:14

without infringing on people's privacy. Would you do

27:16

it? That isn't possible. What I'm saying is

27:19

not that it is impossible to lock down

27:21

the internet in this way, although there will

27:23

be lots of ways around it. but you

27:25

will raise the cost. of

27:28

using certain sites of course.

27:31

But. My, I'm saying that doing

27:33

this fundamentally changes the character of

27:35

the internet because if you have

27:37

conceded to the premise. That.

27:40

Everyone not just minors. And that's of

27:42

course how this has to work that

27:44

everyone if I ought to use the

27:46

service of the government either believes is

27:48

an appropriate for minus or could be

27:50

used for bullying that everyone has to

27:52

put in verification. Whether. That

27:54

sab. Id. Your credit

27:56

card or social security number or

27:58

whatever. Then. You have. Changed.

28:01

The way that the vast

28:03

majority of web sites which

28:06

are by definition or services

28:08

definition used. To. Move information

28:10

around work you could. I don't know that

28:12

he got a list of what it is,

28:14

but I would propose that. That.

28:16

The the most visited web sites in the

28:18

war have to be. And. Tic

28:20

Toc Instagram, Facebook, Twitter,

28:24

G. E mails, Minds.

28:26

As my whatever these are they going

28:29

to be the most visited. You.

28:31

Are seems an enormous amount

28:33

of web traffic. You're also

28:35

getting upset all. Gone.

28:37

So says it became more difficult for adults

28:40

to get on Instagram. That

28:42

that also don't see my to suits. A

28:44

huge price. If you believe

28:47

that the purpose of the internet is

28:49

to be open and free of government

28:51

control and that it is a problem.

28:54

When. Information is interdicted

28:56

or super intended by

28:58

Congress, then it's a

29:00

pretty massive problem. Yeah,

29:04

Charlie just was just to

29:07

two hundred questions months ago.

29:09

He also. Ones

29:11

you think that the demand

29:14

for. That. The.

29:16

Being express here for some kind of. Control

29:19

or potential for children? Do you think you could

29:21

lead to. An age

29:23

verification system based on on technology

29:25

that like Apple users with Apple

29:27

pay were to. There's. An

29:30

itemized tokens. Bad.

29:33

Verify. In

29:35

without. Necessarily compromising your

29:37

identity. Firm. On the

29:39

whole way through I'm sure

29:41

that that would be a

29:43

nice needs. Minimally.

29:45

Invasive technological way of doing it. but

29:48

it wouldn't change the fact. That.

29:50

You are altering. The.

29:53

Free and open web and look, I'm a

29:55

i'm a tech hippie in this regard. I'm.

29:58

Not. As. old as

30:02

those who agree with me on this usually, but I

30:04

had a modem when I was nine. I put up

30:06

my first website when I was 10. I remember what

30:08

the internet was like in 1994 and it was glorious.

30:14

And over time, two things have happened,

30:17

both of which I find distasteful, only one

30:19

of which I think is the role of

30:21

government to avoid. The first one is that

30:23

we have seen massive centralization, but that has

30:25

largely been the product of consumer choice. People

30:28

seem to want to have centralized email

30:30

systems, for example. The popularity of Gmail

30:32

or Yahoo are good examples of that.

30:35

I personally like the decentralized internet.

30:37

Most people don't. Fair enough,

30:40

that's consumer choice. The second is

30:42

the tendency towards this

30:44

sort of lockdown temptation,

30:48

which we've seen grow obviously

30:51

in totalitarian states and to

30:53

a lesser extent in Europe.

30:56

And we're now seeing pop-up in America.

31:00

And I would predict that

31:03

I am going to lose this, that

31:05

we are going to see a fundamental change

31:07

in the way that the internet works, that

31:10

people will profoundly regret. And by the time

31:12

they regret it, it will be too late.

31:16

All right. So let's move on before we

31:18

blow up the whole podcast with this and

31:20

hear from our first sponsor of this episode.

31:23

Our friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

31:25

are back with new episodes of their

31:27

Breakout How the World Works podcast, hosted

31:29

by author and political commentator Kevin Williamson.

31:31

If you're not already listening to the show, each

31:33

episode, Kevin sits down with notable guests for candid

31:36

conversations about the jobs they've had and the role

31:38

of work in the economy and our social lives,

31:40

from flipping burgers and tending pigs on a farm

31:42

to leading special ops missions in far corners of

31:44

the globe. Some of America's best thinkers

31:47

discuss the jobs they've had that inform their

31:49

outlook on life and future careers. In a

31:51

recent episode, Kevin sat down with Jonah Goldberg,

31:53

both of whom, of course, are old friends

31:55

and colleagues of us here at NR, for

31:57

a fascinating conversation about the ins and outs

31:59

of the world. of Jonah's decades long career

32:01

in the media. So be sure to listen

32:04

to how the world works. Wherever you listen

32:06

to podcasts or visit cei.org slash

32:09

how the world works, that's cei.org slash

32:12

how the world works.

32:15

So, Matty, we had a big verdict

32:18

the other day in this Eugene Carroll

32:21

defamation case. This

32:23

is a second trial and the second

32:26

one that Trump has lost. He

32:28

lost initially a trial about whether he

32:31

was guilty in a civil sense

32:33

of this alleged sexual assault that

32:35

happened sometime about 30 years ago.

32:39

Eugene Carroll cannot remember what year

32:41

it was supposedly in a dressing

32:43

room in Bergdorf, a huge department

32:45

store on Fifth

32:48

Avenue. And Trump

32:50

has continually denied this and

32:53

called Eugene Carroll all sorts of names,

32:56

which created this defamation suit.

32:58

And although the penalty in

33:00

the initial trial was $5

33:02

million for the sexual assault, this

33:05

jury went way out there and

33:08

said the damages for the

33:10

defamation is much, much more than

33:13

that, 83.3 million dollars. What

33:17

do you make of it? Yeah, so we

33:20

typically think sticks and stones may break my

33:22

bones, but words can never hurt me. But in

33:24

this case, words are apparently 16 times more

33:27

damaging than even sexual

33:29

assault. So it really is a absolutely

33:32

whopping figure.

33:34

I mean, it's not only

33:36

enough, Trump's problem, which is

33:38

lack of self-restraint and inability

33:41

to shut his mouth basically, it

33:43

seems to be the same problem

33:45

that oftentimes his enemies have. And

33:47

I think that while obviously he

33:49

was effectively muddled in the second trial

33:52

by the judge, but in the first trial

33:55

and before the first trial, he obviously didn't show up

33:57

to the first trial, but before that he was running

33:59

off his mouth. multiple times.

34:02

Running the risk that there was

34:04

going to be lawsuits for defamation

34:06

and that's obviously exactly what happened but I

34:08

do think since this most

34:10

recent verdict really

34:12

it's possibly Eugene Carroll who's been showing up

34:15

a little too much and running her mouth.

34:17

I mean the media tour I

34:19

don't think has done her any... ...offering

34:22

to take Rachel Maddow fishing in

34:24

France. Yeah

34:27

very strange I mean she's kind of

34:29

an eccentric person we know that already

34:31

there was that 2019 interview she

34:33

did with Anderson Cooper and

34:35

made him sort of visibly cringe when

34:37

she suggested that

34:40

that rape is most people think

34:42

of rape as something sexy and

34:46

she has just she's talked about this with with

34:49

a degree of flippancy that would

34:51

not have been used to persuade

34:53

a jury and therefore really not

34:55

advisable when trying to persuade the

34:58

court of public opinion.

35:00

So I mean Trump seems to so far

35:03

kind of been reined in

35:05

a bit by this figure and has

35:07

so far kept his mouth shut

35:09

as indicated that he

35:11

intends to appeal and as Andy McCarthy

35:15

has suggested or implied he could have

35:17

a decent shot of that. I mean

35:19

the evidence to commit

35:21

obviously this was a civil case but the evidence guess

35:24

was underwhelming not

35:27

least because Eugene Carroll can't

35:29

remember the specifics

35:31

of when this happened. So

35:35

yeah I mean we'll see how he gets on

35:37

with the appeal but he just has to keep

35:39

a tight lip from now on if he wants

35:41

to avoid more

35:44

defamation cases. So at

35:47

MBD you know it's really impossible to

35:49

know what happened 30 years

35:51

ago. You wouldn't put necessarily

35:53

anything past Trump although this does not really

35:56

fit his pattern which was not... not

36:00

good was groping, kissing

36:03

unwanted, sudden kisses in

36:05

an elevator, that kind of thing, and

36:07

ogling the girls in the dressing room

36:10

for his various beauty

36:13

contests. But this

36:16

obviously, he didn't show up for the

36:18

first trial, and then he gets

36:20

the guilty verdict locked in there,

36:23

and then he invays against it,

36:26

and because that first verdict's

36:28

already locked in, in part, who knows, may

36:30

have gone the same way even if he

36:32

showed up, but in part, because he

36:34

blew it off, then he can't

36:36

bring up whether he's guilty or not in

36:39

this trial, and the jury didn't like him

36:42

very much, clearly. No, they

36:44

didn't, and this is what I think, this

36:50

is what the system in New York was designed

36:52

to do to him, in a way, with

36:55

his political unpopularity. It was

36:57

easy to get a jury that could agree to

37:01

a crazy number

37:03

like this. Also,

37:07

there's real questions about the

37:10

competence of Trump's counsel, right?

37:12

I mean, he fired,

37:15

he's obviously letting go of

37:17

Alina, who represented him in

37:19

this trial, as

37:22

he moves on towards an appeal phase. He

37:24

had a pretty good lawyer in the first one. Yeah.

37:29

Tackapina. Tackapina is a

37:31

great lawyer, but Trump's had problems keeping

37:33

counsel because he has a

37:35

tendency not to pay them on

37:37

time, and he's

37:39

gonna have trouble getting counsel

37:41

unless they secure money

37:44

in cash in advance. He

37:49

has a reputation, and he has a ton of lawsuits

37:51

to deal with. We're

37:54

talking about

37:56

several felonies in what, 90s, Now

38:00

that the verdicts are coming in, we're lowering

38:02

the number of charges altogether, but there's

38:06

about 80 charges left. So

38:10

this has been bad

38:13

for him, at least on the

38:15

level of soaking

38:18

up time, attention, and monetary resources

38:20

that he would otherwise put into

38:23

campaigning for president. Obviously,

38:27

the legal persecution measurably

38:29

helped him in the Republican primary, but

38:32

I think it's a total drag on him

38:35

as a general election candidate, because he has

38:37

to win moderates and a lot

38:40

of moderate voters who probably voted for Trump in 2016

38:42

are going to

38:45

look and see, this guy is in

38:47

a constant legal mess now and does

38:50

no longer have the image

38:53

of world-beating

38:56

entrepreneur and

38:58

business mogul and

39:01

TV star. There's a lot

39:03

more to his image now. Yeah,

39:07

this legal trouble is not helping him,

39:10

even if it looks vindictive. Yeah. So

39:12

I'm going to ask an ex-question about

39:14

the lawfare campaign against

39:16

Trump and how it's playing politically,

39:19

but Charlie, any gut

39:21

instincts on the merits of

39:23

this underlying charge

39:25

and defamation case against Trump? I'm

39:29

not entirely sure. I do think

39:31

that the punishment is excessive.

39:33

There seems to be a trend.

39:38

I know the appeals process is

39:40

often whittled down. The

39:45

millions or hundreds of millions, in

39:47

one case billions of dollars that are

39:49

owed. I

39:51

find this a tough

39:54

one to talk about because it's

39:56

not clean on needs. It

39:59

is probably true. true that

40:01

this case got as far

40:04

as it did because Donald Trump is involved.

40:07

It's probably true that the

40:10

damages were

40:13

excessive. It

40:15

is also not an

40:17

accident or a coincidence that

40:20

Donald Trump keeps finding himself in these

40:22

positions. There's this

40:24

argument you see on the right. Whomever

40:27

we nominate or elevate, they'll go

40:29

after. Well yeah,

40:31

to some extent. But

40:34

they can't fabricate to

40:36

this extent the opportunities that

40:39

they have to persecute. And

40:43

it seems to me likely that

40:45

there is something here, albeit probably

40:47

not as much as was determined

40:49

and then punished in that civil

40:51

trial. Next question to

40:53

you, Maddie Kerns. First, the law

40:56

fair campaign against Donald

40:58

Trump is now clearly having already

41:00

a political effect

41:03

and working. Yes or no? Um,

41:08

yes. NBD.

41:12

Yeah, absolutely. It's

41:14

draining resources and repelling moderates

41:18

and even

41:20

as it further secures him at the

41:22

top of the Republican Party. Totally.

41:25

Yeah, it's draining resources and it's the

41:28

worst sort of gap, I

41:30

guess that broadly, in that

41:32

it confirms people's pre-existing

41:35

conceptions, negative conceptions of

41:39

the person in question. Yep,

41:42

it's as we saw in these

41:45

FEC reports, it is draining resources.

41:47

Obviously it's draining time and attention.

41:49

That hasn't hurt him in the primary, it's actually helped

41:52

him, but that won't necessarily hold true

41:54

in the general election. And just being

41:56

entangled in this dispute with this woman,

41:58

it can't... Canton anyway, helped

42:01

them with one of his major

42:03

demographic vulnerabilities in the fall, which

42:05

is his standing with women.

42:07

With that, let's hear from our second sponsor

42:09

of this episode. The world would be a better,

42:11

freer, and happier place if constitutional protections for private

42:13

property were taken just a tad more seriously. That's

42:15

according to our friends over at the Institute for

42:17

Justice, who have just begun releasing

42:20

a new season of their legal history podcast,

42:22

Bound by Oath. Bound by Oath tells the

42:24

story of how the Supreme Court has cleared

42:26

the way for government officials to abuse property

42:28

rights, to trespass on private land without a

42:30

warrant, to restrict peaceful and productive uses of

42:32

property, to seize and keep property without

42:34

sufficient justification and much more. Featuring interviews not

42:37

only of the scholars and litigators, but also

42:39

with the real life people behind some of

42:41

the Supreme Court's most momentous property rights decisions,

42:44

the new season explores the history behind

42:47

today's civil rights battle. So plug Bound

42:49

by Oath into wherever you get your

42:51

podcast and start with episode one. That's

42:54

Bound by Oath. Please check

42:56

it out. Since we ran

42:58

a little long with the

43:00

discussion of social media,

43:02

I'm just going to go exit question

43:05

right off the bat with our

43:08

third topic here, which is these DOJ

43:11

prosecutions of these pro-life

43:13

activists in Tennessee under what

43:15

is called the FACE Act,

43:17

Freedom of Access to Clinic

43:19

Entrances Act. The

43:22

punishment for what was a peaceful

43:25

protest seems wildly out

43:27

of proportion, but that gets

43:29

to the merits of this exit question.

43:31

To you first, Maddie, rate

43:34

your level of outrage at

43:36

these prosecutions. From zero, doesn't really bother

43:38

you. This is the law, how the

43:40

system works. Ten, this is a

43:43

shame and a disgrace. It's

43:46

an eight or nine. I think

43:48

we put it well in our editorial

43:50

where we just said that they're using this

43:53

legal category of obstruction

43:57

very broadly. So in the Tennessee...

44:00

case the pro-lifers were in front of

44:02

the door but nobody tried to enter

44:04

the door and so we don't know

44:06

whether they would have stopped people from

44:08

entering the door. This is similar to

44:10

how the

44:12

law is cynically used in the

44:14

United Kingdom and I think other

44:16

places in Europe where harassment is

44:18

so broadly defined to include people

44:21

who are standing praying outside an

44:23

abortion clinic. It's also infuriating because

44:25

of the double standard so not

44:27

long ago in a recent episode of this podcast we're

44:29

talking about the pro-Palestinian

44:33

protesters who blocked a

44:35

major bridge in New

44:38

York City or have blocked access to airports

44:41

and you don't see them being prosecuted with

44:43

this level of ferocity and

44:45

so it is outrageous. Yeah

44:51

it's about a nine I mean it really reminds

44:53

me uh it's

44:57

a new version of the Clinton

45:00

administration using RICO to go after

45:02

pro-life protesters which they did in

45:04

the 1990s. This

45:07

is an abuse of what the

45:09

of the law they're

45:12

wildly conflating they're

45:14

conflating being

45:17

in front of a clinic with obstructing an

45:20

entrance to a clinic and

45:22

then throwing the book at grandmothers

45:25

who are you know silently praying

45:28

or singing hymns. It's

45:32

totally abusive and they've all

45:34

but admitted I mean the the assistant attorney

45:37

general admitted basically that

45:39

this was retaliation for the fall of

45:41

Roe so it's it's totally out

45:44

of line. Try. Yeah

45:47

it's preposterous Calvin ball when

45:50

they like a given protest or even

45:52

riot we're told that

45:54

the First Amendment is at stake that

45:57

violence even is the language of the

46:00

unheard and we're asked what

46:02

those who conducted are supposed to

46:04

do when they stand alone

46:08

against Goliath and

46:11

then when it's pro-lifers, they're prosecuted

46:13

for obstruction. Carbon

46:15

form. Yeah, and with everyone else,

46:17

it's way up there. 8,

46:19

9, 10 territory. With that,

46:22

let me pause, do a quick plug

46:24

for NRPlus Digital Subscription Service at nationalview.com.

46:26

If you liked the discussion earlier on

46:29

social media and we find generally what

46:31

people like most about this podcast is

46:34

forceful disagreement. I would urge you

46:36

to sign up for NRPlus.

46:39

Debate is one of the great aspects of NR.

46:41

We are not afraid of it. We have a

46:43

lot of sincere, intelligent people

46:46

who enjoy debate. Think

46:48

it's fun for

46:51

one, but two, really believe in ideas

46:53

and think that the clash of ideas

46:56

clarifying and helps to work

46:59

our way towards the truth. Every time we

47:01

have a disagreement like that on the podcast,

47:03

you're getting a little window to what a

47:05

lot of editorial meetings are

47:08

about. I submit to you, there are not

47:10

many publications that embrace debate the way National

47:13

Review does. That's just

47:15

one of many reasons to sign up for

47:17

NRPlus. If you're not already a member, please

47:20

consider joining tens of thousands of your fellow

47:22

National Review readers as a member

47:24

of NRPlus. Let's hit a few other

47:26

things before we go, MBD. You've

47:29

been reading a commentary on the Gospel of

47:31

Mark. Yeah,

47:33

I've been really taken

47:36

by a book called

47:38

Loosing the Lion by Professor

47:40

Dr. Leroy Zenga. It's

47:46

just a very great commentary

47:48

on the Gospel of Mark, which is the short gospel

47:52

which was largely denigrated by

47:55

biblical scholars for many

47:57

years, saying it was just a... an

48:01

unstrung set

48:03

of pearls, but

48:06

Huizinga shows that I think

48:10

very conclusively in this book that

48:12

if you use just normal literary

48:14

methods of analyzing the gospel, plot

48:17

conflict, resolution, etc,

48:21

its theological depth is really

48:23

revealed. And

48:26

it's just great to see this

48:28

kind of recovery of this

48:31

kind of scholarship after about a century and

48:34

a half of bullshit, frankly.

48:36

So Maddie, you hosted a Robert

48:38

Burns supper, raising the question, what

48:40

is a Robert Burns? Yeah,

48:43

so you Americans also have a lot of public

48:45

holidays. You have July 4th and Presidents

48:47

of the State and a lot

48:49

of others. In Scotland we have

48:51

St. Andrews Day, which is November 30th,

48:54

and then we also have the commemoration

48:56

of our national poet on

48:58

January 25th. So Robert Burns is born

49:00

January 25th 1759 and you may

49:05

know him from Old Lang Syne, he

49:07

wrote that, and he also

49:09

wrote a bunch of other things. So we

49:12

invite people around and we had a lot

49:14

of whiskey and people, all of

49:16

our guests, except one who was English,

49:18

were American, so they all had to go

49:21

at reciting poems in the Scots dialect, which

49:23

was a lot of fun, and we served

49:26

Haddles Pizza. So it

49:28

wasn't real haggis, but we can't

49:31

get real haggis here, FDA,

49:33

friends upon it. So

49:36

we did a sort of like

49:38

ground lamb with oats and spices

49:40

and served it as a pizza topping with

49:43

whiskey sauce. So yeah, it was a

49:45

great fun evening and just

49:47

leaning into the Scottishness of it all. So

49:50

Charlie, you're not just an internet hippie, you

49:53

might be a hippie generally because you guys

49:55

have been raising butterflies. That's right.

49:57

This was the birthday present for

49:59

my... six-year-old for his

50:01

sixth birthday, the

50:03

company that sent the kits,

50:05

essentially send you a bunch

50:07

of caterpillars, sent

50:10

two batches by accident

50:13

and you can't really send caterpillars

50:15

back. So we had a

50:17

whole bunch in this big net and we've been

50:20

raising them and then they go into their

50:22

cocoons and now they're starting to come out

50:25

and in dribs and drags they fly off.

50:27

We take them outside and open the net

50:29

at the top. So we have eight

50:31

left, two have gone

50:33

out into the broader world. I think the best

50:36

part is that my six-year-old

50:38

named each of them after a

50:40

Jacksonville Jaguars player and somehow managed

50:42

to remember which was which so

50:44

I would suddenly hear, you know,

50:46

oh Zay Jones is flying around.

50:49

Look at Trevor Lawrence, he's coming

50:51

out of the cocoon. Awesome. So

50:53

I mentioned Masters of the Air

50:55

last ep. I listened to

50:57

a number of podcasts now with

50:59

the screenwriter and one last night at

51:01

School of War, which I'm a big

51:03

fan of. I mentioned before with Donald

51:05

Miller who wrote the book Masters of

51:07

Air that the series is

51:10

loosely based on and this guy

51:12

is just, if you're all interested

51:15

in World War II or aviation,

51:17

you got to listen to this podcast and I was

51:19

joking with Aaron, I'm a little bit of a texting

51:22

buddy with Aaron that Aaron asked like

51:24

one, two questions I think the first 25 minutes.

51:26

This guy just talks and you know sometimes

51:29

someone who just talks they could be the

51:31

drone and you you know you're done you

51:33

can't handle it but everything he said was

51:35

was absolutely fascinating.

51:37

Obviously knows his subject

51:41

backwards and forwards. With that

51:43

it's time for our editors

51:45

picks, M.A.D. What's your pick? I

51:48

think this is so weird. I

51:51

wrote earlier in the week that I was getting tired of

51:53

Taylor Swift talk but I

51:55

really liked Dan McLaughlin's piece

51:57

on why Swift is her

52:00

zenith of popularity now because

52:02

it was just such a competent and

52:05

thoughtful dive into the

52:08

dynamics of pop

52:10

culture and how, you know, why

52:12

particularly the pandemic

52:15

and other events are kind of

52:17

driving this insane demand for tickets

52:19

to our concerts now

52:22

and the broadness of her appeal. And I

52:25

just thought it was really just

52:28

a really sharp bit of pop culture analysis.

52:30

Yeah, the thing was like a classic 36

52:33

hour news cycle, right? It's like it was

52:35

all anyone could talk about for 36 hours

52:37

and then and then, you know, six hours

52:39

after that, you're like, this

52:42

is this is old news. But

52:44

Dan is just just so good at

52:46

so many levels of providing a

52:49

comprehensive and authoritative take on things.

52:51

Maddie Kearns, what's your pick? My

52:53

pick is actually your piece, Rich. Kids

52:56

shouldn't be on social media at all. No, no,

52:58

don't raise this again, Maddie. We've got to end

53:00

the podcast sometime soon. I was

53:02

going to say, Charlie speaks very persuadously and

53:04

raised a number of points that I want

53:07

to go away and research

53:09

to defend or well, I'm open to

53:11

being, you know, that there isn't. I

53:13

know. We're all dug into our position.

53:17

I will say that there's something on

53:19

an instinctual level where I was reading your piece

53:21

and I was like, yes, you know, if I

53:23

had it printed out, I would have written yes. Thank

53:27

you. Written yes and read and read. Charlie,

53:30

what's your pick? I'll confess this

53:33

is partly because the headline made me

53:35

laugh, but Noah Rothman's post, they'll never

53:37

see it coming, which contains

53:39

a description of Joe Biden's vacillating

53:42

and announcing that he has called

53:44

a committee to form a committee to decide what

53:47

to decide what to do in Iran is a

53:52

great pithy little explanation of why

53:54

if you're going to act on

53:56

the world stage, you have

53:58

to do it. You can't

54:00

talk about it for a week beforehand

54:02

and if you do that it

54:05

ends up making you less safe than you would have been

54:07

if you never acted at all. So

54:10

my pick is by our own sarah

54:12

should he who wrote one of these

54:14

kind of americana lifestyle. I'm

54:16

type as we feature in a

54:18

new monthly magazine charlie inaugurated this by scamming

54:21

their editorial process to get a trip over

54:23

to london to watch the jaguars

54:25

play with his dad and and

54:27

sarah, has used it to write

54:30

about her flying career

54:32

including opening with a landing

54:34

that nearly made her cry

54:37

so what had you so upset sarah. Oh

54:40

my gosh it was awful the

54:43

whole the whole ride had the whole flight

54:45

had just been really bad i've been all

54:47

over the place there's a turbulence i couldn't

54:49

hold my altitude correctly and we came back

54:51

in. The land and you have to

54:53

get the landing and i know and

54:55

i was trying to remember

54:57

where i was which levy i was over

55:00

top of his runway has two ends. And

55:03

the way the wind was that day we're coming

55:05

in and i was like okay i'm gonna nail

55:07

the spot i just slam the plane down onto

55:09

the pavement it was so bad i cannot

55:11

believe the nose will collapse. I

55:14

usually a bad time when you're when your

55:16

pilot is at the brink of tears. Yeah

55:19

well i didn't cry i actually never cried the

55:21

entire time i didn't cry at any

55:23

point when i was flying at any point during

55:26

all the study i did i was really proud of this fact

55:28

so. I just i was very. Well

55:32

congratulations on the piece so that's it for us

55:34

even listening to a national podcast in your rebroadcast

55:36

retransmission or account this game without the express written

55:38

permission. Of national magazine is

55:40

strictly prohibited this podcast been

55:43

produced by. Before mentioned in

55:45

comparable sarah should he makes it sound better than

55:47

we deserve thank you charlie thank you maddie thank

55:49

you nbd thanks to how the world works and

55:51

bound by oath. Especially to all

55:53

of you for listening where the others will be next.

56:00

Music