Mark Gagnon

That that person, if they are sourcing and sort of writing about a leader in potentially a negative light in the interest of including the totality of what they've done or who they are, that they would be at risk of dying.

So in that case, I could see a benefit for that person being anonymous.

Right.

That's interesting.

Yeah, you'd even mentioned, I think, in your conversation with Tucker that there were some entries from Langley.

Yes.

At one point.

And probably still to this day.

Langley obviously being the head of the CIA headquarters.

Right.

That the CIA itself as an intelligence operation is sort of changing the narrative and changing facts about specific articles.

Which to me is like, all right, yeah, that makes sense.

I imagine that every intelligence... They're not doing their job if they don't do that, I suppose, right?

And they should have their own entry perhaps, or they should have the ability to continue to edit?

Yeah, it seems like a difficult task because the point of being a spy is that no one knows you're a spy.

So I can understand the nobility and the desire to want to eradicate any type of foreign intelligence to change it.

But to me, I'm like, I don't, perhaps I'm resigned and perhaps I'm nihilistic, but I think that's an inevitability of the platform is that as so long as you allow people to edit, you're going to have foreign agents or even internal agents with sort of spy agendas to do it.

I see.

Now, just to go through the rest of these quickly.

Sure, sure.