Welcome to The Know Show. This week our theme is about free speech, following weeks of news, conversations, passions, outrage and more. The news around Spotify and Joe Rogan broke when 270 health experts stated Joe Rogan’s Covid misinformation is ‘a sociological issue of devastating proportions.’
But what are the right steps forward? Is free speech something we should be challenging? Where does it stop? What will we lose? How do we manage this important issue, especially in times of a global pandemic, as well as the other crisis’ humanity faces, including the climate emergency? When does someone go too far? Who decides that limit? It’s a big, wide topic, and we don’t have all the answers, but it’s a conversation we need to be having.
No special guests this week, as our guest is struck down with a bad reaction to her booster, but she’ll join us soon.
The Know Show is a Livestream held every Friday, where Andrea T Edwards, Tim Wade (Tim is away this week) and Joe Augustin review the news that’s getting everyone’s attention, as well as perhaps what requires our attention. We’ll talk about what it means to us, the world and we hope to inspire great conversations on the news that matters to all of us.
The Know Show is based on Andrea T Edwards Weekend Reads, which are published every Saturday on andreatedwards.com, and covers the climate crisis, Covid 19, topical moments in the world, global politics, business, social issues and passion/humor/history. Join us.
#TheKnowShow #UncommonCourage
To get in touch with me, all of my contact details are here https://linktr.ee/andreatedwards
My book Uncommon Courage, an invitation, is here https://mybook.to/UncommonCourage
My book 18 Steps to an All-Star LinkedIn Profile, is here https://mybook.to/18stepstoanallstar
Welcome to The Know Show. This week our theme is about free speech, following weeks of news, conversations, passions, outrage and more. The news around Spotify and Joe Rogan broke when 270 health experts stated Joe Rogan’s Covid misinformation is ‘a sociological issue of devastating proportions.’
But what are the right steps forward? Is free speech something we should be challenging? Where does it stop? What will we lose? How do we manage this important issue, especially in times of a global pandemic, as well as the other crisis’ humanity faces, including the climate emergency? When does someone go too far? Who decides that limit? It’s a big, wide topic, and we don’t have all the answers, but it’s a conversation we need to be having.
No special guests this week, as our guest is struck down with a bad reaction to her booster, but she’ll join us soon.
The Know Show is a Livestream held every Friday, where Andrea T Edwards, Tim Wade (Tim is away this week) and Joe Augustin review the news that’s getting everyone’s attention, as well as perhaps what requires our attention. We’ll talk about what it means to us, the world and we hope to inspire great conversations on the news that matters to all of us.
The Know Show is based on Andrea T Edwards Weekend Reads, which are published every Saturday on andreatedwards.com, and covers the climate crisis, Covid 19, topical moments in the world, global politics, business, social issues and passion/humor/history. Join us.
#TheKnowShow #UncommonCourage
To get in touch with me, all of my contact details are here https://linktr.ee/andreatedwards
My book Uncommon Courage, an invitation, is here https://mybook.to/UncommonCourage
My book 18 Steps to an All-Star LinkedIn Profile, is here https://mybook.to/18stepstoanallstar
All right, we are live. Welcome to the no show. My name is Andrea Edwards. My name is Tim Wade. And my name is Joe Augustine. I'm just kind of confused by my own mirrored image on my computer screen right now. Welcome, welcome to the no show. And it's a kind of show that celebrates knowledge. Hopefully, I was trying to find this word for the last year and a half thinking about what I'm what I would like to describe the show as, and I don't know, it's too pretentious to say but intellectual, I thought might be a nice word to kind of label this thing or this endeavor as anyway and desire. In a moment, yes. Hello? Or is it curiosity? I think, for me, it's more about curiosity and about looking at all angles of a story. You know, that's, that's, that's what it's about? Because I couldn't you know, for me, it's about keeping up to date. Yeah. Because there's so much going on. Like, like you were mentioning before, this is so much happening. So it's like, it's like getting together with a group of friends, and talking about stuff you've heard about, but then learning from them about other stuff that they've heard about, and then leaving with more rounded knowledge of stuff. Hopefully, alright. Curiosity for sure. I can't see who it is. So someone's having a chat with us, but I can't say what their name is. So you can tell us who you are. One of the things we'll figure out how to use the internet properly. And then and then you'll be sorry, guys. Yeah, so you've got to sign in with stream yard to have your name appear so that we can see that because we can't track that and all the different social media channels at the same time? Yeah, I can't, because I'm, you know, focusing on other bits. Yeah. So just for anyone who's just tuned in, so what we're going to do is we're going to talk a little bit about the news, things have been going on in the news, a bit of an update, we have a bit of banter amongst us, and share some ideas and perspectives and then argue with each other a little bit. And then when I realized I don't really have a very good argument, I usually make some jokes to pretend that I was joking the whole time. And then we move on to the next subject swiftly. And then at some point, we'll discuss whatever our theme is for the week, and this week, it is not snots. It's not that it's free speech. Yeah. Okay. Which, you know, it's a potentially a challenging conversation to have. But I think it's an important conversation to have, because there's a lot of people with a lot of opinions around free speech. And, you know, we only decided 24 hours ago that we were going to do that because our guest is down suffering from their booster shot. And we're going to talk about cynicism, which is also a really cool topic. But I think it's the right time to talk about free speech and to ticket just to get some different perspectives on it. Because I think one of the most unusual things about the three of us is that we were all born into or raised in countries and cultures where freedom of speech was an essential, right, and something that we grew up believing in. But we've also lived in countries and cultures where it's not a an essential, right, because taking care of the whole is what is considered more important than individual rights. And I have come to respect both, I can say the strengths of both and the weaknesses of both. So I'm looking forward to talking about it from that perspective. And I think that's something the three of us can bring up. Having having said that, I haven't heard that. I just wondering if that is actually true. So Tim, why don't you born in Malaysia and I in Singapore? Yes, but I also grew up. I mean, I grew up in Malaysia, but also grew up in Australia. I mean, right. Right, right. You know, as I say, we've lived, right? Yeah, yeah. Yes. But also depends on the household you're in. In some households. You have no freedom of speech. So, yeah, okay. Anyway, moving on. Yeah, love the house law of the land law of the school yard. This is my house. And you'll dem will do what I tell you to do. Or you can get out except you can't get out. So your dad will do what I tell you to do. Oh, the good old days of parenting. Yeah. Yeah. Our children are lucky. But yeah, so anyway, so let's get stuck into it. There was some windows popping up on my screen, even though I closed everything. So I apologize for the noise that you just heard then. But should we get into the news that really struck a chord this week? Absolutely. Man, can we leave my my useless comments on everything you saying? Excellent. I'm looking forward to it. So before we get so we're going to change the order a bit this week. We're going to really focus on free speech up front but before we do that, I think for me the story of the week that sort of really broken captured the world's heart was the story of the little boy in Morocco that was stuck in a well for four days. And obviously Sadly, he didn't make it. But it was a story that I thought she, you know, just really reflected the, the beauty of humankind rather than the ugliness that we say. And we sort of unified in the grief at the hope first and then the grief, finding out what happened to the story and just really feeling for the parents, especially the Father. You know, it was one of those turned around for one second, and he had faced this terrible situation. So did you guys keep on keeping on that little story? Yeah, it's one of those things that I, I've got to admit, when I when I see something like that, I actually hesitate to click it. I, you know, especially by now I've done that, and I'm not inclined to, to delve into it too much. That's, that's more. Yeah. I, I'm a little bit similar. It came across, I noticed. And then I sort of saw what was happening as it was going, but I wasn't sort of glued to the screen or anything, but it's just, I just, I feel so heartbroken for those sorts of ones that, you know, it's like a horror movie that I choose to avoid. But yeah, even as you bring it up, now, I just, I just feel the sadness. And just and just think about the little boys plight and yeah, so I've just, I have a slightly different look on my face, because I'm reaching up above my head, realizing my microphone was pointed the wrong way, the whole time. The voice the voice is back. Alright, so we're gonna change the order. And we're gonna sort of start with the theme, which is let's talk about free speech. And this is obviously following the Joe Rogan, Spotify, Neil Young Joni Mitchell, everybody else frenzy. Alright, so I want to take us back to the beginning of this story and just sort of just remind everybody where it began, and then all the different steps, and I'm going to miss some, so forgive me, but I think most people forget that this story actually started in the middle of January when 270 health book experts reached out to Spotify, and basically said, Joe Rogan's COVID misinformation is a sociological issue of devastating proportions. So that's where it began. And then Neil Young stepped in and basically said, you can have Rogen or me and Spotify said, thanks very much. We'll keep broken. The World Health Organization cheap backed Neil Young, Joni Mitchell joined, then James Blunt, which I thought was rather funny, threatened to release new music. If Spotify didn't remove Joe Rogan's post, has the hashtag Spotify deleted started trending, Harry and Megan stepped in. And I was a bit surprised that didn't get a lot more hate Graham Nash, and then Brene Brown, I was sort of tracking some of the conversations around Brene Brown's posts, and she never said, I'm going to leave Spotify because of what's going on. She said, I'm going to take a pause, and some of the comments on Instagram or Facebook, and even on LinkedIn. I was really quite surprised by the anger and the hatred that was being expressed towards her. Spotify his stock plummeted by to $2 billion. I don't know where it is now. Apparently, the edgy appeal of Spotify his podcast has now been diminished. And Joe Rogan pledges to try harder. Then Spotify finally spoke up and said, We will we do have rules. We will not remove Joe Rogan. But we will add content advisories which the social media platforms have been doing, and they get the last couple of years. So then in this last week, Spotify CEO has been speaking up and saying we're deeply sorry, but we won't drop Joe Rogan. Neil Young told Spotify employees to leave. But then India, Arie, who is a style that I'm not familiar with, but she basically released a compilation on Instagram and Instagram stories, so it's not available anymore. Showing Joe Rogan repeatedly using the N word and he apologized again. The Delete Spotify movement has been ramping up with 19% of users saying they're going to cancel or they either have or will and a lot of the commentaries saying that these moments don't usually last but I don't think we're I don't think the cases in the past are necessarily relevant now. I think consumer action is ramping up and people are gonna act on their thing on on their ideas. Personally for me, I am delete Spotify isn't something I'm considering. I would recommend on the BBC Ross Atkins did a video where he's showing lots of different perspectives for and against. And then John Stewart, who's an American, former American sort of host thinks it's all an overreaction and that it's a mistake. And then beyond the story. There's a couple of other things broken we saw. We'll be we'll be Go Go Berg said something a couple of weeks ago, I've read her comments, I haven't seen them in context. I don't understand that story because I haven't had time to dig into it. But then Louis Thoreau's about to release a new series. And he wrote this article, where he talks about his struggle with amplifying extreme voices. So, like I said, I think the three of us have a unique perspective. I personally am for free speech wins when, you know, who decides what's right, what's wrong. But in a pandemic, misinformation kills people. So it's a really complex thing. And I found under no bet you guys, and I'm gonna hand it over to you now. But I found the, the passion for and against really kind of, I don't think I've ever heard the fight for free speech as strongly, as I've heard. In this case, I started doing some research, and obviously, we only had a 24 hour period into sort of the history of free speech. And obviously, most of it comes up in the American context. And, you know, it's a fundamental right. In the World War One World War Two, there were, there were restrictions on free speech, that mostly, it's pretty much everything, everything can go. But then we live in Asia, where that's not the case. And we're all cooperating and doing the same thing to try and get to the end of a pandemic. So anyway, I want to just hand it over to you guys. Joe, I know you've got an interesting perspective. But let's get stuck in. Well, I was gonna say, I am someone who believes very much in free speech the same way, I'm someone who believes very much in a car, right? The car is a tool, it is what it is, it gets you from point A to point B, it is inherently with its dangers as well. And while I want to defend everyone's right to drive a car, some drivers shouldn't drive. And that's my problem with free speech, because in the defense have this general right to do everything, you got to let the people who do damage with their cars with their speech, do what they do as well. So I am not. I'm not 100%, behind free speech without any kind. I know, that kind of like defeats the purpose of the idea of free, but I do think that speech should be available to everyone, but not without some sort of almost like a qualifying license to go ahead and do it. You know, there there is a qualifying license if it if what you say can create harm to another or violence towards another. That that that's the the rule. Well, I mean, that low bar that's been said, basically, is that you can go into a crowded Hall and yell fire, right? That's, that's the kind of test that is applied to free speech, or you can say anything you want. But I think there's also this thing about the understanding of what actually free speech is about the concept sounds like a really fun idea. You want to you want to take hold of it, I have free speech, but people give it the meaning that they give it rather than what the actual meaning of it is free speech, as, as you as you talked about in terms of legislation, right? Is the freedom to speak against government the freedom again, it's hard to to speak against power in a legislative sense. But it is it is not the absolution from responsibility. And a lot of people take the idea that free speech means that because they understood it that way. And now they want to enact it that way. So I believe in free speech, because I think it really it means I can say anything at all about anything. When actually the truth is what free speech is. It's just protection of your speech against against authority. So we've read, we've been reading the same research, which is, which is good. And I do encourage people to read up about it because, you know, and I think it was 1945 or 47. There's a story in the US where a member of the Klu Klux Klan was taken to court and went to the Supreme Court, and he had the right to speak and speak His truth. And then the fundamental idea around free speech is it allows societies to evolve and grow. And that's, that's why we're not supposed to suppress it. We're supposed to give people the space to speak up. Well, a guy that a guy that gets 190 million downloads a month on his podcast, he's sharing misinformation around a pandemic. Well, that can harm people, right? Because if they listened to him, they can kill them. And then people did. I've seen lots of people saying, well, you know, people should be able to make their own decisions and he's not there for medical advice, blah, blah, blah. But you know, when Trump said drink bleach, people did drink bleach, you know. So, you know, I think maybe the No. And so the that the whole other thing is, you know, podcast platforms are one of the last frontiers for any sort of control audio apps, which are the sort of the emerging trend. And they'll be the next ones, like Twitter. Twitter's having all sorts of issues around its audio because they can't sort of control what's going on there. But podcasting, you know, it's not controlled in any way. And, you know, we're, we're exercising our right to free speech during this. But we're all very much aware of trying to convey information and following, following scientific research where we're all looking at all different perspectives, but a person with a viewership that high which is higher than most of the broadcast TV channels, there has to be some level of the information needs to be safe for the greater community. Right. Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's, that's, that's generally the concern that that I have about Joe Rogan. And I was I've actually also, you know, like, like, in promoting this particular livestream. I've been talking about me going after someone who I like, and I enjoy. And I think it's just wrong, and what he's doing. And it's not Joe Rogan, I'm just gonna hold that little card against my chest for a while before I get to who that is. But Tim, yeah, I'm just thinking, what what your reaction to this, you know, as we talk about it now, what do you feel about free speech? My gut feel is that there's, there's got to be boundaries, there's boundaries. So the fundamental one of the fundamental principles in democracy is the ability to have free speech. So it's, it's predominantly linked to democracy in that sense, because you're not stifled. You're not allowed to say anything. However, there has to be some boundaries. And and then who decides the boundaries of the question Andrew was asking before and that's, that's a really important one. Is it the people in power, who define the boundaries? Because if it's the people in power, who define the boundaries, then they can define boundaries that keep them in power, sort of like conversational gerrymandering. But then, if, if it is, if it's a culture, some sort of cultural boundaries, that kind of makes some sense, but it's sort of fluid and and then, you know, you asked what is culture? And how is how is sort of globalization and internationalization effecting a culture? And just because if I'm from another culture, do I have the right to act that cultures, you know, beliefs, so then then it comes down to geographical law of the land, I mean, there's things you can say, in some countries that will get you into significant trouble. And whereas in other countries, you're, you're, you know, you can wander around, screeching, whatever you want to say. So I, I just, and then and then the definitions tend to come down to like he was talking about about doing harm, is it? Is it doing any harm? And then the argument against hate speech is, you know, somebody can hate on someone, but it doesn't actually do any harm, is one of the one of the defenses to hate speech. But, but then, then it comes down to how do you define doing harm? Did it actually physically hurt someone? Or can they claim psychological harm? Or reputational harm? Or, but for me, I think much deeper than that goes down to how is it shaping our culture, and the way that our, our cultural conversation unfolds going ahead. And, you know, when I was growing up, in Malaysia, everything was quite conservative. In our family, you know, we weren't allowed to swear, we, we were very careful with with me, you know, we could say, say, whatever, but we weren't allowed to swear. And then culturally, you know, we had to be respectful of different cultures out there, and everything else. And that's just that was, that was my world. So I didn't think really anything of it. Then I went to boarding school in Australia. And, and, you know, some of the kids in the boarding school was saying stuff about their mothers, that I was, frankly, shocked that they would say and I was just like, I would never say that about my mother. And, and they were just being sort of street cred cool as a, as a sort of, as best a 12 or 13 year old could, in trying to sort of, you know, get their, I guess, relational status in or whatever happening, but, but the fact that that was even considered permissible even in a group of 13 year old boys, I just, I just thought I was I was just like, I would never I would never say that about my mother. And then but But then then then then it's grown into this, this world now, where for some people, the more you swear, the more followers you get. I mean, it was always a bit like that in the 80s, with sort of Eddie Murphy's humor and stuff like that, you know, there's a bit of that, and then he sort of cleaned up his act a little bit and got better roles somehow. And then, although less funny, weirdly enough, but then, then, but, you know, there's the Gary V's of the world who sort of swearing left, right and center. And so that's, that's sort of the, the, the choice of words we use from an expression perspective. And that doesn't need to be curbed or curtailed necessarily as much as the content and the direction of that content, which then the Free Speech argument that we've been talking about, is mostly about, it's about the content that somebody says, and how it impacts or hurts a group of people, that, that, that are that, that hear it, or that it's attached to. So they may not be the direct hearers. But they are the ones that are offended by it. And right now we're in a we're in a confluence, I think of a free speech argument. But also this, this this world of hypersensitivity. And Andrea, you mentioned, you know, somebody was expressing their truth. And, and, and for me, it's like, I've always had an issue with the expression of you know, you go and express your truth. Because the reason why I have an issue with that is I just see it as your perspective I, and it may be true to you. But I think using the word truth, as we tend to in the modern vernacular, somebody using they're expressing their truth. I think it says that there is truth in it. And at some point, you know, one plus one equals two, and if I go Yes, but my truth is one plus one equals five, then it's like, well, no, that's your wrong perspective. It's, it's, you know, it's the truth is one plus one equals two, unless you're doing some sort of, you know, weird keynote, trying to impress people. So. So I just think that, that when we start using the word, express your truth, then then I think that becomes a defense that I can say, whatever the heck I want, because it's true to me until I'm convinced of a new truth. So I know that getting sort of down to syntax, but I think that the argument is got multiple circles that are coming together, and we're living in that intersection of these, this this perfect storm. So we've got canceled culture, we've got, we've got hypersensitivity and hyper hyper political correctness, we've got the real need to be carrying in cultures. And so the carrying Enos and the hypersensitivity are, are, are at war for relevance, in a sense, or people are going, well, you know, I'm using this as my, as that bird that sort of limps away from its nest to try and draw predators away from things that holds dear, but really, there's nothing wrong with it to people who are really offended and really hurt by something and, and it can impact their ability to grow. Or, or, or have a sense of freedom or something in their lives. So I just think, I think my perspective is, there's got to be some boundaries, and the discussion needs to come down to, you know, definitions and, and where we're dealing with, but the challenge, I guess is, is those boundaries themselves, because they will always be challenged. And what you know, remember, remember, back in the 80s, when Madonna first sort of came onto the scene in the music video side, she was the, the one that was most aggressively sexual, and, and, and really sort of owning her, her brand. And that really put her on the cutting edge of being amazing. And then as a result, but at the same time, that would have offended a lot of people or Elvis gyrating on television and the camera to be up, you know, I mean, it's, it's been a long standing discussion, I guess the those examples of showing how, how mass media is now coming into play. And with social media now, it's, it's that the, the voice on the edge is a lot louder than the voice in the center. So louder. Okay, I've got a border around the conversation and we can right now because I think we can take it out of legislation, right? We're not we're not gonna even stay anywhere close to legislation. right now because I think legislation has become almost irrelevant to speech. It's, it's, I think people talk about who is who the I can't remember who it was who said it, but he says he was someone who was a bit controversial. And he says the people that I'm really scared of is not the government anymore. It's you. It's the audience, the audience is the is the new executioner, that they are the judge and executioner of, of what is what is available. And what's what's right to say, oh can be said. Yeah. Sorry, I interrupted you. And very you were saying that the Madonna example was a beautiful example. Because here I am growing up in country Australia is a good little Catholic girl, right? Madonna comes onto the scene. She's not just singing songs, and more proudly sexual. She's wearing rosary beads. And of course, all of us girls, we put on our rosary beads and, and got a little tops from Target and the Black Madonna. But she she was in completely revolutionary. But we also had the adults around us who were just like, wow, about that. And, and I think it's such a beautiful example of when an ideas time has come. And it's about growth. And for for women. It was it was about it was a it was a new, a new way of being female that was very empowering for young females because I was one of them. Right? So I think that's a really great example of, you know, something that was pushed down. But it was, it was battled, it was a it was the it was the battlefield. It was definitely pushed out in my community that they didn't get me to start wearing my rosary beads as jewelry. Yeah, but what so one of the one of the things that I, I think a lot of people missing this, this particular example is Spotify, Spotify basically said that we're a music platform, and now they've moved into a content platform. And it's a different thing content to music, right. And they're in a similar position where this to the social media companies a few years ago, when they said that basically, they don't consider themselves media. They're not broadcasters and content platforms, their content aggregators, their community platforms, lots of different descriptions. But so what Facebook and everybody was trying to do was fight against their responsibility for the content that was shared on their platform. And we've seen all around the world, the devastation that's been created out of the back of that. So Spotify is now sitting in that space. And I think that's one of the things I mean, the the responsibility of what you're putting out there into the world on your platform has to lie. It has to sit with you as a business if you're making money from it, right. Yeah. By the way, I'm going to be doing along the way I might be doing a inadvertent magic trick says I've got a green cup, and I got a green screen. So this is going to look really weird. This whole thing about responsibility is I mean, I think the arguments been made already. And it's been settled as in like, yeah, platforms are responsible, that they have to do something about it. Maybe they may not be held financially responsible or or culpable. But I think there's no disassociated them from from from their responsibilities, which is why Facebook is doing what it does right now. And Twitter does what it does as well, because I think it's been established that that's not that it's not an acceptable position to say that, you know, I'm just a gallery where this art happens to be hanging is you are you are you do you do have the ability to say this is not appropriate, right? So Spotify could remove a song, it doesn't want to put on the air because it decides that it's not appropriate, it doesn't fit community standards. And so the community now has been telling you what it feels and and what is different. I, I actually do think about this in terms of how, what what real real impact the story has had, because I think, I think when I when I hear about Spotify, and I hear about hashtag, you know, delete Spotify, and that movement, I think of the story of the, you know, the five frogs around the pool, and then the question is one of them decides to I kind of have five of them decide to jump in. I come up with the analogy now, but the essence of it is to say that people can say they'll do something, but they probably don't. And I think what's RFI is probably seeing it as back end is the numbers. And I think the numbers tell you exactly what to do, right? If Spotify was facing a real backlash in absolute numbers into the cancellations, and it saw those numbers show up on its on a spreadsheet in the backend, or they'd be doing a whole lot more about this. What they're seeing in the back end is People are saying all this upfront, but they're doing something else. If if you if it was Spotify, and you saw that people were absolutely deleting Spotify, because of Joe Rogan, that decision is not going to be hard to make, you can actually do something about that. But because what you see is a recoverable situation, you see something which is better than the alternative, you know, if you think about 20%, of Spotify, 35% of the user base, deleting the app and basically canceling their accounts. If that absolutely did happen, it would be devastating in real financial numbers to the business. And it would also limit the ability of the business to try and do something about it or try to stay, you know, like like, like, like, like, still still show any kind of association to this. This is the market telling you very clearly that this is not the right thing. And what they've come up with as an alternative, or a way to fix things is now to do to bring themselves in line with the other social media platforms to get the same kinds of warnings. And I think they've also pledged the same amount of money that they spent on Joe Rogan. Now they're going to spend it on on minority creators, and the production of that kind of material as well. So you know, that they're trying to do something about it. But I think at the back end, we have to, we have to. And it's funny, because back to the free speech, it's about people, not just saying what they'll do, but doing what they say, you know, I think if the people who spoke and said what they were going to do would actually do what they said they would do, we might have have a different situation today. Yeah, that's a that's to me, that's one of the next three months, we'll see whether this is true, whether this is real, whether it's gonna, you know, happen on a much, much bigger scale. Because, you know, there's the media sort of talking about these movements happen, and then they kind of quietly disappear. But as we were talking about the Trust Barometer, last week, the consumer is changing, the consumer is starting to take more responsible decisions for the businesses that they invest their money in. And, you know, we've, we've seen with meta in the last week, their numbers have fallen for the first time, and the profits down for the first time and all that sort of stuff. So we are in a different time. And so I reckon in the next three months, if it's going to be a real movement that really he's gonna act we'll sit we'll say it that way. It's too early to know that for sure. I also think we might be Miss attribute thing, what all this has caused my right I mean, that there's been a lot of stuff happening across the board in terms of the tech wall in terms of the market, it's a broad correction to the market. It's been going on it does a business, right, it's been interrupted the stock market, it's been overheated for such a long time people have been when we're flying on fumes. Right. And, yeah, they're saying that it has had a downward impact. But I also think that it's maybe giving too much weight to some of the stuff that's happening, because I do think that, that it's a it's a overreaction, by a lot of people, it's, we tend to be because we're social creatures we want we want to be on trend with our without anger as well. Right? So if everybody is upset about something, we all feel like we have to have some sort of take on it. Because we don't want to be the only person in the room go like a free speech. I'm sorry, what is that, you know, you don't want to be that person, right? You want to have your view and you want to try to have the view of which is going to be more acceptable to the room so people are borrowing, you know, what they what they should be having? I mean, you have people like Neil Young who suck so called made the big first move, you know, in terms of being a musical artist who took this big leap forward, what have you. And again, because we like the story of it, we just said that there you go. That's an officer standing up for his rights and putting his money on the line and this and that. And then you read a few days later that oh, yeah, well what Neil Young had done previously sold off half his catalogue and this and that a nine figure settlement and listen, he's he's already putting money in the bank. So making the political statement didn't cost him anything really all it cost them that much. It's a funny thing, how we try to we add this again, like we have the idea of how people adapt the idea of free speech, right we we take the story we interpret it we think it is what it is and then we try to perpetuate it from that perspective that now this is the truth what I perceived as a truth whether or not it was The truth what I perceived as the truth is the truth moving forward. And so you have other artists who are coming along, I think I'm maybe making much bigger sacrifices than Neil Young because Neil, Neil Young famously is actually pretty, pretty savvy in terms of handling his digital rights, and he's been working on that for the long, longest time. Like I said, he's he's been a little bit of I, I was gonna say, a different word, but he's been adamant about, about streaming, and quality use streaming and all that. And he's made a big deal of the whole thing. So yeah, I think I think he he, he set up a lot better to handle the storm that he set up for him that he sort of created, he didn't really create the storm at a cost to himself. And then really, it wasn't expensive to him. Right. So that's an interesting take. But I don't know if you've noticed in the last week, he's also he's taking on the boomer conversation around the environment, did you see that he basically, not just delete Spotify leave Spotify, but he's also talking about all the big banks that everyone should take their money out of and move it elsewhere, especially, but he's tough. He's talking to people in his age bracket, that it's time for them to do whatever they can, to make sure that they're doing the right thing by the next generation. So I don't know, I think he's at the beginning of a, maybe it's given emboldened him into a new phase of his life as an activist for and he's targeting that generation, which, you know, he can speak to. There's a lot of freedom that comes with first of all being old, and secondly, having a lot of money to go with it, right. So early on, there's nine, nine figures at nine figure deal for his music catalog. And he's old, so he's not only gonna be grandfather on the lawn, factor running for him, he doesn't, he's got he's got a whole lot more of a few money to write. So he's got a bunch of money in the bank, now it can really be a crazy horse. Yeah, get off his lawn. Let's say in the Financial Times, one of the comments was, this is a presenter, who was genuinely open minded, who, you know, this is broken, of course, he seeks out all sorts of opinions, rather than blindly following those of a particular tribe. And, you know, that sort of a, you know, from the Financial Times, I thought that was a kind of an interesting perspective. Newsweek, he's, he's producing content for people who want to see their own skepticism reflected, they are not going to him for medical advice. They are going to him to hear how other people think. And both of those are very valid comments. And then this guy from the New York University, the notion that he has such a large audience being constantly confused, fed this information, it is just too much, it's harmful to our ability to, if not end, at least diminish the impacts of this pandemic as soon as possible. And to meet that's the key bit. Yep. Yeah. Yep. So So then, do we go back? Do we do we regard the plant pandemic as a World War One World War Two? Yeah. Sort of boundary incident? Yeah. Or at least talk about that as a boundary incident. But then does that create a precedent to, to bat to, to sort of boundary? Boundary eyes conversations about things that see somebody get, you know, Pfizer just announced that they're gonna make $100 billion profit because of COVID? 100? billion? Yeah, I mean, that's amazing. So, you know, amazing, amazing, and, except they still haven't got given the rights to countries around the world to, to their backs. I'm not saying they're amazing. I'm just saying, that's amazing. That's amazing. You know, there's an amazing amount of money. So then, so as a result, you know, if you create these, I mean, when people were when, when they were coming up with the vaccines, there was there was times where there were these, these plants in India that could produce it quickly, in India that were pristine, proper plants to produce these sorts of things. And they were empty, because they didn't have the rights to produce it because people were protecting their, their, you know, the 100 billion dollars. They were protecting, they saw that this is a waterfall of cash. This is the moment and, and so to stop giving it away for free meant that, you know, they get to make 100 billion, but the thing is, yeah, we're still in a pandemic because of it, right. Yeah. Yeah. So, so then so then having a boundary around that could lead to that can lead to extending the pandemic, but, but having the boundary around the misinformation can also get people to go, yep, fair enough. Need a jab? Let's go and do it. Yeah. So that I mean, to me the fundamental question at the beginning At the center of all of this is, we go into a pandemic, there's a virus, we know, scientists can see it, they understand it, they know what it does eventually make a vaccine, right? But we don't even have consistency of truth around scientific fact. And, to me, that's, it's been politicized right from the beginning. But surely we should be able to go into a situation like we're in as a global society and say, this is the situation. These are the institutions that we should trust to get us through this. And we should take their advice. And we haven't done that. Well, I was thinking about this, you know, thinking about the show and thinking about how you talk about what is reliable, what's a reliable source. And if you if you follow the advice of the reliable source, that it should lead you to a good place. And this is often brought up and I have friends who are, I guess, maybe maybe embarrassed or they wish this isn't part of it, but the particular story. But, you know, if we follow the advice of the who, circa March, or about february, march 2020, we still wouldn't be wearing masks. So, yeah, yeah, well, hang on a minute. But But, but I think it's fair, I think it's fair for an organization to make a decision, the best decision they can based on the information they have at the time, so long as they're brave enough when new information comes in to make a new decision. And I think they made a new decision. So we can't shoot them for that. Because at the time that seemed to be reasonable. And then they made a new decision to go, I'm sorry, that was wrong. This, it's this. Well, the point I was making is how it's again about the story you bring into it, right? So a lot of people, a lot of people carry the idea around with them that science is static, they think that science is something which is, you know, once it is written, it is in stone, right? And they have that story with them. And they apply that story to that situation. So you know, now the scientists come along and say, no masks, and then a few months later, really literally, they they figured out Yes, yes masks. And now that story has been broken in their in their mind. So they are thinking now Now who do I trust, because you're not, you're not being scientific. And when the truth is among the scientists, it literally is this, you know, like, like, the world looks at people who behave scientifically right now because of the information coming in. As people who flip flop, when really what they're doing is okay, now I have the new information. This is the best I can do with that as you as you were saying, yeah. So yeah, as you're constantly a being, you know, AV testing along the way you're going like, Okay, now this works. So we move aside from that, and we go to the next thing, right? So that's, that's the thing. And that's why that's why I think, again, back to the analogy of the car, you know, if you're not someone who can really fully understand everything you're talking about in terms of the if you're going to regard or speak about science, you don't know enough about science, it's dangerous that you start is dangerous that you start leading a group into a way of thinking about science, for instance, right, which is, again, gonna point back directly to that guy I'm going to speak about later on in the conversation, talking about the man because we're talking about him talk about it now. Okay. Well, I've been I've been very concerned as I as I watch I, by the way, and as you as I as I speak about him, I love what he does. I like like, I like his material. I love what he what he represents in terms of what he is hoping for in the world. And I think it's very sincere. That he would like everyone to be truly free. Okay. So Andrew, who do you think he's talking about? But I know who he's talking about. I mean, so WhatsApp messages would you get as well but you don't obviously. You can play you can play you can play. Oh, I don't know for some reason. I was gonna go with Tony Robbins. Oh, okay. Well, he doesn't share a message like that. Yeah. Is not in my category. Russell Brand. Oh, right. Yeah. Okay. I didn't see that one. Okay, sorry. Yep. But Russell Brand's brand is sort of all over the place like you know, he's a hippo because what happens is we watch Russell Brand I'm going to start by defending Russell Brand is when you watch Russell Brand through the through the the four or five minutes you can get through mainstream media, you're going to get a slice of Russell Brand without the influx expounding what he wants to talk about. So when when, when he's got these rather complex ideas that he's trying to put forward. It doesn't always come across in that four minutes when he's trying to work it out. Live on TV. So there are the occasional moments of brilliance where he manages to do it in 30 seconds. But he's not as as he's not as erudite in short form, right? But he's good. When you have you give him some time to talk about the stuff he's talking about. So if you watch him on his, on his streams, and on his video channel, and all that, what he's saying, and as he's talking about what he believes, it's very well put across, you know, and with a bit of editing, you know, it's quite fantastic. And unfortunately, I think very dangerous as well, because he is someone in the category of, you know, free speech for everyone, everyone say what you have to say, Come and protest, do whatever. And I think he's, in essence, you know, the Kaaba in this is going to be controversial for him, if you're a big fan of Russell, and I'm sure it's not even in the spirit of what he's talking about. But it's like Americans and guns, right? You got to have the ability, everybody's got to have the ability to have a gun, you know, go ahead, and please have a gun and fight and you don't have to fire the gun, but you should have the right to have a gun. And you should have to use the right to use your gun in the ways that other people seem to to allow it. Russell Brand, I think is is is he, he's sort of enabling again, he's he's got an audience coming up to about 5 million people on YouTube. And people are borrowing ideas again, you know, they're very few original thoughts that we have, as human beings, we're looking around for what seems to be a bit of a trend and we hop on it. If you're watching Russell Brand, every day, it's about 15 minutes of someone having a conversation or is talking, talking at you telling you what, what he feels. And he is going to prescribe, I think ultimately a way of looking at the world our way of thinking and way of speaking as well, which is, I think, a little bit more dangerous in the hands of someone who is not as and I'm going to say it's not as intelligent as Russell Brand, because Russell is an intelligent person. And even if he has some, some, some thoughts, which, you know, maybe a little controversial, or maybe on the edge, I think he has the intelligence to not use it in any and all circumstances. Just like that he probably has a filter, in some sense. He has some sense of, of emotional intelligence that allows allows him to say, despite his alternative ideas, the right thing and the right, in the right context of the right audience. I don't think everyone who watches what Russell listens to what Russell does, walks away with that same idea, you know, that, yes, you need to have these alternate ideas and alternative ideas and be able to express yourself and say what you say, but I'm not sure if the nuance that comes with the kind of cultural education that he's had, is going to go along with that. So you create someone with a little knowledge, which is more dangerous than the person who has a lot. So I have a solution. So on his on his YouTube channel, or Spotify, or wherever it is that the the information, you have to do a quiz beforehand, to see if you can have access to it based on your intelligence level and emotional intelligence. And then, and you can only do that once a year. And you can just do that the entire population of the world. Yeah, which dangerous territory? I mean, it's like doing intelligence tests for the right to vote. You know? Well, yeah. I mean, if you're, if you're well versed in the concepts that are being debated in Parliament, then you get seven votes. If you have no idea what the heck is going on, you get one. But then it's also the most testing only values one type of intelligence and not different types of intelligence. And yeah, so it's always it's always dangerous. We can't do that. No, no, wrestles wrestle, to me is an interesting one. I actually don't enjoy listening to him. Like when he's podcasts, I've subscribed to a couple and I always try that I do enjoy listening to people who say things in ways that I don't think about, I don't think that way. So I like I like that, how that stretches my brain. So I enjoy the differences with and I can see, you know, what's his name? David arc. I accidentally read one of these books, like a decade ago, right? Yeah, literally accidentally. I had no idea who this person was right. I turned the corner a little too fast. And I fell into a bookshop and rubbed in my face. It was it was it was on calm. It was on top of a piano with a rental property that we're in short term rental and it was a couple of weeks in my husband's like, what are you reading him for? I don't know what to do in it. You know him I wasn't even saying his name right now. Of course every English person knows him. Now he's very well known around the world. But you know, he's the lizard people person, you know that right? You know, but I actually really valued reading him. Even though like, it's, I mean, some of the stuff he says is crazy, but I love the crazy. But but then I, when you read someone like him, you can't help but see the world with different eyes, and news and information with different eyes. Because we're not always getting access to the truth, we're only getting access to one point of view. Wherever we are in the world, we'll be getting our country's point of view or the, you know, the people, you know, if you're English speaker, you're going to get religion. Yeah. Right. So, I like that challenge, but not everyone's capable of the critical thinking bit. Because it's not part of the education system in many, many countries. And that's why, you know, Scandinavian countries are renowned for their teaching the children critical thinking, whereas a lot of the other education sectors, that's really I mean, they're not investing in them at all right? So they're not investing in the future. But as long as we have critical thinking, within our societies, I think freedom of speech is fine. And you're always gonna have people going off with the notice. And you're always gonna have the extreme views, but I don't know when, you know, fairly feminism, you know, a lot of people look at it was, that was an extreme view. But when you when you when you reach out to that extreme, you know, the girls but burning their brows, and all that sort of stuff. They obviously only had eight cups, right? It's true, like, the tub would take out, you know, you know, better than your bra, right? But what that does, is it it, it moves normality into the, into a center place, you know, so, yeah, one extreme, the other extreme, you can create more of a sensor. So I welcome that's, that's why I suppose I, from this perspective, I do welcome it. But when it comes down to a pandemic, that there has to be a source of truth that the world accepts. And that's what we don't have. We're having conversations around ways to treat COVID. And some, so many of them are not true. But the people who believe them to be true, will still stand there until us, like if they were here, they would say that they work. But there's so much more proof to say it doesn't work. Where the vaccines work. Well, you know, the unvaccinated are 15 times more likely to have severe complications if they get COVID If they're not vaccinated. I mean, the data is there. Right? But But I don't believe that well, what can I I can't convince you of that, if you don't believe it, because it's scientific evidence to prove it. So. So Does, does that have a right to exist that opinion? I think what we were, and this is a common thing that I have with, with my wife, right? It there is a complication when when it comes to us just being human beings and having feelings because, you know, thought if thought were the only way we settle stuff, that would be fantastic. If we could if we could somehow disconnect our emotional systems, we would make much better decisions, because then we could, we could decide fairly, right? But emotions stop us from seeing right in front of you. The Absolute Truth, right, so the story that I'll I'll probably tell when I'm 95 years old, is how we broke the story. And I feel reasonably safe to be talking about this particular subject, because mostly it's LinkedIn, who's watching us and I don't think that many kids watching here, but you know, that the gentleman who comes around around Christmas time, we spoke truth to my, to my event, 12 year old son about what really happened, you know, and he spent a good half an hour looking at us, and wondering why we were being such terrible people trying to take credit for the work of someone else. And you just couldn't figure it out. And we did everything we could to dispel the notion of what actually happened. And it took us that long to finally get through where, you know, the few times in my life I've actually seen someone slap their head in realization, when he finally did. And then that was just the penny drop, you know, or for him. So it's all an emotional thing that we carry along with us and that's part of the human condition like we're we're storytellers unto ourselves. And we don't want to challenge that story because that chant that that story is so convincing, right? So, some words are going to trigger people simply because the meaning of the word is is is loaded, right? You can say something that is, that is like, like, I think for Tim and myself growing out, right? I mean, we, we would have experienced the wrong side of the back of assault, there's no right side or back of hand, you know, if we use the F word, you know, it's a couple like company. But then again, you brought up in a different culture in Australia or somewhere else where it's much more accepted. And that same word, that same context is has totally, totally different meaning, right? Or the idea of perhaps, like calling your parents only as mum and dad and not by their first name. I mean, when I went into another culture where it was commonplace, I went like what's going on here? I don't understand, right? So, again, it's the story because the story that we were told in the story, we believe that Oh, it's so rude and disrespectful if you don't do it. And so when we, when we stepped in that culture, we went, Oh, they're so rude and disrespectful to their parents. When that wasn't true at all. It was just it was just the culture that they were brought up in said that that's how you talk to people, you call them by their name. Oh, by the way, we weren't allowed to swear. So I don't know why you excluded me from that. But like today, raising you know, I've got a Jack's will be 14 on Sunday, and Lex is 15. And Lex will be watching now. And when the special man in the red suit, was finally revealed is nothing non existent. He was gutted. absolutely devastated. And, you know, and you know, the fact that your son was 12, right. So when we were kids, you know, we found out about this women like seven or eight kids today, for some reason. It's a bit later. And maybe they just want to stay in the magic of the idea. I don't know what it is. But well, some of my kids figured it out early, and they realize that we're getting two for the price of one. So why bother? Because, you know, they were getting they were getting presence from us and the gentleman who would arrive very mysteriously. And I had at least one child who said, Let's not rock the boat. I just said to my boys, surely you could say that your mom is such a crap rapper, like Sanchez presence and mom's presence, Dad's presence is still wrapped the same way. And you know, I'm really a bad rapper, that was never one of my skills. Okay, so I'm going to share with you how for us why we were able to create this magical illusion with our kids for as long as we did. We never wrapped the presence from Santa, they all came inside of silvery and golden cloth. They were always tied up with ribbons. And they had very nicely done calligraphy. You know, it was all it was all it was all style, and that that's why we got away with it for as long as we did. We used to hide things in most incredible ways. We'd leave the house for church, and oh, I forgot something. And then just you know, and that and that quick moment. Everything goes from the closets to the right place. You know, it was all that kind of stuff. So it was it was it was really a lot of a lot production goes into it. Yeah, but that's something that that I do feel. There's one part of me that does feel that I may have created a problem with that though, because because we were so successful for that long a time. And what we did was it was as as the all the kids grew older, and when you when you reach the age of knowledge, and we revealed the magic trick. They then became stooges in the next round as well. Right. So we had to we had to we had to we had to we had to sort of like, bring them into it and they had to support the story as well. I think we may have inadvertently broken something in terms of innate trust in parents as him if you could lie about this for as long as you did. What else you're lying about? Yep. Yeah, Zoe, Zoe, Zoe. Watching TV with us will tend to watch something and then go, is this true? Even if it's a movie and they're just saying a line that's required for the movie, she'll look over that true? Like what they said, Is that actually true and I'll go no, no, it's just the movie or whatever so that so that Christmas conversation came up like which was for which was amazing. So much money but well yeah, but but we still you know, still she still got one last year and was just like cool I got the thing. But I'm more I'm are we going off track of the freedom of speech thing here. But at the same time, it's like the beginning of distrust. That's what I that's what I was hearing, right? We Yeah. Yes. And I think that that's a big part of it, I think. Because I was thinking about I'm thinking, how do you curb misinformation? How do you curb deliberate misinformation? So don't be some of these podcasters everything else, though, and Fox News is, I mean, seems to be rampant with it is because their goal is viewership and advertising revenue. And, and if the misinformation creates tension, and the argument and more people glued to the screen, that serving their KPIs, and so, so how do you, the only way I can see to do it in that sort of environment is financial penalty. Because that's the sort of thing that would curb behavior. And it has to be significant enough financial penalty commensurate with the the option of just paying the penalty and keep doing it. So it's got to be commensurate with the the amount of revenue that they get from the misinformation to dissuade them from doing it. But I see that that's got problems as well. Yeah. So then we're back to, and then then you're back, you're kind of back to if, if it's just nonsense, turn off the television and go and watch something, you know, change the channel? Yeah, that's what a lot of these people will say is like, well, if you don't like what we have to say, that's fine. You don't like the fact that I take my shirt off, then change the channel, which I guarantee if I didn't take the shirt off, everybody would change channel. So the but you know what I mean? So I it's one of those. I think the analogy of gun control is a fantastic one, because I think they're actually the same discussion, a lot of senses. It's, it's my right. My sense. I mean, gun control is like everybody should have the right to have the gun. Everybody should have the right to free speech. Everyone has the right to do but you're not supposed to shoot people. Yeah. That there's something about, there's something about that. And if I could just throw in something else that goes along with that, which might surprise, surprise, everyone who's watching? Did you know that there are actually more guns per capita in Canada than there are in the US? Particularly per capita? Yeah, as as in like, I was, I was just blown away by this isn't like, yeah, the Canada actually has more gun. Well, per capita, they have more guns in the US. But the numbers are still true about about Gun, gun crime. And all that is the US is much, much higher up. So that there's also there's something to be said about not not just the principle of the idea of free speech, for instance, if you're going to use that analogy, and then apply it to guns, and then take one step into into Canada as well. Canadians tend to be also a little bit more polite in terms of how they speak. I mean, that's just what are the you know, it's an interesting sort of, to me, if there's something else to kind of find out in terms of what's going on underneath there, right? It's not just about the guns, it's about the way that people are with the guns. So I think Canadians have the same with the words, and it's just how they are with the woods. So the gun numbers don't match the crime figures. So basically, what you're saying, Yeah, I think if you were to try to make, I mean, it's always been said, like, if we talk about the comp, the comparisons usually between America and Australia, because, you know, Australia made the big change about guns and all that kind of stuff. But there's a there's a, I think, an even more interesting study about what's happening between the US and Canada as two countries next to each other, where the numbers are actually heavier in terms of number of guns per capita capita, and why it ends up being a different outcome in terms of crime. And, and even. I mean, the arguments always about like, even when it comes to self harm, the numbers are strangely not commensurate, right? You'd imagine that all more guns more suicide by gun? Well, it's quite simple to to the simple answer is there are more bears per capita in Canada. But there's also but there's also other social things to factor in, like drug use sleep legal and illegal. You know, there's so many different aspects to it. But, you know, to me, the freedom of speech thing as far as the whole podcasting and what kicked this off, right. So the media used to have a, an agreement, and there was only a couple of players, right? So you know, when we grow up, do you guys still remember any having two channels, and then there were four channels and now then there were 1000s of channels and then the internet and then you know, it's sort of it's the explosion, right? And in So in the beginning, there was a, there was almost like one point of view that was represented in different ways to different audiences. But essentially, the, the, there was one point of view being represented, right. And so what we've got now is we've got millions of points of view. And there's no, there's no central consensus of what is right and wrong. So we've just got millions of points of view. And, you know, like, Tim, when we're talking about it, we say, I'm like, That village sort of idea. We, we don't, we don't have a truth anymore. When we're not, we're not, we're not all anchored into the same place, right? We're all in different different places. And we, you know, the, the whole cycle of distrust that we're in just trust the media, distrust the government, looking at business leaders to drive the change in the world. You know, even within our own families, it's all over the place, you know, and, you know, just just this last week, the religious discrimination bill that was going off in Australia, and just watching how my Australian community were responding to that, and, you know, it's been shelved, right, but the only people that really suffered in that process, were the children in game, the trans children who were already struggling with who they are, right? So we're not anchored, we're not anchored anymore. And I but like, but then we come into parts of the world like Asia. You know, in Singapore, I do think that central, sort of core, we're in it together, let's do it, you know, this couple of people are not happy with it. But the majority of people are all doing the same thing, coming together as a society to get through a really, really difficult time. And a lot of countries, especially the democratic ones, they don't have that. And, and the whole freedom of speech thing is a big, it's a big part of what's going on at the center of that, even though I believe in it, I think it's creating problems, and it's making the pandemic longer. And it's frustrating. But what are we willing to sacrifice? Who decides, you know, who decides what's right and wrong, but to me, scientific fact, should be able to be accepted, but it also should be allowed to change as they learn more, because? Because you're learning more, right? So? I don't know. Well, for me, freedom of speech is, it's, it's that there's a price mechanism to it, right? Because you say you talk about freedom of speech, you believe very much in it. And you guess I'm free to say whatever I want, except when so and so is around over except when you know that there is that there is a pricing mechanism built into it. So there's the amount of authority about the person that we're speaking back to, or who is representing what we say like, for instance, right? I can I can say something right now, which is going to be a little bit more controversial, let's say in the medical sense, right? So if and, again, because what I do is I keep dipping into different pools. I I've I've got the flavor of remdesivir on me somewhere and I Can you can you can smell it on me. It's it's not, it's not, I don't actually have the freedom of speech to bring it up with a group of people who think they know the science. You know, I when I when I when I when I've had friends online, who tried to essentially shut me down talking about what's happening with Visa V rim disappear. So the long held and still sort of, I would say idealized but it's it's, it's, it's presumed to be the outcome of it will be that they'll find that there is no redeeming quality to remdesivir. Right. There's no reason that anyone should be using it anywhere. And then I think the article you shared as well talk about how people cherry pick different stories, they cherry pick this story to do to highlight this or that or whatever it is. But I also look at anger, like people also do cherry pick the other way around. Right? You have you have India with the stories that they've had around the use of it not just in a in a in isolation. But we don't want to look at those numbers because they don't seem to support the story. Whereas we're happy look at Brazil and Peru and say, well, they use renders again, the numbers were high, so Well, no, no, no proof. Sorry. You know, and we've had things like and this is this is this hasn't taken off taken off YouTube. So I have to assume in some sense that it must hold some water. There's a study that's being done right now currently, and it was one of those things where you know, those who presume that there's nothing to it go like why are you bothering at all but those who don't? Well, we'll continue with the study. So there is a study being conducted by Oxford right now, which includes not just remdesivir but a whole bunch of, of drugs. They are trying to understand it's a double blind trials, the effects of different drugs on COVID. There is, if there was honestly nothing there, then there wouldn't be a curiosity for it. So that that's, for me what I what I think is we need to to maintain is this curiosity? Because, yeah, hydroxychloroquine has gone through its its cycle. And scientifically, they found out anger, like, Okay, we were no longer curious about how this process and how it can help. But if the scientists are still curious about it to the point where they're doing double blind tests, on a drug that doesn't have a patent in existence anymore, must be something to it, you know, must be you know, that's, and that's another thing, and we were talking about freedom of speech, in terms of speaking to power as well, right. So scientifically, the who is power, right, what they say, is powerful. So if someone comes up with something else, which is different to that, it's, it's also quite hard. So it's almost like there is, and this is not speaking in legislative terms, that there is a freedom of speech to speak back to government. But we have, we can't speak back to the who now, because it falls into a category which makes it you know, dubious on Facebook, and not Twitter. So that there's, there's that to consider as well, right? You know, like the what are the examples that I gave when I talk about freedom of speech and science and medicine is also something stomach ulcers. And today, if you if you talk to any older person, they will probably still tell you that stomach ulcers are about stress, they will still talk about it in terms of being, you know, too, too hard, working too hard in the office, and blah, blah, blah, you get all the answers. And that was the old held truth, for the longest time. And it was an Australian. It's not like about a doctor, an Australian that that sort of noticed something in the first of all, in anecdotal stories, and then after, after, after some time in data, and then later on in experimentation on himself, that basically led to the breakthrough, that the actual understanding that ulcers were actually about bacteria, you know, and so now, if you have an Elsa, it's far less likely to be attributed to stress, or intense or even treatment as well, they'll likely treat you with some antibiotics. And that journey, that whole thing of going from an idea, it's something that I noticed was sort of happening to I feel that this is the case, and now I'm willing to to put myself on the line. I mean, the whole journey took some, like 30 years. Right? And it's it's hard to think about it, but you know, there's some, there's some stones that have been left unturned, and the motivations for it, there is enough of a reason for for, for, for, for for me, like, you know, Mark was the one who created remdesivir. And the the the record the patent, the patent has expired. So it's easily producible. You can you can get it from India at four cents a pill. So, you know, that's, that's the cost of this possible treatment, which everyone's happy to say not about this, this this, this is nothing much you can do. But this new thing that I have, which has a patent for the next 13 years. 1 million. Yeah, yeah. And that's where the lack of trust comes, right, because, you know, the lack of trust in in business to do the right thing, because they are motivated by capitalism, and they want to make money. Whereas what this needs is a different approach. And, you know, like you're saying, like, if that is the solution, or is a solution that needs to be factored in, even if it's not going to make those companies a billion dollars. But, you know, the bigger, the bigger picture, and I'm just looking at the time probably should move into the next new sections. But for me, the thing that we need to always keep in mind, you know, social media post basically has been in our lives since 2006. And that's when Facebook first started, but it really was 2008. So we're only 14 years into this right? And we've made a big mess of it, as everybody knows, for me social media more than the internet. It was the democratization of information before that a very, very, very small, small handful of people owned the knowledge that we had access to. And one of the things that I'm constantly fighting is the right for us to keep that. And we know that there's a lot of negative things in it. But like, like the whole misinformation around the pandemic, it happened in 1918. And as well, and they didn't have Facebook. So misinformation isn't an argument from a social media perspective, for me to say it's all bad. But I think if we lose our right to be voices within our own, right, I think we get we are losing something much greater than we are appreciating right now. And I think a lot of the could be a lot of forces at play, that are trying to get that happen, because it's much better to it's much easier for a government to control the country if they can control the information. And they don't anymore. And I think that's a huge part of the problem that we've been seeing, especially in the last couple of decades and trust and distrust. So don't let's not lose it. So, it sounds like we've done a big it sounds like we've, we've come down to there needs to be freedom of speech, there needs to be some boundaries. That's already that's already in play. If you look at the definition as a Wikipedia one freedom of speech is a principle that supports a freedom of an individual community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. However, having said all of that, you can wisdom to freedom of speech and expression therefore may not be recognized as being absolute. And common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non disclosure agreements, a right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security and perjury. And then there's the thing called the harm principle proposed by John Stuart on on on liberty, which suggests the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others, which is where we get down to offense and what is harm and, and all this sort of stuff. But there are already boundaries that we just listed them off, you know, slander, libel, pornography, you know, those other perjury, that sort of stuff. So we got, we got boundaries. So then what is the cost? Or what is the consequences? Possibly the thing we need to look at removing our ability to have access to freedom of information, I don't think is, is the things that support what Andrew just said, I think it comes down to there needs to be, for example, some politicians, politicians accord in a tough position, because they know things are going to happen. And decisions are going to be made when they're asked about it. They can't really reveal it. And I've experienced that as a leader in an organization, when we needed to make a whole bunch of people redundant when people asked me, you really caught in a bind as to as to what what are you going to what are you going to say? But there are some politicians who just lie. I mean, all the time, and the one that comes to mind currently seems to be Boris Johnson. Because everybody who has anything to say about him seems to say, yeah, that well, that's just who he is. That's just what he does. And then and so presumably, some people would defend him. But But if that's the case, what's the consequence to him? Because there's got to be some sense of consequence to to Joe Rogan, if he's if he if he has influence, if it's if he's got influence, or in that sense, and he's, he's, he's irresponsibly peddling misinformation. If you're, if you're a prime minister of a country, and you're, you're just, you're lying. I mean, it that at some point, okay, they get voted out eventually, but they don't. But that's not a direct consequence of that incident, you know, he might lose power because of a frickin Christmas party, rather than all the lies he's been saying. And the damage that is, is, is done in that perspective. For example, from from peddling misinformation about COVID and about treatments about trying to keep the world safe and get over this thing. There's got to be some sort of consequence. And so I think people are canceling Spotify because of their inaction to institute a consequence. That's an people are trying to vote with the only power that they have, which is to say you're off my device. And so it is impacting them financially. It has from from, you know, to like a significant percentage drop. Is that temporary? Is that a good time to buy Spotify? Joe? I don't know. But yeah, but as so I guess what is the consequence? And in some countries where, where the freedom of speech is curtailed somewhat especially against their political parties and their politicians, to the point where any, any comment is, is treated as libelous or slanderous. And, and where the judicial system is favoring the the people in power that can be quite challenging for fair hearing that one is another one that's quite challenging. And it's It's rice paper to walk on at the moment. But but it's, it's, so there needs to be consequence. But then there needs to be consequence of the abuse of the power of consequence. Or do we just get finally get to the point where we recognize that the social media companies, the podcasting platforms, anyone who's putting content out there in the world has to be responsible as a publisher, and they haven't claimed that position? They don't want to be they don't want the banner of Publisher on them, but they are putting content out into the world. And just by doing that, then they there is a level of responsibility, well, then, shared accountability between the person who's saying it, the publisher, but the publisher should wouldn't give the platform to the person saying, and if they didn't, if we didn't agree with what they're saying, right? So to me, to me, that's the argument. It's actually a, it's a, it's a, how do we manage, like, search the whole, you know, the whole, I'll stick the words in a mess, because we don't know how to be none of us know, you know, you watch all the people read, raging and screaming. And I've just been working on some content about how to step back from the rage. And people don't know how to do it. I watched people get triggered all the time. And I'm like, why are you even talking to that person? You don't even know them? It doesn't matter. Like, it does not matter what they say. It's just their opinion, like, it's okay for them to have an opinion. And they're commenting on somebody else's profile. And then you're, I'm like, stop it, you don't need to get involved, you know. So I think our bigger challenges, we've just got to all work harder, right? We've got to work harder if these people out there with, you know, what was it 100 90 million downloads a month, then we've got to help the scientific community, in all ways, get better at communication. So they can go out there and put their voice out there and be trusted and be heard, but do it in a way that people actually want to hear them. So we need a comedian sign scientific expert, you know, because, you know, we've walked into a bar. But, you know, but we've got a rather than sense of what's out there. We've got to focus on what do we need to create to counterbalance that? Because censorship is never the answer. Because who decides? Right? So that's my now the I think the the challenge, is that okay, is that the Double S word? The slippery slope, which I think we're on is that, when you want to start talking about who's responsible for content, right, and you say that LLC, well, social media that they argue is always gonna be like, if social media is responsible for everything that goes on it, then do we hold the phone company responsible for the conversations that go on telephone line, right? You're, but that's, that's two people talking to each other social media is amplified, in a much, much larger way. Right. And so it's a WhatsApp group social media, right? I mean, that that, that that's sort of a best challenge, in terms of where it goes. So like, if you if you if you create a platform, for instance, like WhatsApp, which allows you to create this big group, and out of these big group of people, and because of all the encryption that's available through WhatsApp, people are able to plan plan and insurrection, you know, hypothetically speaking, do you hold them responsible at all for not having fail safes in place? Or is it something that users say? Well, it's part of the feature of Facebook or WhatsApp? Anyway, that's supposed to be fully encrypted. So we don't know what you're talking about. Right? Except if you want to serve you ads, you know, that that? That sort of thinking? So if why I think there's a problem is I don't think there's a disagreement over wanting to be able to put some kind of controls or borders around things. But there's also the implication of what else it means what it means to the rest of what we're doing in our lives, right. If we say, we can control social media, and what are we saying about speech in a space, for instance, are we are we then saying that it's allowed here or that's not allowed there? It's the implications of that. And that's always been trouble with law law has always been about by legislating for this, what you're doing is inadvertently legislating for other stuff as well or creating a precedent. We will live in a much easier time. You know, back in the early The 20th century, right where, you know, government could be run based on the idea of I said, so. Right. And there's some there's something to be said about that in terms of I said, so, you know, the the coming out of the Great Depression wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for I said, so. You know, the courage the way the news was, where they got all the news outlets and said, Listen, we're only going to do good news. There is not we're not going to talk about bad news. This is the agreement that we have. And basically, as horrible and ideas it might sound like to anyone in today's context, America lied its way out of the Great Depression. That's, that's, that's absolutely what happened. We they said it was good, and they became good. You know, that. That's what they did. And and would you would you say that it's wrong? At some level? Yeah, it's, it's wrong. But it's like telling your, you know, I guess telling your spouse as they leave the housing, or how do I look, after they spent an hour and a half getting ready for that? Saying, you look fine. Yeah. No, you say you look fine. Yeah. You don't say anything else. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So I mean, yeah, I mean, this is simple. And I that's, that's why, you know, we really want to encourage everyone to just read, I mean, some, I mean, I had some activity on some of my social media pages, people was passionate, so fast. And it actually took me by surprise. Because to me, the story was only just beginning. And it's still the story hasn't ended. But it's it's part of a much, much, much bigger story that's been going on for a long time, around controlling information and controlling what's out there in the world. And it's about the pandemic. And it's about social media. And it's I mean, there's so many different aspects to this. And I think, if we can all be paying attention, we can follow the journey and make the right decisions, because all white men are not the right people to work out what the right solutions are from a social media perspective and digital platforms, because they don't use it. They don't know it. They're not letting you know, the digital natives, you know, our children, right? They know what it's all about. They know, it's in part of every part of their lives, so legislating, censoring, all that sort of stuff. I just said we're going to be super careful. But we've got to pay attention to the bigger story that's been playing out for a much longer time. Yeah. So we best get to the news and talk about the big stories that have happened in the real world now. Yeah, yeah. All right. So COVID. Let's, let's let's kick off with COVID. So the first one of Vox article, look up the headline how COVID-19 vaccines succeeded in saving a million US lives in charts. So have a look through that. But that that was the article where I referenced that if unvaccinated a 15 times as likely to die from COVID-19. And this is according to the CD C. CDC. CDC. Yeah. So it's CD CP. But there's another article that came out of Australia. So basically, what was happening was the people who were getting COVID and being impacted by it were being represented with these circles, right. So because more than 90% of the Australian population has been vaccinated, that circle was much, much bigger than the unvaccinated circle. So it looked like people who were vaccinated, were getting more COVID than the people who are unvaccinated. And so basically, what they did was they they changed the chart to show. So 3.55 people per 100,000, if they're vaccinated, have severe outcomes. 91.1 people out of 100,000 have severe outcomes when they're unvaccinated. And so this this information, the way it was presented was being used by the anti vaccine movement. So that's another really interesting one. I don't know if you guys have noticed Reuters. Reuters has been doing a series of weekly updates on the latest research around COVID. And they're absolutely front and center right from the start saying, This is not peer reviewed. But it's all from a credible source. And it's just got to go through the next stages. So they're obviously confident enough to publish it. So first of all, is one of the symptoms so there's, there's gonna there's gonna be a lot of COVID death in the future. That won't be COVID. But it's going to be linked to COVID. And this is part of the long term story of what we're seeing. But firstly, is Alzheimer's like changes have been happening in COVID patients brains, so they've studied to see that but the other one is, the risk of new heart problems jumps after COVID and this is mild COVID or severe COVID strokes, heart attacks. Blood clots in the lungs. So that this is an interesting thing. And if you've had COVID Don't panic. It's obviously a thing that you just got to keep keep an eye on if you feeling sort of fluttering in your heart or unusual heart symptoms or you know go and get a checkup once a week to make sure your heart's Alright. And then the final thing is Austria is introducing a vaccine mandate and it's rolling out and the rest of Europe's watching that and I found that super interesting that that starting off in a country like Austria and in Europe so that's a story with keeping an eye on because there's there's some pretty strict rules in like countries like Italy, you can pretty much do nothing if you're not vaccinated. And it's pretty tough and people don't like it. But yeah, they they're taking a pretty hardline so that's the COVID stuff this week. The funny thing for me just from a comedic point of view I'm terrible to think this way but I always think that if you if you're going to be in any part of Europe, where you're going to put out a mandate do it in an Austrian accent that's always taken seriously because the virus will be back Austrian is Ani Okay, have you seen for $5 million? I can't imagine for instance, a spoken in an English spoken English by with a Swedish accent the kind of a vaccine mandate being announced. It's just doesn't seem to be as serious. Yeah. Did you see any British accent? An English? If you smoke? It is English, but it is Swedish accent. Oh, we will all be doing we did Exene for everybody today, right like that. I don't know that Swedish accent I'm doing Sesame Street. It is pretty close. Alright, let's have some hearing and move on. Yeah, but did you say Arnold Schwarzenegger and Salma Hayek have done a new ad for BMW electric cars and their Zeus? And I would say I would say God is anyway. Absolutely brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Definitely. Tim it was it was Eddie's wife, primary wife. I can't remember. Anyway, my mythology is escaping me. Alright, Environment and Society. So I'm expanding this from just environment because I think Environment and Society is actually what it's all about. So the first piece is, and there's one I want to really focus on today. There's a report in the Natural History Museum magazine, it's the first time I've seen it. So I will be subscribing to it. But two thirds of life in the seabed is unknown to science. To how do we know that? Read this article, they know it because the pizza and thing things come to the surface that has DNA that is unrecognizable. So they've been mapping that out. So in eat, animals eat things, right. And those things could be come from the below the surface, and that leaves something that leaves something behind. So it's I'm not doing a good job of explaining the technical know, plenty of evidence. Because it's often said, Actually, we know ironically, much more about space than we do know about the sea. Yes. The way our knowledge has been because I think part of it has been visibility and range, because with space, we can see that far. But you just drop yourself into the ocean. Like I can't see anything now. Yeah, I mean, it's amazing, right? Two thirds. It's amazing. But why these articles really important is we not only do we not know what's down there in the deep dark, we also don't know the role that they think these creatures taking sequestering the emissions, right? So we've now got these seabed mining. And I don't know if you guys have seen, what they see is big, these huge nets just going along scooping up these precious metals that are lying at the bottom of the ocean. So basically, we were getting these metals for our phones. So we might we might have these fancy phones walking around. But if we, if we destroy two thirds of the life in the bottom of the oceans that we don't understand that we don't understand its role in the in the global ecosystem. This is a potential desert. I mean, that house fishing industry is already a disaster. But this is a whole other level of disaster. And it's kind of shocking that there's any approval because this is already happening. You know, it's invisible. That the real thing about it, it's literally invisible, because, you know, I used to live in Brunei and we knew about oil rigs and all the stuff that was happening on at sea right. But you become invisible as soon as you go a mile offshore. Yeah, I don't see you even though you're a superstructure in the middle of the water. And then now if you go if you go underwater, then you're totally invisible. So it is very easy for that to happen just like the way, you know, like, like, like we've we've made a mess of space really in terms of all the stuff that we left up there. But again, invisible. It's not it's not something that we're aware of. Yeah, well, that's also why we haven't been attacked by aliens joke, all this stuff. It's just too dangerous for them to come to earth now. But yeah, the underwater thing is, is it? Yeah, it's out of mind out of sight, I guess we're doing Joe saying and it's yeah, it's like going in mining an asteroid we well, except that it's part of our planet's ecosystem. And we don't know what damage to that ecosystem is doing. To the rest of the system that we can see above water, I suppose, is what you're saying. And we shouldn't, based on where the earth is right now. Because I mean, the next base is, you know, basically, once we get above 1.5 degrees, global warming 98% of coral reefs will die. And we're going to hit that this decade, and it's going to be permanent by the 2030s. Right. So that the article talks about the billions, billions of people that will be impacted. So you've got the livelihoods of immediate livelihoods. Yeah, the big the bigger ecosystem collapse in the oceans. And then we're destroying the ecosystem below. You know, these. I mean, it's really quite like, we human beings completely stupid. It's all we're doing. All we do, is we seek to solve a, an isolated problem without the consequences of that problem. Yeah, we teach our children about consequences. But where did where did they get lost in adults and businesses, like, I like to share a personal perspective, though I am the kind of person who likes to link this becomes that becomes that becomes that becomes that and I find that I lose a lot of people. As soon as I start going to the second or third generation of stuff, and they just think that you're overthinking it, you're you're you this isn't this isn't a ballad, this or that, right. And for me, my terror isn't in the area of the environment as much. And I know that comes as a disappointment to anybody who, who, who, for whom the the the environment is front and center, minds about relationships, you know, I really feel that relationships get damaged in this in the steps of consequences that we're not looking into, right. We go like, for me, for instance, that the whole idea of someone just looking at you as they speak to you, is an important thing. And I try to get that through to something with my, with my kids. And I say it's because it will have this impact on you in the future because other people around you will feel that you have a sense of this or that or whatever it is. So make it a point. So when speaking, just look up to see who's speaking because it'll make a difference. But it doesn't seem like something that it's just seems like I'm just being you know, the word you'd like to use as a no and I can't tell I know, it's anal retentive. It's a little retentive. You know, but yeah, it's consequently this linking of consequences. I don't think people have have have stopped thinking about consequences. But they do have so many more things happening around them that what happens is instead of going deep, you get you get you kind of go wide, right? Yeah. So you go through your day on social media might be instead of think about this, write a comment Malala it's like, like, like, like hate, smile, whatever it is. And then you're done with your social media rounds, right? Yeah, you got to be more intentional on social media than just yeah, the light like, like, like hate. Yeah, but, but we're getting close. But a good news story from the environment. And Bonnie, who's obviously a very wealthy Indian person, is pledging 75 billion to make India a hydrogen hub. Now hydrogens is a really interesting topic. And I encourage everyone to go instead of looking to the hydrogen revolution, because I've heard both sides and a lot of people are looking at as the solution. But some people don't agree with that. So look into it. Don't just accept anything. There's also a lot of stuff going on in the US at the moment big oil are basically facing the hot seat over there. Climate Deception. So I think, yeah, I think that's worth looking at. But also we saw some breakthroughs in nuclear fusion energy this week that's been selling to be reported. So that's a really cool one. And that's like, creating mini stars. And that potentially could be future energy. So some cool energy stories. You want to talk about any of them before I talk about the crochet sweater from Target. Well, I again, this is my I've been looking around it and Across the world, Steve pinker a little bit more recently, and he's being looked upon as the intellectual optimist, right? In the light of all the world, coming to an end and terrible things. People do look at him and say like, well, he's actually quite an opposite. He is an optimist, actually, because he says, if you if you if you if you sum everything up, you realize that, despite what we see is bad happening right now. Everything is better than it used to be, you know, and that's, that's ultimately it. So the faith that he has in human ingenuity is what I have as well. And this is where, you know, it comes to like, you know, nuclear energy. I've been a big fan of nuclear energy, but everybody, everybody loves the idea of nuclear energy, just not here. Right. And I think, you know, something, something like this is the way human ingenuity seeks to solve the problem. So it goes like way, well, if you're not comfortable with that kind of nuclear energy. Now, this is another way that we can try and solve this problem. How do you how do you, how do you, how do you think about what do you think about that? Right? So that's my, it's again, for me, it's one of those things I add, I'll add into the, onto the ledger of yeah, you go human ingenuity saves the day again, or at least tries to? Yeah. So when did he say everything's been getting better? Do you know, if you look at any of his, his his recent lectures, I can't recall the name of the book that he was promoting. But he basically did research on where we've come from, and where we are now. Right. One of the stats, which which people very uncomfortable with, I mean, I'm not uncomfortable with it, they just don't realize is, there was a time a 90% of the world was under the poverty line. And now we are at 90% of the world above the poverty line, but we have 10% below the poverty line. But in terms of how we feel about the problem, it seems to be a worse problem than then. Then used to be. So it's one of those. It's one of those perspectives, which we tend to not have until we realize oh, yeah, that's the case. Right? And this is not one of the examples he's got. But there's a there's a story of one speaker, who was talking to a reporter who was speaking to a wealthier person, how do you feel about being part of the top, you know, 1% in the world? And the answer backwards? And how do you feel about it, because they realize that a lot of the world doesn't feel it is part of this bigger picture, they think in terms of the wealthiest in the US versus the rest of the world. They don't think about themselves as the wealthiest in the world, because they're like many of us, even though we feel like we're not terribly well off. When we factor in the rest of the world. We go like, Oh, okay, this is what it feels like, to me to top this percent of that, right. So it's about, it's about the difference between what we feel, and what we it's almost this, this, this intuitive sense that we have about the environment, everything else around us, versus sometimes the facts, right. So there's some things that really have become better. But we feel so much worse about it, we don't want to be we don't want to accept that it's actually something that is positive, it does not mean that there is nothing to fix, and that there's nothing to get to improve on. But it also is at least a reason for you to be maybe a little bit more grateful about what's happening around us where we are right now compared to where we could have been, yeah, I'm with you. I'm an optimist, and I, I will die an optimist gleaming in the best, the best of us the best, I expect the best, you know, that's the way I look for him. But the reason I asked you about when he said that was because what was it what was the Swedish data guy that died a few years ago, he was hands. Some he was a brilliant guy, he was he was he really shared a lot of that sort of data of how, how we think everything's worse, but it's not. But the last two years, everything has gotten worse for a lot of people. And we have gone back, you know, women's equality slipped back by a generation people in the developing world, you know, struggling like never, never before that the back, you know, so we have slipped backwards in an enormous way in the last couple of years. So we're gonna got to do a lot of work together to get to move forward. So I think that's why I was asking when, because Hans Rosling that's the guy. Yeah. I mean, he was brilliant, right. But it has changed. Things have changed in the last couple of years. And it's, and it's been rapid and devastating. And you've got kids out of school and girls, child marriage, all those sort of figures, you know, first thing that happens, right? Yeah, I mean, I wonder sometimes if, if that's it, things have got better on the metrics that we were looking at But now we're seeing metrics that we hadn't been seen. Yeah. So which which is, which is horrifying, but at the same time, there's an opportunity now because we are seeing them to, to campaign to help them be better. Yeah. So yeah, so hands this stuff. I mean, but the clear one that has gone backwards is the environment. That's the that's the big, big clear one. Yeah. And women. Since COVID, yes. Okay. Yeah, equality. Absolutely. It's been terrible. But just, you know, people, people in the bottom 50% of humanity, it, they've suffered magnificently, suffered magnificently, majorly suffered, what's the word I'm trying to look for? But significantly, disproportionately, thank you. Right. Okay. So here's an example. So the last sort of top topic in this so there's been, so I don't know if you've seen this on Facebook, you'll see these articles where the title says, tick tock is least red flags. And then it'll be blah, blah, blah. And so this one is about a $35. Target crochet sweater, which is horrifying on horrifyingly unethical, right. So this is a classic fast fashion and supply chain misery story. This is the people that we're talking about in the bottom 50%. So this cardigan talk, whatever you want to call it, there is no machine on the planet that can crochet, it can only be handmade, right. And they went out to all the experts in crocheting, because there's lots of them around the world, you cannot make an item like this without sacrificing the well being of people making our clothes. So if you were going to buy this, in a store, Singapore, America, it's a minimum item of $250 based on the amount of hours that would be spent to make it so they estimate minimum 17 hours by hand, right. And so after all, all bits and pieces, shipping, marketing, all that sort of stuff, they believe that at a minimum, the person who made this was paid. So at a maximum, the person who got who made this was paid $1.70. And obviously, they're not taking into account the physical injuries, the environment where they're making a harm to like, you know, their hands as they're as they're sort of working as quickly as they can. And to me, it's just a classic example of supply chain misery. And the people at the end of that line aware will go into a shop like Target or h&m or all the fast fashion stores, and we'll joyfully go and go, Oh, my God only pay $20 for this amazing t shirt. And we're lucky. And we don't think about the human cost of that. And this is part of the climate crisis. You know, this inequality are but it's also, you know, we've got these dumps all over the world full of these crappy these crappy clothes that we buy cheap. And then we discard and nobody wants to use them. And they're made. I mean, this is actually made of cotton. So that's one good thing about it. But we have to start to take responsibility for what we buy. That's a big part of solving the crisis that we face, our individual choices. And so that's why I wanted to bring this up. And I think it was such a great example of the thoughtlessness that exists. And until we start saying, No, it's not going to stop. While we keep buying this stuff, without caring about the consequences, they're gonna keep providing us with this stuff. And it's wrong. This is a good example, also of social media bring to people's attention. Yeah, this sort of reality. Well, I gotta, I must confess, when I first looked at the article, I thought they were talking about the design, and the colors being used in the, the crochet thing is being unethical to wear it, like that's just it's terrible. But at the same time, but as I got into the article, yeah, I like the the breakdown, although I would challenge some of the figures. I know, there's been a fair bit of research and everything done, but they're saying that they're saying it's$10 worth of materials is is an assumption, and then they're breaking down that, you know, they're saying it takes 17 hours to make the thing. So if it's 12 if they're being paid $12 an hour with the $10 worth of materials, the cotton everything else, then it would it should be costing 220 $22.40. Before before it gets to be, you know, at the point of sale to whoever's going to then mark it up and transport it and then mark it up in the final retail. So that's how they broke it down to you know, it's $7.07 25 an hour it will be $138 $3 now, it'd be $63 It was $2 an hour$10 material it'd be $45, the fact that it's it was 35 bucks, my my argument there is, I don't think it'll be $10 worth of material, I think it'd be a lot less than that. But it doesn't doesn't take away the fact that it is really 17 hours worth of work. Now, that person's being paid very, very little. However, however, we are comparing what we think people can live on. And I'm not trying to diminish the argument you made, I think the argument against fast fashion is a very legitimate argument. But we are. We are comparing, we're not comparing apples with apples, but thank you, we couldn't live off $2 an hour, but people can and, and it also goes to the argument of Well, I'm not going to give to charity. Because if I give $100, with all the corruption and everything else on the way to getting to the person who really needs it, they might only get $2 out of my 100. So you know, I'm gonna, I'm not gonna do that. But the thing is that $2 to them is possibly worth $300. In in our cost of living bit here. Well, I agree, I agree with the argument that the cost of living is different in different countries, but the that the cost that these women, typically women are paid in this industry, is actually not enough for them to survive, and eat, and have access to medical and live in it live in a place where they're safe. It's not enough, we're not paying enough. And there's a lot of slavery in the system as well. So my, then my, my next level argument might then be if we paid more, are these people getting paid more at the end? Or is the brand just taking more, and that's where companies then that's, that's what's coming, coming through now, right? Companies like Target have to be responsible for the entire supply chain, all the way down to the women in the factory making the clothes or child, right. So they have to start to take responsibility. And they've never had to. And you know, we saw in Bangladesh, when the building collapse and all those people died, the first thing Disney did was leave the next crash, but building collapse, a whole bunch of brands came together and said, right, it's time that we're going to do it a little bit better by our by our people in the supply chain. This is something that's never really been tackled, because obviously, there's so much corruption in supply chain. There's so many, there's so many steps towards the end of the supply chain. But as far as like, overcoming the climate crisis, the supply chain is actually a really critical part of that fight. And human dignity in the supply chain is absolutely a must. And we've got to we've got to work harder to understand what's going on. You know, so like, I think I've talked about it before, but when the pandemic hit all these women were just abandoned, all over all over Asia, and Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, just abandoned, right? The the shipping containers is still sitting in the ports full of these clothes that never got shipped. All these handbags, these high high brands just dumped him didn't care didn't take any responsibility for these women. What happens to the women in that situation? Abuse sold into slavery, sold their daughters into slavery. I mean, you know, it's time that we start to say, Well, I'm not going to support a brand that does that or not, I'm going to make more ethical decisions. And that's the shift that's starting to happen. Now people are looking at the companies that they work with and saying, I'm not going to buy from you. So the whole Spotify thing, are you going to continue to support Spotify? If they do the right thing? Yes. All the fashion brands? If you love Louis Vuitton, what's their supply chain? Like? How much? Are they keeping an eye on it? What's their environmental impact? Now, if you're going to buy a Louis Vuitton bag, it's not a cheap thing to buy it at least understand the impact the company hands for another station? Well, it's, I mean, it's available. You just got to dig for it, right? So there's, I can find a whole bunch of links for you. But there's like a slavery website, which talks about where modern slavery exists and the brands that are responsible for it. There's a whole bunch of places I can find them and put them all together. But yeah, but it's not that hard to find this information. And we've got to start working for it. You know, it'd be really interesting is an app that kind of links that to the shops that are in the shopping center that you're standing in. I just saw one I just saw one shared the other day. It's an app, use your Google lens and just go like that and then just go up. No, that's got a score of minus six. You get there. Oh, this one's not an 87%. Okay, I'll go and shop there. Alright, it's called the Beagle button. I'm going to put that in my weekend reads it just came across. And so basically, you're doing a search for a product and it will be integrated into your web browser, and it will suggest better and more sustainable options. So those sort of things starting to happen. Yeah. That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. All right, we're coming up to two hours to want to just a couple of really quick things that happened this week, and then we'll wrap it up. So meta was threatening to close down Facebook and Instagram in Europe. And Europe said, Please do confirm that life would be very good without Facebook. And this is obviously all over data transport transfer rules. spoken in a Swedish accent? Oh, well, that's a good point. That was probably Austrian. I think it was. I think it was French. We don't like you anymore. Nada is is moving to tackle creepy behavior in virtual reality. And it was like, for God's sake, it really, we still, you know, like, Okay, you're betting your entire company's future on this area. And you haven't even got the basics, right, like making your customers feel safe. And you could free Guy. Guy, right. That's basically the metal world where people go and they just blows blow things up and steal. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's gonna be my life. My future. Anyway, SpaceX. I've lost 40 satellites because of a geomagnetic storm. And I don't know about you, but these geomagnetic storms are reported on quite regularly. We know they're happening. So that was a bit of a How the hell did they not know that that was going to happen? Well, well, one thing at least we didn't. It at least that's a storm that we didn't cause. Let's do anything. I got my spot on that one. I really did. Well, I didn't know about Fox News never reported on it. I don't know. I don't know if he's a Fox News kind of person. One fascinating story. I really want to encourage everyone to read in prospect magazine, that's worth subscribing to you just get a couple of articles a week. And they're always really long form, quite deep, usually, sort of UK focus. But Shin Fane and the regreening of Ireland, did you guys have a chance to read it? It's a really long one. So you might not have had a chance, but I'm not up to speed on my IRA updates. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, you will be amazed by this piece. So first of all, there's a female leading the political moment. She is She is regularly compared to just into a donor in her sort of approach. She's very, very popular. This is obviously a post Brexit Brexit thing, but it's it's also talking about the reunification of Ireland. And it's quite phenomenal. Like I didn't realize that this was what was happening and how quickly it was happening. So I recommend that CNN, I think the heels articles title was CNNs collapses now complete. So that's really interesting. And of course, then we saw the Trump ripping up his records and having to rescue boxes of paperwork from mera Liga this week. And the headline is, is that the same as Hillary's emails? Lucky him up lucky him out, right. But apparently, all the Republicans that were very much on the anti Hillary Hillary bandwagon have said nothing about this. And it's, um, I actually think the irony of this whole story is going to be that if Trump faces some sort of criminal case, it might actually be the fact that he ripped up these documents, not anything else he did, it might actually be this. It's kind of like the Capone thing with taxes, right? Was Al Capone was got done for tax. That was what he gave it in. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is thing that undoes him. I would be it's, it's a, it's, it's, you know, that like, the defense in the end was like, Oh, he's just stupid. I mean, like, like, he had it, he had a habit of doing that fish or something, and he would just rip it up. And that was a whole thing. But yeah, he took he took a lot of eating a lot of correspondence with him, which is actually, technically because it was generated in the under the auspices of the the presidency that belongs to the National Archives. And that's, that's essentially the charge you've just taken. You've just you've just stolen stuff. Yeah. But I think they recovered the stuff so you know, unfortunately, what they should have waited for was the sale on eBay. And then and then Neil him for that. Although there was boxes of like shredded paper, you know, so like, he just rip it up, right, which he was supposed to do. So, you know, you could be one of those classics, you know, charging me this will get you know, he won't go to jail, but he went off to run for president again because I figured that's kind of the goal to make sure you get on a felony then then he doesn't play that game anymore. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So yeah, so that lots going on didn't even get on to the you know, what's going on in Australia or around the religious discrimination bill or critical race theory in the US or everything else is been going on. It's been a really, really, really big week of news. So hopefully this has been useful. Well, I mean, let me share with you something length a bit of newsy news at the end, you know how Wordle has been sold to the New York Times. So that's that's one of the stories that doesn't change the world as far as was concerned. But a US woman has had her life while at least she was rescued from a hostage situation because of Wordle. Yep, she's Uh, she's because she was she was she was doing the things that you hate so much, right? And rather than putting up dates of words every single day, look at me. Yeah, yeah. So her family got concerned when her daily updates did not come. And so they call the police and send them to do a check on her. And she's an older lady. And she had been actually taken hostage by some guy who was just a little bit off his rocker, but, you know, make it and cuts everywhere and all that, but he was holding a hostage. And only not for nothing. Give me the five letters for today. But yeah, I was thinking just because of that lack of activity on Wordle that the family was alerted, and as a result, she may have had her life saved. Oh, that's good. That's a good news story. That is good news story. Yeah. Very weird, but very good. All right. So what EE D, what's keeping you guys distracted. I haven't got anything to add to this week. I'm still trying to finish shits Creek. I kind of get you that it's still worth pursuing. But I'm not 100%. But I'm really looking forward to watching this new series, which is about Asian knights. So basically, that's touring around Asian cities after midnight. I can't remember the title is, but I will have watched somebody next week. So like, it looks like truthful. But yeah, so what about you guys? Well, I like to recommend two things. One is a podcast and one is a series on Netflix. The Netflix one is not something that you really really have to watch. But it's fun to watch if you like improvisation. And if you like I think it's a Will Arnett, you know, the guy the voice of Lego Batman. And also have, I think, Arrested Development. Anyway, he's got a show on right now. So it's a short series, I have a feeling is going to come back again. But in a sense, limited series, which means that it comes to an end. I like them. Yeah, it's it's a show this is I'm this way that the whole premise is that he plays an investigator who is in New York, I think he's and he has to solve cases. But every time he is assault cases, he is brought a new partner. And the partner is played by a real life person as themselves. So the first partner he has to pair up with is Conan O'Brien. And the way it works is everybody else has a script except the guest. So the guest comes on and tries to play along and figure out what's happening with the mother as well. And then they have to try and figure out the questions to ask and this and that. And as you can tell, if it's Conan O'Brien he's gonna get this assumption and against, but there is underlying it all is it's great comedy. Just ridiculous. First of all, that people are improvising lines around a whole muda thing, but it's called muda Ville. And it's all on Netflix. Yeah. The, like a big ripoff of thank god, you're here. It might be a UK program. I actually, Australian, it was Australian. Well, I know the Australian one. I don't know if there was another one. Yeah, but it was an Australian one where basically, the guest would come in to a scene and they wouldn't know why they're dressed as Robin Hood. But they would then walk in and and the first line that the whole set would say is, thank God, you're here. Like, right, finally figured out who they are, that they sort of interview them afterwards as they fumble their way through the disaster. Everybody else has the script and the plot and they know what's going to happen. So this sounds a little bit different from that. But I know that's based on some British show, which I can't, I don't have more details to give you but Mudville and the podcast that I would like you to if you if you can check it out. It's from the producers of cereal. So you know, it's gonna be a long story. But in eight episodes, it tells you the story of the Trojan horse, letter or Trojan horse. The exact word is wrong is not here, but it's something that was began in the UK. It was an unsigned letter. It was, it was the it was the middle pages of a letter that allegedly talked about how there was a Muslim plan to invade the school system, and the women the hearts and minds and all that kind of stuff and all that. And it's a it's it's really a fascinating podcast. So it's, you'll find it through association by little Look, do a search for cereal and do a search for for Trojan horse. And it should come up. I think if you just type in Trojan horse Serial podcast, you'll probably get the name of it. Let me just do that when I do that. That sounds good. Tim. I came up with a Trojan horse affair. Yeah, that will be it. Alright, cool tackles Islam of Islamophobia hoax in UK schools. Yeah, it's a really, really, it's one of those podcasts with you. You shout at someone you're like, how can this how can this be happening? But it did happen. It's been incredible because a freedom of speech big round circle there. i Yeah. For me. I had there was a couple of weeks with no football. So I, I I was sort of having withdrawal symptoms. So I turned on TED lasso. Which I think you recommended somebody recommended. Yeah, I watched I watch two series within two days. So that 22 episodes i i I don't binge. I haven't binged I don't know when the last time I actually binge like that was but I kind of loved the whole experience of the binge. And I liked it so much. And I told my wife, you know, just watch three episodes. And we got through five that said, for me, that was the second viewing of it. And before we had to go to bed, because it was two in the morning at that particular point. But But I I really liked it. I mean, I just thought was great. And then I've found out that there's a third series but friend of mine seems to have watched in Australia, but I can't I can't see it here. Of he's just he's just lovely. Right? It's just, you know, all the characters like the female owner of the club. Yeah, she's great. I just love her. And then and then the PR girl right? And yeah, yeah, it's just, it's just yeah, beautiful humanity. Complexity of, you know, we're all a bit weird, right? Yep. Yeah, but I but I like I like his his values were, you know, he was like, for him. It wasn't about winning or losing. It was about developing people to be the best version of themselves. Yeah. And through that they would win the game sort of thing. That was kind of his idea. Of course, the other coaches like, it's about reading. But But yeah, I don't know. It's a real feel good piece. With lots of lovely complexities, and I don't know, I just really liked it. Yeah, I spoke to a friend of mine in Australia. You know, Jody, I spoke to Justin. And he goes, Yeah, he just kind of wanted to punch Ted last. So after a while. It was sort of sick of the over overly optimistic pneus of it, but I loved it. I refreshing enough cynicism, we can deal with an optimist, right? Yeah. And it also made me really want to go to England, because, you know, just the little cobblestone streets with the pubs of the flowers outside and all that sort of stuff. I was just like, Yeah, I've missed that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm with you. Alright, guys, I reckon we should wrap it up with over over the two hour mark. But thanks, thanks for being open to having the chat around freedom of speech. I know. It's because, you know, it's it's not necessarily something people feel particularly comfortable talking about, because, you know, everyone knows how contentious that is. But I think it's important to talk about these things. And every every negative story, for me that breaks is an opportunity for conversation, and it's the opportunity for conversation that creates change. So, you know, like, I know a lot of people really push back on those big stories. Even Madonna read that example. Every conversation is the beginning of is everything new is the beginning of a conversation. And conversations are what creates changing. Let's not be scared of that. But also look around the whole story, not not just one part. So yeah, I'll be uploading this on the podcast as quickly as I can. And thanks, guys. Thanks very much. We got provinding coming next week. Oh, that'll be laugh. Yeah, yeah, the man with the greatest love you and excitement don't miss next week's show them. Yeah. No, it'd be awesome. I don't know what their theme is yet. Oh, I'll get that nailed down with him soon. But yeah, thanks for tuning in. And we'll see you next week. See ya. Bye, everyone.