The Daily Wire engaged in a bit of a tiff with Twitter, specifically Elon Musk,
over what they felt was an act of censorship.
Now, this all started when Twitter agreed to essentially promote
Matt Walsh's film What is a Woman on the social media platform.
However, they later allegedly reneged on that promise.
Thankfully, it seems that Elon Musk was not, thankfully for them, it seems that
Elon Musk actually wasn't aware of the censorship that was taking place.
So let's get to the beginning.
Let's go through all the details, and you can judge for
yourselves what really occurred here.
Now, earlier today, the only side we heard from was the Daily Wire side.
And Jeremy Boreing, who is the co-CEO and co-founder of The Daily Wire,
argued that Twitter had reneged on their promise to promote the film.
And later told The Daily Wire that the reason why they had reneged on
that promise was because the film was misgendering individuals.
Now, in the film, I haven't watched it, but
based on what I've read about the film, the misgendering takes place surprisingly,
not by Matt Walsh, but by a father who has a trans child and
one other individual who's the subject of the film.
And so the Daily Wire had planned to make What is a Woman available on Twitter for
free for 24 hours in honor of the film's one year anniversary.
Twitter allegedly offered to host a designated event space for the film and
to promote the film on every single, or promote the film to every single person
on the Twitter platform for the first ten hours of the event.
But then Twitter apparently reviewed the film and
decided to restrict it to some extent.
They not only revoked that offer that they originally had,
according to The Daily Wire, but informed The Daily Wire that the film would be
labeled as hateful conduct because of the multiple instances of misgendering.
According to The Daily Beast reporting on this, Twitter,
as Boreing noted in his thread, no longer explicitly bans misgendering.
In April, the company removed language from its content moderation guidelines
that prohibited targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.
Boreing further claimed Twitter told The Daily Wire that misgendering still
violates the site's broader policy against harassment and abuse.
Now, due to that hateful conduct label, the film's reach would be limited.
Boreing ended his Twitter thread by saying this, okay, so here's what he said.
I hope Elon Musk will reconsider this awful policy.
If we can't debate these issues on Twitter, where can we debate them?
If conservatives aren't welcome on Twitter, where are they welcome?
It's unlikely another centibillionaire will come along to offer an alternative.
So I'm just gonna pause for a second and comment on the need in his mind for
a billionaire to come in and save the day.
Putting that much power in the hands of one super,
super wealthy person to make the decisions, the right decisions,
I think, not the smartest strategy, not the smartest path, right?
But nonetheless, we're talking about conservatives here who tend to uplift
the wealthiest people in the country and pretend like they're the most trustworthy,
when oftentimes they make decisions not based on what's right and
wrong, but what's right for them.
Before I continue, Cenk, any thoughts?
>> Yeah, so I'll tell you why this is happening in the first place.
So Twitter has a new CEO, she seems to be conservative, but that's not the point.
The point is her entire career is in advertising.
They brought her in cuz the minute Elon Musk took over Twitter, within,
I think, a month, they had lost 50% of their advertising revenue, why?
Advertisers, right or wrong, do not want to advertise in places that don't
have restrictive rules on speech, okay?
They just don't want it.
>> Because they don't want their ads to be associated with content that
their customers or clients might find objectionable, right?
So there was this big adpocalypse with YouTube at one point after Trump got
elected, because advertisers realized that their ads or yeah, their ads were
being used in video content by neo-Nazis and stuff like that and they hated it.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And by the way, so
if you're a right winger, you're like, neo-Nazis, that's okay.
Freedom of speech, right?
Okay, they didn't want their ads on ISIS videos or child molestation videos, right?
So maybe you could relate to that and go, yeah,
I can see how they might not want their ads on that, right?
And by the way,
I think advertisers are largely wrong in how they view brand safety.
I think they should have some rules for the things we just talked about.
But their rules are way too restrictive on both sides, okay?
>> Right, they're overly safe.
>> Yeah, and- >> They're terrified.
>> Yeah, so for example, if you fight against racism, a lot of times
you'll be banned by advertisers, too, cuz they don't even wanna touch the topic.
>> Right. >> Okay, but I don't cry about it like
the right wing does and goes, [NOISE] they hate conservatives.
Well, that's just not remotely true.
There's a reason why they do it.
Because they wanna sell more product.
It's not that Elon Musk or the new Twitter CEO, some left winger.
You're misunderstanding the whole thing.
It's about capitalism, baby, okay?
>> Right. >> And so
the right wing is super mad at capitalism.
It is greatly ironic.
>> Yeah, I mean, I think it's important to keep in mind that when it comes to
the censorship and the demonetization that we see on various platforms,
whether it be Facebook, YouTube, in this case, Twitter.
It's really not the platform's executives who make these decisions,
it's the advertisers themselves.
Now, during this time when The Daily Wire believed that Twitter was actively
censoring them, there was evidence of that, right?
So let's take a look at Matt Walsh's tweets,
because this is what they looked like, right?
Visibility limited.
This tweet may violate twitter's Rules Against Hateful Conduct, and so-
>> That pretty much describes every tweet
Matt Walsh does, but okay.
>> Okay, so yeah.
All right, so let's get to the update.
So finally, later in the day, Elon Musk responds to this and
he says, this was a mistake by many people at Twitter.
It is, meaning the film, definitely allowed.
Whether or not you agree with using someone's preferred pronouns,
not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws.
I should note that I do personally use someone's preferred pronouns, just as I
use someone's preferred name, simply from the standpoint of good manners.
However, for the same reason, I object to rude behavior, ostracism,
or threats of violence if the wrong pronoun or name is used.
Okay, so despite Elon's response,
it's still unclear if the film will be restricted on Twitter or not.
And so, again, I agree with Cenk.
I think the decision isn't really about doing the right thing to protect
the transgender community.
I really think at the end of the day, this has to do with the advertisers.
>> Yeah, it's not I think, I'm positive.
There's no question at all, right?
Because these rules are applied to us as well, so we know the rules really well.
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with objecting to the rules that
the advertisers are laying down and saying, you don't like brand safety.
I don't like it either.
I think it's very misplaced priorities, right?
>> Yes. >> It's a different thing to pretend that
they're doing it because we're on the left or you're on the right.
That's not why they're doing it at all.
Okay, go ahead.
>> So, another update that I just got word about,
Elon Musk also tweeted this in response to Matt Walsh.
It will be advertising restricted, as advertisers hear, or
advertisers have the right to decide what content
their ads appear with- >> Totally.
>> Which will impact reach to some degree.
He responded specifically to Matt Walsh with that tweet,
and Dave Rubin responded to that, saying,
maybe Bud Light can sponsor it just to put a nice little bow on this thing.
>> Okay.
>> You're not clever or funny or talented.
Step aside [LAUGH].
>> Yeah, okay, now, by the way, just I'll throw in my opinion on the misgendering.
I wouldn't do it.
It's wrong to do it.
But do I think people should be banned for doing it?
No, I don't.
And if you wanna get mad about that, that's okay.
God bless.
We could have disagreements, etc., but
you're being purposely rude, as I hate to agree with Elon Musk, and
I don't know why you're doing it other than to put out that hatred.
So I get why people are super mad about misgendering, but it's just words.
And so I know that people on the left now sometimes hate to hear that, no,
words are violence.
No, they're not.
They're not. They're words.
You fight back with your words like we do, okay?
And so if you shut down all speech, the right wing is gonna win anyway.
They love authoritarian government.
We on the left do not like authoritarianism.
Plenty of speech and we're gonna win.
And these people are outing themselves, and by the way,
they're losing young voters by the droves because of their hatred.
Just let them show their true colors.
>> Yeah, I agree with you on that.
I mean, again, advertisers have the right to not wanna advertise on certain content.
At the same time, whether Daily Wire should be allowed to post this
without any restriction on that platform, I mean, let them do it.
I mean, if you are secure in your ideology, you should be able to debate,
not try to censor the other side, cuz that idea is not gonna go away.
It's gonna exist.
>> And that's exactly what Twitter wound up doing, which is, yes,
we're putting it on.
Yes, you can watch it, but no, the advertisers don't want it.
You can't force the advertisers to pay you for
the hatred that you wanna push out there.
They don't agree.
Like I said, it's called capitalism.