Elaad Eliyahu

I'm just saying what an interesting thought.

One way you get rid of it is to do a massive campaign accusing the widow of a man who was assassinated of being a demon, of being a robot, of being evil.

The most insane things like wearing leather pants and people are getting RPMs to $20, which is greater than news, greater than finance or rivals finance.

I would be willing to bet following this court case where YouTube is liable for what they choose to promote, the next step becomes...

Look at the tens of thousands of Erica Kirk videos lying about her and accusing her of being a demon, of being evil.

Even Joe Rogan is now doing it.

God forbid, if something happens to Erica or Charlie or her kids, there will be an instant congressional hearing and they will say, YouTube, why were you allowing this?

Nay, why were you profiting off of it knowingly?

With high RPMs allowing this to happen.

And it's the argument the deep state would use to say, won't someone think of the children, just like when they said we need to get rid of, because it was CISA, when they were like, because of the children, we have to ban and lock down and get access to your computers and files.

If they really want to, and I'm not saying I know what's going on, if they really want to eliminate independent media and gatekeep,

these channels and make sure the only people who are allowed to have podcasts are the chosen few, this is the perfect path to doing it.

I don't know about YouTube.

I know that she's obviously, she had what everyone presumes to be an arbitration meeting with Candace when they met.

And she did send a cease and desist apparently to a bunch of people, including Candace.

So the first question, my point is this, following this ruling in New Mexico and in Los Angeles, that YouTube is responsible for what it chooses to promote.

That opened the door to ending Section 230, because now the next step of the argument is obvious.

If YouTube is responsible and liable for promoting certain content, it's harmful.

How does that interact with defamation when they're choosing to promote these Erica Kirk videos they know to be false or defamatory?

The question becomes, in a lawsuit, if you get passed a motion to dismiss, which I think you will, the question is going to be, after discovery, has YouTube ever had a conversation internally about the plethora of Erica Kirk content accusing her of being all sorts of evil things, including a robot, a demon...