#306 - Harvard Scientist Blows Whistle on Google's Mind Control Research | Dr. Epstein

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Dr. Epstein is a Harvard trained research psychologist, author of 15 books and more than 250 scientific and mainstream articles, as well as the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. SPONSORS https://huel.com/danny - New customers use code DANNY for 15% off your order. http://drinkag1.com/dannyjones - Get started with AG1's Next Gen & notice the benefits for yourself. https://irestore.com - Reverse hair loss & unlock HUGE savings on the iRestore Elite w/ code DANNY. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off GUEST LINKS https://www.drrobertepstein.com https://americasdigitalshield.com FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - How Google influences everything 08:21 - Mind control research 12:56 - Death threats 25:46 - Who funded Google - and why? 32:59 - How Google infiltrates other search engines 42:33 - 23andMe, Google & DNA harvesting 44:12 - Whistleblower leaks 51:02 - Google's rulebook for content suppression 01:04:22 - The "opinion matching" effect 01:10:06 - 2024 election 01:22:13 - Monitoring big tech's influence 01:28:41 - Foreign countries are scared of Google 01:44:52 - Google's pending lawsuits 01:53:37 - President Eisenhower's farewell address warning 01:55:55 - 7 steps to protect your online privacy 02:01:47 - Indoctrinating children 02:10:38 - The self-censorship issue 02:16:41 - Gemini, Chat GPT & DeepSeek 02:22:31 - Elon Musk & Stephen Hawking's AI warning 02:38:03 - The 3 laws of robotics 02:44:13 - Time travel & the UFO phenomenon 02:47:54 - Neural transduction theory 02:55:43 - Origin of human intelligence Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Danny Jones?

  You can eat well, work out, take supplements, and try to get enough sleep, and you still have no idea whether it's actually changing how your body is aging. But that's what makes True Diagnostics True Age Test really interesting. True Age uses epigenetics, basically chemical tags on your DNA that change with things like sleep, stress, diet, exercise, and your environment to estimate how your body is aging. Its methods have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and developed with researchers at Harvard, Yale, and Duke. You receive your biological age, how quickly you're aging, and information about how areas like your heart, brain, and liver may be aging, plus recommendations around nutrition, exercise, sleep, supplements, and lifestyle. And it's simple. An at-home finger prick, send the prepaid kit back, and your personalized report arrives online in about three to four weeks.

• 0:45Danny Jones?

  So if you're serious about longevity and curious about how your body is really aging, then this is one of the easiest ways to find out. Right now, go to trudiagnostic.com and use the code DANJONES for 20% off your entire order. That's T R U D I A G N O S T I C dot com. Use the code DANJONES and get 20% off.

• 1:07Speaker 01

  I don't know what I'm doing. Need a break. Forget it, I quit. Escape to Pluto TV.

• 1:12Speaker 02

  This is objectively fantastic.

• 1:14Speaker 03

  Relax into the movies and shows you already know and love, all for free. Swing! Even our news is uplifting.

• 1:20Speaker 04

  You stay classy, San Diego.

• 1:21Speaker 03

  Watch Tommy Boy, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The X-Files, Wayne's World, and so much more.

• 1:27Speaker 05

  We're not worthy!

• 1:29Speaker 03

  The best things on TV really are free.

• 1:31Speaker 05

  You just have to know where to look.

• 1:33Speaker 03

  Escape to Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never.

• 1:44Danny Jones?

  Thank you, Dr. Epstein, for being here. I appreciate you coming all the way from San Diego. I'm excited to talk to you. And you showed me your, this is your monograph? This is new?

• 1:53Speaker 06

  That's coming out. It's currently under peer review, but that-

• 1:56Danny Jones?

  Oh, it's under peer review? Okay.

• 1:57Speaker 06

  That summarizes 12 years of research that my team and I have done on Google and other tech companies and their ability to to influence elections and indoctrinate children and affect our opinions, our thinking, our attitudes, our purchases, you name it. So, and it's- So that's like the summary of the whole thing.

• 2:23Danny Jones?

  How long have you been working on that? How long have you been putting that together?

• 2:26Speaker 06

  Uh, more than 12 years now.

• 2:27Danny Jones?

  Oh, wow. That's fascinating.

• 2:29Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 2:30Danny Jones?

  Amazing. For people who aren't familiar, how, how did you, with your background, get so into this world of Google and the curation of the content that goes on Google and YouTube and all this stuff and how it manipulates the human mind, culture, elections, everything?

• 2:48Speaker 06

  Well, I was trained as a research psychologist at Harvard. I was actually B.F. Skinner's last doctoral student. And some people don't know just how broad psychology is. It's really broad. And one of the areas that psychologists, that research psychologists study is called influence. So you've probably heard of a bestselling book called The Nudge about how you can just do subtle kinds of things and that will alter people's behavior. And so you've heard of probably the Stanford Prison Experiment, or, or the obedience experiments that were done at Yale.

• 3:28Speaker 06

  All that is, is studying influence, how to, how you can influence people. So, uh, in, back in 2012, my website got hacked, which is no, not a big deal, but I was notified by Google and I think eight or nine different emails. So that made me curious because I'm wondering who made them the sheriff of the internet? Why am I getting notified by Google and not by some government agency, some nonprofit organization? But then I got more curious because I've been a coder since I was a teenager. And I saw that they were blocking access to my websites, not just

• 4:07Speaker 06

  on google.com, which makes sense. That's their product, as it were, or their platform, I should say, we're the product. But the point is, it's not just on Google, but they were somehow blocking me on Safari, which is part of Apple. How did they do that? They were blocking me on Firefox, which is run by a nonprofit organization. How could they do that? So, over time, I, I started in 2012, just started really digging in and trying to find out how Google really worked and just how, how.

• 4:44Speaker 06

  How much of an impact they were having and whether everything was above board or were some things hidden. In early 2013, I started doing what I'm good at, which I've been doing for almost 50 years on many topics in psychology. I started doing what are called randomized controlled experiments. Because at that point, I began to suspect that Google's search results could be used to manipulate people. So what if, in other words, what if when they're pulling from among billions of links out there, they're pulling links that make one candidate look better than the other,

• 5:25Speaker 06

  or one product, one dog food, one guitar brand, and they're suppressing links which make the other candidate look good? What if, could that actually impact people's thinking, people's votes even? And I made a prediction, which scientists always do. I made a prediction, I thought, I bet you I could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters. So that's key here, I'm always starting with undecided people. Mm-hmm. And I could shift it by 2% or 3%, I thought, just by favoring one candidate or the other in search results. In other words, I had to build, my team and I had to build a simulator that works just like Google.com.

• 6:09Speaker 06

  It was called, it was called Kadoodle. Kadoodle, yeah, yeah, I saw it in your book. So, but it worked exactly like Google. And I thought, okay, one group, they get search results that favor one candidate, the other group gets search results that favor the other candidate, and then there's a control group, so neither candidate is favored. And I thought basically I could shift voting preferences by 2% or 3%. That was my prediction. I have never been so wrong, because that first shift we got in that first experiment

• 6:51Speaker 06

  was 48%, which I thought was a mistake. In fact, I thought that was impossible. That's after one search, so they're undecided voters.

• 7:02Speaker 06

  The only difference, they're all seeing exactly the same material. They can click on any of those links, go to the webpage, so they have access to exactly the same material. The only difference was the order in which we were presenting the material. And we got a shift of 48%. And don't forget, we're using random assignment. So that means we can push people in either direction, any way we want. So anyway, I thought it was a mistake. We repeated it. We got a shift of, I think, 63%. And then we began to learn that we could hide what we were doing.

• 7:41Speaker 06

  Even if it was blatantly obvious that the search results were biased, most people didn't see the bias. And we thought, what happens if we just fool people a little bit? So it's candidate A, candidate A, candidate A, candidate B, candidate A, candidate A, candidate. So what if we just mix it up a little bit, just to get people confused? That's called masking. We found that we could get these enormous shifts in voting preferences with no one, no one, having the slightest idea that they're looking at biased search results. No one knowing that they're being manipulated.

• 8:23Speaker 06

  So we got to that point, this is early 2013, and we said, this is important. And we wrote it up for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is one of the top scientific journals in the world, very, very hard to publish there. By this time, we had done more experiments. We had done a nationwide experiment with people from all 50 states. We had done a big experiment in India, right in the middle of a big election of theirs. It had more than 2,000 people on it. And this got published in, it's called, what we call lovingly, PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

• 9:02Speaker 06

  And the last time I checked, that very technical scientific article had been accessed or downloaded from their website more than 250,000 times, which is extremely rare for a scientific piece. Extremely rare. I mean, literally... You can publish a piece on discovering gravity waves, and I know the guy who did that, and you'll end up with a few thousand. But this got enormous attention. It got written up in the Washington Post and other places because it's scary, because it means that

• 9:40Speaker 06

  Google has the power to shift possibly millions of votes in elections, election after election, not just here but around the world, with no one knowing that they're doing it.

• 9:58Danny Jones?

  Do you think this was their plan from the start? Or do you think this was some sort of a natural evolution of their product?

• 10:07Speaker 06

  I think that they've done a lot of things over the years, which start out very innocently. Search suggestions, I think, started very innocently. They're not innocent anymore, and we know because we've studied that now and quantified that. I think a lot of things. They just start out innocently, and then someone or other realizes that they can use this to change people's thinking and behavior. And they have very, very strong ideals, very strong values at Google, and they're very proud of that. I actually happen

• 10:48Speaker 06

  to share a lot of their values. So part of me is always cheering for Google as I'm studying them and discovering what terrible things they're doing. So they have what they have done, and this is a whole separate story, which we can talk about later if you want to. But what they have done more and more is use very powerful techniques of mind control to control people's thinking and behavior, literally around the world on a massive scale. And they know exactly what they're doing. I can, I mean, for years, I was just doing

• 11:31Speaker 06

  experiments and discovering these techniques and very skeptical, always very skeptical, and yet then replicating it, or other labs have replicated these same findings.

• 11:47Speaker 06

  But I was, the point is that over time, I realized this is, this is a really, really serious problem. And over time, my findings were, were, were also revealed by whistleblowers, leaked documents, leaked emails. 2018, for example, there was a leak of emails from Google to the Wall Street Journal, in which Googlers, that's what they call themselves, Googlers, were discussing, how can we use ephemeral experiences, turns out that's

• 12:30Speaker 06

  a very important phrase, ephemeral experiences or ephemeral content, to change people's views about Trump's travel ban. And when I saw that, I, my head spun because I realized I had been studying the power of ephemeral experiences to, to impact people for years at that point. By that point, I'd been studying it for five years. In what context were you studying it? In the, in the context of just finding these techniques, that first one, using search results, that's now called SEME, the Search Engine Manipulation Effect, S E M E. And I had been studying these techniques, one after another, search suggestions, for example, you, just by fiddling with the search suggestions, you flash at people. We showed

• 13:15Speaker 06

  in experiments that you can turn a 50 50 split among undecided voters into a 90 10 split, with no one having the slightest idea they've been manipulated. But here, I'm seeing in language being used in the company, their employees saying, how can we use ephemeral experiences to change people's views? On the travel ban. And this takes on the travel ban. And I, but our experiments were showing. More and more and more that you can use these techniques to change people's opinions about anything, anything at all, not just candidates in an election, but anything at all. So the thing just, it just grew.

• 13:58Speaker 06

  It grew and grew because we were finding more and more that these techniques exist. We had to give them names because they're new. They've never existed before in human history. It could take a year or two or even five years to really understand one of these. And then we quantify them. So when we quantify them, that means we can calculate for a given election or a given product, we can calculate how big a shift Google can produce. And it gets, it gets bigger and bigger, but as it gets bigger, it also gets more scary

• 14:37Speaker 06

  because we start to, we start to run into pushback, I suppose you could say.

• 14:46Danny Jones?

  What kind of pushback?

• 14:49Speaker 06

  Well, not much until I testified before Congress for the first time about these issues. That was in 2019.

• 14:57Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 14:58Speaker 06

  Which was a, probably the most disastrous year in my life, all starting with that testimony, with my congressional testimony. As, one of my board members said to me at one point, "Well, they left you alone before that, but once you testify before Congress, they're not going to leave you alone anymore." Anyway, that same summer that I testified, I did a private briefing for a bunch of state AGs, attorneys general, about all the work we'd been doing and about the potential power that these companies have. And... So there were, there were very prominent AGs there from around the country. This was at Stanford University.

• 15:43Speaker 06

  And then I went out in the hallway, just was hanging around. And one of these, one of these people came out and said, Dr. Epstein, I don't mean to scare you, he said, but I, based on what you've told us and the work you're doing, he said, I, I suspect that you're going to be killed in some sort of accident in the next few months. And obviously I wasn't because I'm still here, but my wife was. My beautiful wife, Misty, was killed a few months later in a car accident that was very suspicious.

• 16:17Danny Jones?

  For me, I'm always on the go or in an inconvenient situation where I don't have the ability to whip up a well-balanced meal. And that's where Huell Black Edition Ready to Drink fills the gap. I keep one in my truck and in my gym bag and I never need to choose between fast food or starvation again. Today's sponsor Huell, spelled H U E L, has created their Black Edition Ready to Drink that is perfect for inconvenient hunger. This makes meals on the go convenient, portable and easy to store without any prep. And new customers can get 15% off at huell.com by using my code DANIE. It's a complete meal in one bottle with 35 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, high fiber and low sugar. So you'll feel full, focused and ready for your day.

• 17:02Danny Jones?

  No prep, cleanup, just grab and go. Huell's already sold over 500 million meals around the world and now it's your turn to try it. It's incredibly affordable, especially when you compare it to fast food alternatives. Plus you don't have to waste time waiting in line to order. It tastes like a milkshake, but it's not overly sweet. They come in vanilla or chocolate, which is my personal favorite. And after drinking one of these things, I really do feel full. It's not just a burst of carbs or a protein brick. It's the perfect balance for me. It was designed by experts to provide all the ingredients the body needs from a meal. It's cheaper than a burger, so for me, it's the perfect choice for a balanced meal on the go. Start saving time and money without compromising your nutrition today with this exclusive

• 17:39Danny Jones?

  offer for new customers for 15% off using my exclusive code DANIE at huell.com. That's 15% off for new customers using my exclusive code DANIE, D A N N Y, at huell.com. Please see our description below for the terms and conditions. Skip the stress, not the nutrition. Try Huell today for complete bottled nutrition.

• 18:03Speaker 06

  Uh, I mean, the vehicle was never examined. The vehicle, the little truck I had bought her was never examined. Forensically, it disappeared from the impound lot. I was told it had been sold to a parts dealer in Mexico without my permission. It just disappeared.

• 18:22Danny Jones?

  This was how long after this guy said this to you?

• 18:26Speaker 06

  Uh, about three or four months.

• 18:29Danny Jones?

  And who was the one, who was the guy who said this to you?

• 18:32Speaker 06

  He was and still is one of the state attorneys general.

• 18:38Speaker 06

  I mean, I've had other warnings too. I've had other warnings.

• 18:43Speaker 06

  Around that same time, I had a reporter from DC call first asking a bunch of questions about the work and what was the latest and all that stuff. And then a couple of days later, he called again. He said, uh, he said, I just got off the phone with a woman who I believe to be head of public relations at Google. And I think you should know that what happened. And I said, what happened? She said, well, I started asking about your work and she started screaming at me.

• 19:13Speaker 06

  He said, that's very unprofessional. I've never seen that before. He said, and I just want to tell you two things. He said, and number one, you have their attention. And number two, if I were you, I would take precautions.

• 19:29Danny Jones?

  Oof.

• 19:33Danny Jones?

  That's scary.

• 19:34Speaker 06

  We've had now six incidents in total.

• 19:39Danny Jones?

  What are the other incidents?

• 19:42Speaker 06

  Well, the last one, which was right, by coincidence, it was right after I had had lunch with probably the most prominent state AG in the country. That's Ken Paxton from Texas, who has an office with 800 attorneys and they've gone after Google over and over again. And they're, they're having an impact. They're having a big impact.

• 20:08Speaker 06

  But right after he left, so there were still some people left and it was in a restaurant.

• 20:17Speaker 06

  Oh, I have the.

• 20:22Danny Jones?

  What do you got?

• 20:23Speaker 06

  Well, you can use your own judgment. I'll tell you exactly what happened.

• 20:26Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 20:27Speaker 06

  And I even have an image.

• 20:29Danny Jones?

  Can you want to text it to Steve? He could pop it on the TV.

• 20:32Speaker 06

  Oh.

• 20:33Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 20:34Speaker 06

  Oh, that's a really good idea.

• 20:35Danny Jones?

  Yeah, we can have a full screen on the on the.

• 20:38Speaker 06

  Oh, and Steve's already in here.

• 20:40Danny Jones?

  Yep.

• 20:41Speaker 06

  Oh, that's a really good idea.

• 20:43Danny Jones?

  That's what I'm here for.

• 20:44Speaker 06

  Well, this is gonna be, this is one of the creepiest things that's happened so far.

• 20:52Danny Jones?

  Okay, this is what you talked about on Rogan, right?

• 20:56Speaker 06

  Yes, and I didn't, I didn't realize that.

• 21:00Speaker 06

  Now you see that?

• 21:01Danny Jones?

  So here we go. This looks like a a sharp piece of metal needle?

• 21:10Speaker 06

  Yeah, but look at the coating. And look how, look how the blade at the end has been sharpened to an extreme degree. So

• 21:20Speaker 06

  the, so General Paxton, AG Paxton

• 21:23Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 21:25Speaker 06

  leaves with his staff. My staff is still there. And one of them comes over to sit next to me. This is right next to me, because I'm on a bench seat in the restaurant. And this is my computer case for my my laptop. And

• 21:43Speaker 06

  so she just slides in next to me and then she screams, screams, like a real scream like out of a movie. And we all go, what's, what's going on? And she goes, look, and there's this thing sticking out of her thumb. It's gone a half inch into into her thumb. It was sticking out of the computer case.

• 22:05Speaker 06

  Now,

• 22:08Speaker 06

  that this is the sixth incident so far.

• 22:11Danny Jones?

  So where do you think that thing could have come from? Well, and what?

• 22:15Speaker 06

  Someone put it there, obviously, when I did not have control over my computer case. And what is it? No one knows. I've even, I have

• 22:23Danny Jones?

  You still have it?

• 22:23Speaker 06

  I have people in intelligence, yeah, but no, but we didn't, we didn't.

• 22:29Speaker 06

  We didn't want to, there's a place in Illinois that they use for, for stuff like this. Hmm. Because that coating is obviously strange. Yeah. And obviously, the tip is strange. And the object itself, no one's ever seen anything like it. This is the kind of thing that Putin does to get rid of his, his, uh, his enemies. Except he has poisons that he puts on them, right? Right. This thing wasn't poisoned. Well, we never analyzed it. Did, what happened to the lady after, anything? Well, what happened was that she, we, we all kind of informally decided that we'd just see whether she was gonna get sick or not. It's pretty, pretty stupid of us. Dark.

• 23:08Speaker 06

  I know. And, uh, she didn't get sick, but she, she completely freaked out. She was, I bet. She really pulled back from the project. And she was actually in charge of our, uh, what's called major gifts. So, you know, the high level fundraising. And she just pulled way back. We had, uh, our managing director, who was fabulous, who'd been there for two years.

• 23:36Speaker 06

  She and her very handsome husband.

• 23:40Speaker 06

  Uh, we're walking Saturday afternoon in San Diego, which is a pretty safe city, 2:00 PM, Saturday afternoon. Uh, downtown San Diego. A guy comes out of the crowd, pulls a knife, slits his face all the way from his ear down to his mouth, all the way through.

• 24:01Speaker 06

  And then he looks at Michelle, our managing director, and laughs and runs away.

• 24:09Speaker 06

  Jesus. She lasted another two or three months. Her family was putting tremendous pressure on her to quit. I don't blame them, and I don't blame her, but I mean, it was a tremendous loss for us, tremendous loss.

• 24:22Speaker 06

  And my, uh, there's, there's been an, uh, a fairly recent incident with one of my sons. So that gets, and, and he works for the project. In other words, he works on the, on the, on the secret side of what we do, which is called, which is our monitoring system, which we can talk about if you want, but. That system, 11 o'clock at night, one night, stopped working, the data stopped flowing. I tried calling up our tech people, I couldn't reach anyone, I think it was a Thursday night. I called him, because I know he has, he's involved with the tech part of it. And he said, "Don't worry dad, I'll drive over to the office," which by the office, he meant

• 25:06Speaker 06

  the secret location, but I don't even know where that is, I never found out where it was. And, that's 11 o'clock at night. Midnight, I still haven't heard from him, the phone rings, he said, "Dad, don't worry, don't worry, I'm okay." I said, "What, what, what happened?" He said, "Well, I was driving over there," he said, "and I got broadsided by," he said, "a, a black vehicle, which immediately pulled, pulled away and drove off at very high speed."

• 25:37Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 25:40Danny Jones?

  How long ago was this?

• 25:43Speaker 06

  About a year and a half ago.

• 25:44Danny Jones?

  Did they ever investigate it?

• 25:45Speaker 06

  They had, they had nothing to investigate, they were no, there were no surveillance cameras on, on that intersection.

• 25:51Danny Jones?

  Holy shit.

• 25:55Danny Jones?

  But nothing has, so, so things keep happening to people that are in your, in your close orbit.

• 26:00Speaker 06

  Well, that, that thing, um,

• 26:01Danny Jones?

  That was, that was intended for you.

• 26:03Speaker 06

  For me, that was meant for me.

• 26:05Danny Jones?

  Right. But I assume the fact that you're, you're out there, you're talking in a public forum, you've done big shows and you're publishing stuff about this all the time, that they can't touch you directly, right? So they're just trying to, they're trying to intimidate you. This is, in a, this is not intended to kill you, this is intended to intimidate you, I'm, I'm assuming, right?

• 26:24Speaker 06

  Well, I don't know, because we, we never, there was, we found one lab that was recommended by the FBI. They wanted $5,000.

• 26:34Speaker 06

  I just, I, I just kept saying the same stupid thing, which is, which I really regret, and I think it was a mistake on my part. "Let's see if she gets sick."

• 26:45Speaker 06

  Which is so stupid.

• 26:46Danny Jones?

  And she never got sick.

• 26:47Speaker 06

  Not as far as I know. I mean, she definitely got freaked out and that lasted for quite a while. And she just never, she did, she, she didn't from that time on, you know,

• 26:59Speaker 06

  perform with enthusiasm, I guess you could say.

• 27:03Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah. One of the reasons I, uh, when I originally asked, like, was this the original intent of Google or was this something that just happened after they invented it? Because I, I realized, I read a, a Medium article that was very well done. It was like a three-part series. I forget the author's, author's name, but it was basically, it was essentially about the story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google.

• 27:28Speaker 06

  Right.

• 27:29Danny Jones?

  At Stanford with Sergey Brin.

• 27:31Speaker 06

  Yes.

• 27:32Danny Jones?

  And, um, the PageRank system, I think actually came from DARPA.

• 27:39Speaker 06

  Possibly. I mean, the intelligence, I, I think we have to be fair here. The intelligence agencies, this is, we're talking, we're talking the nineties. So there was barely an internet. And the intelligence agencies, they, they had meetings about this growing internet thing. And they were worried about how it could pose a threat to national security. And one very legitimate concept that they were working with was that if there's more and more information posted out there and someone wants to build a bomb, that's going to be the first place they go. They're not going to go to their public library. They're gonna, they're gonna go to this new internet, which at that point was easy to use anonymously.

• 28:24Speaker 06

  So when they were talking and to some extent providing, uh, fun, funding to people building these new, these new search engines, which are just basically big. Indices, indexes.

• 28:37Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 28:37Speaker 06

  To what's on the growing internet. They basically were saying, we, we want to be able to track people who are looking stuff up. Especially certain stuff. Now that's legitimate. In other words, if, and they still do this. All the intelligence agencies around the world do this. They, they use the internet, people's search histories, people's emails, anything people do on the internet. They use when they're looking for bad guys or bad gals. That's.

• 29:05Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 29:05Speaker 06

  And that's legit. I, in my opinion, that's legit. Now, it's true that Google, yes, they started out with, with help from intelligence agencies. Yes, they were definitely encouraged to, to preserve search histories.

• 29:24Danny Jones?

  Is that normal for a big tech company like that to be funded and incubated and nurtured by intelligent, the intelligence community?

• 29:32Speaker 06

  You have to look, Google is not the first search engine. It was actually the 21st search engine. It was very competitive in those days. I know one of the people who created one of the very first search engines. And he was just a professor at Carnegie Mellon. He was, he said, oh, I'm going to build an index, you know? And he ended up becoming a millionaire because he sold it. But no, did he have security in mind? Was he working with intelligence agencies? No, it was just for him, an academic project. So what happened with, with, uh, with these, these two guys from who started Google is, uh, it was, yes, a bit unusual.

• 30:13Speaker 06

  But some things came together for them very quickly because what they realized was because they were preserving search histories, they could monetize that. They had no way to make money for the first two years. But because they had these search histories, they realized, hey, we could hook people up. You know, forget the bad guys. We could hook up anybody who's searching for umbrellas with companies that sell umbrellas. So now they go to the umbrella company. So their, their actual customers are vendors. So they go to the umbrella company and say, hey, we know exactly who's searching for umbrellas online. Okay. And they borrowed a technique from another company, which, who sued them. But they borrowed a technique from another company, uh, that.

• 30:59Speaker 06

  That allowed them to easily hook people up because they could, they could put little, little kind of icons and they could put links online, which people who are looking for umbrellas could click on and that would take them straight to that company. And if there's a sale there, Google gets a cut or they would get a cut just because, just based on the number of clicks.

• 31:22Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 31:23Speaker 06

  All different ways that they've explored over the years. But in the early years, the fact that the intelligence agencies had them preserving search histories, that led them within a couple of years to figure out finally how to monetize the search engine.

• 31:38Danny Jones?

  One of the things I've learned from this podcast over the past five years is that everything leads back to the gut. And if you take care of that, you see the benefits everywhere else. And AG1 has become my go-to for taking care of my gut. And now AG1 has leveled up even more with AG1 Next Gen. This upgraded formula has been shown to increase healthy gut bacteria by 10x and all for the same price of less than $3 a day. One of the main reasons I've incorporated AG1 into my daily routine is because it tastes great, it keeps my immune system strong, and it helps boost and maintain my energy levels. I'm a better version of me when my digestion system works efficiently and is clinically shown to help fill common nutrient gaps in gut health. Yes, even in healthy eaters.

• 32:22Danny Jones?

  Next Gen's key ingredients are absorbed quickly and clinically shown to be bioavailable in the body, which means your body is using it. We can get into all the superfood categories it hits, pre and probiotics and the minerals. But I like to think of it as I take care of my body so my body can take care of me. After all, how can I be productive and efficient when my body can't? Since I've added AG1 to my morning routine, it's become a game changer and helps set the tone for the rest of my day. And thank you to AG1 for sponsoring this episode. Now clinically backed with an upgraded formula, this is the perfect time to try AG1 if you haven't yet. I've been drinking AG1 for years now and I'm super excited to finally be partnering with them. So subscribe today to try the next gen of AG1 for less than $3 a day. And if you use my link, you'll also get a free gift with your first order.

• 33:07Danny Jones?

  So make sure to check out drinkag1.com/dannyjones to get started with AG1's Next Gen and notice the benefits for yourself. That's drinkag1.com/dannyjones. It's linked down below. Now back to the show.

• 33:22Speaker 06

  Now by 2004, they were starting to take up a big chunk of search.

• 33:30Speaker 06

  They were, they were starting to become dominant, but there were still a lot of search companies. By 2008 or so, the, the others were kind of falling away. Google was becoming more and more popular. And again, got to give them some credit. It's because the, the method they were using for posting search results was, was new. The PageRank method and it was, and it worked really well. And so it gave people the best search results.

• 34:02Speaker 06

  Now we're thinking, it's, you can't pin an exact date on it, but you may have heard, but probably everyone has heard that at some point their motto was, don't do evil.

• 34:14Danny Jones?

  Yeah, don't be evil.

• 34:16Speaker 06

  Don't be evil. Don't be evil. Yeah. They actually dumped that in 2015, so they got rid of that. But they still mentioned that concept somewhere, but it's no longer the motto of the company. In my opinion, if they turned it into, don't be evil unless it makes us money.

• 34:35Danny Jones?

  Love it. We use Brave here. Well, we try to. Sometimes you don't get good, good results, especially on like the images. You know how Google Images, we, we search a lot of images, but the images are kind of dog shit on Brave. But Brave doesn't spine you, right? A lot of these, um, search engines or, or it's not a search engine. It's a, it's a web browser, right? A lot of them have been compromised by Google, from what I understand. But there's some of them that are still clean and clear of any of this stuff. And one of those is Brave, I believe.

• 35:02Speaker 06

  Well, Brave is, yes, Brave is a special story. I know Brendan Icke, he's the one who founded Brave. And before that, he's the one who created, uh, yeah, he'd be a good guest.

• 35:14Danny Jones?

  Brendan Icke?

• 35:15Speaker 06

  Brendan Icke.

• 35:16Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 35:16Speaker 06

  E I C H. And he's the one who created Firefox for Mozilla. So why did he, having done that, having created this great alternative to Google that worked very well, why did he leave? Well, because Google, Google's influence at Mozilla became overwhelming. Mozilla is a nonprofit, 90% of their donations were coming from Google. No matter what changes they seem to make to guaranteeing people's privacy, they also violated people's privacy. So for example, they made Google their default search engine. Mozilla did.

• 35:59Speaker 06

  Mozilla at some point actually made Google their default search engine. Or when, even when they didn't do that, which is pretty blatant, they used Google's quarantine list. Most people don't know anything about this, but this is where, this is all the stuff happening in the background that is so creepy. Yeah. Before a browser takes you somewhere, it could be anything, Safari, which is Apple's browser. Before Safari takes you to a website, it has to check to see whether the website is safe. Sure. They're not going to take you to, you know, malware sites in Nigeria, right? Right. Well, where are they going to get a good list that they can check at super high speed?

• 36:44Speaker 06

  Well, the answer is because Google crawls the internet more than any other company and has the largest database of any other company. They, everyone uses, including Safari, everyone uses Google's quarantine list. So that means, so Brendan saw this, I mean, he saw that basically Firefox was also checking Google's quarantine list. That means that when people are doing what they think are private searches using Firefox, Google's getting the information. Did he try to stop this? I don't know what, in turn, you could ask him, but I've never asked him, that's,

• 37:28Speaker 06

  you know, straight away, that very question. But I do know, he, at some point said, I've had it. And he, he was determined, that's why Brave is called Brave. That's why, because he was determined to do something brave and, and really set up a browser and a search engine, they're both called Brave. That are that are that Google cannot track that Google has no control over. Google has control all over the place, people where people have no idea they have control.

• 38:00Danny Jones?

  What happened with DuckDuckGo? How'd they get compromised by Google? Do you know?

• 38:04Speaker 06

  Well, DuckDuckGo is another story. I I don't like to talk too much about DuckDuckGo because I don't think it's. Personally, I don't even consider it as a search engine. DuckDuckGo is primarily a database aggregator. So what does that mean? That means they look at big databases that other people have created. And that's how they come up with the answers to your queries, your search queries.

• 38:34Speaker 06

  Now, that's not a search engine. Now, do they have a a little?

• 38:41Speaker 06

  Do they have a crawler that looks around the internet? Yeah, but that's very little, very little of their data comes from their own crawler.

• 38:49Danny Jones?

  But it used to be different from Google, right? You used to be able to go on DuckDuckGo and be able to bypass the sort of curated shit that you get on Google when you search anything. And now it's it's changed. Now it sort of mirrors Google. So like, there was obviously something that happened.

• 39:07Speaker 06

  Well, the.

• 39:10Speaker 06

  So another reason I don't like to get stuck on DuckDuckGo is because there are much, much bigger problems out there. For example.

• 39:17Danny Jones?

  Well, I was just like, okay.

• 39:18Speaker 06

  Again, let me just give you, because I think this this will make the point. 2016, Google and Microsoft signed a pact, which no one has ever, it's never leaked. So the exact contents of the pact have never been made known. But they signed a pact and and the next thing that happened is they all dropped all of the lawsuits and complaints they had against each other worldwide. Microsoft pulled the funds from all the nonprofit organizations it was supporting that fought Google. All the funds, gone. All the consultants that Microsoft had, and they, by the way, they offered me a consultant position with them at one point, and I refused.

• 40:01Danny Jones?

  Microsoft.

• 40:02Speaker 06

  Microsoft did, and I refused. But a dear friend of mine, he accepted. They got rid of all their consultants, all at once, gone. And Windows 11 became, Windows 10 has a lot of problems, but Windows 11 became a very aggressive tracker. And some of us believe that from that point on, their search engine Bing, which had been losing about a billion dollars a year for Microsoft, started to save some money, probably by scraping contents from Google. Now, that's a much bigger problem because Bing has a much, believe it or not, has a much,

• 40:45Speaker 06

  gets a lot more traffic than DuckDuckGo does. Yahoo, I have a copy of a document that was filed with the SEC, which gives Yahoo the right to scrape Google content for Yahoo search results. The problem is, I'm just saying, it's bigger than you think. It's, my sister wears a Fitbit. When you think Fitbit, you don't think Google.

• 41:15Danny Jones?

  No.

• 41:15Speaker 06

  But Google owns Fitbit. They bought Fitbit so they could get all that physiological data 24 hours a day. Do you have, I hope not, a Nest? You probably do.

• 41:29Danny Jones?

  I have a Nest thermostat, yeah.

• 41:31Speaker 06

  You have a Nest thermostat?

• 41:32Danny Jones?

  I have all the security cameras. We have a Nest security camera right there.

• 41:37Speaker 06

  Okay, so about six years ago or so, Google bought Nest.

• 41:42Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 41:43Speaker 06

  Now, some people know that, but what they don't know is that about a year or two later, some, uh, some, uh, what do I call myself? Some idiot professor type pulled apart one of the new Nest thermostats that they were selling and found that they had put a microphone into it without telling anybody. Now, around the same time that they're installing microphones into-

• 42:16Danny Jones?

  Wait, wait, wait, wait. This was the one that you purchased?

• 42:21Speaker 06

  No, no, this is another professor type.

• 42:24Danny Jones?

  Another professor type.

• 42:25Speaker 06

  Another lunatic like me.

• 42:27Danny Jones?

  Purchased a Nest.

• 42:29Speaker 06

  To investigate it.

• 42:30Danny Jones?

  Uh huh.

• 42:31Speaker 06

  To find out what's, why would, why, the question at the time was, why would Google be so interested in Nest?

• 42:37Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 42:37Speaker 06

  Well, the reason they were interested is because it gets put in people's homes and they were, they were submitting patent applications at the time for new methods of analyzing sounds within the home. So for example, just by, just picking up on sounds coming from the bathroom, you can tell whether the kids are brushing their teeth enough. Sounds from the bedroom, that tells you a lot of stuff, including whether the sex life is any good or what the relationship is failing. Hundreds of things that can be monetized can be picked up from sounds within the home and Google was getting patents issued for new methods for analyzing sounds within the home. This is right about the time that they secretly installed microphones into some Nest devices.

• 43:22Danny Jones?

  Net, we also have the Nest fire alarm too, which talks to you and detects smoke and it's in the hallway. Oh, Jesus Christ.

• 43:32Danny Jones?

  So was, was anything published, was anything made public about this and was anything like?

• 43:37Speaker 06

  Why am I even talking to you? I mean, you're, you are, you are a Google affiliate.

• 43:43Danny Jones?

  Yeah, but I'm a, I'm a useful idiot. So now I'm, this is the only way I can learn how to fix shit. So now I'm going to get rid of all of it. So I'm thank you, I'm thanking you for being here.

• 43:52Speaker 06

  One of my sons gave to another of my sons for his birthday.

• 43:56Danny Jones?

  This is the problem. This is so, it's so hard to escape their ecosystem. Sorry, continue.

• 44:02Speaker 06

  23andMe, which is now on the verge of bankruptcy. And it was founded by the wife of one of Google's founders. And so one of my sons gives to my, another of my sons, 23andMe for his birthday. And I said to him, uh, I would suggest that you throw that away. And I explained why, because that is how Google, that's one of many methods Google has has come up with in recent years for getting your people's DNA information into personal profiles. If you can get DNA info in there, its value goes up and up and up as more discoveries are made about DNA. And basically, you can figure out what diseases

• 44:44Speaker 06

  people are prone to that they haven't even gotten yet. You can also figure out which dads have been cuckolded. There are, I mean, DNA, think about how much we know about DNA right now, but then think ahead a year, two, five years. The DNA doesn't change. So that data has, that's that's solid gold that becomes, that goes up in value, like the value of gold itself. It just keeps going up in value. So Google has invested in companies that collect DNA. And at one point, they, they volunteered to run the nation's national DNA repository without charge.

• 45:27Danny Jones?

  That was gonna be, that was very, very nice of them.

• 45:29Speaker 06

  Very, very nice.

• 45:30Danny Jones?

  So the, the, was it the founder of 23andMe was Susan Wojcicki's sister?

• 45:36Speaker 06

  Yes, I believe that's right. Yeah.

• 45:39Danny Jones?

  Who is also was the CEO of YouTube before she passed away.

• 45:43Speaker 06

  Right. Yeah. So she had been, when they purchased YouTube, she became its first CEO. I have a, one of my favorite leaks from Google, I know I'm going all over the place here, but I'm just, the stuff I find fascinating, obviously. And one of my favorite leaks, which was leaked by Zach Voorhees, who would also make a great guest, because he's, he was a senior software engineer at Google for eight and a half years.

• 46:08Danny Jones?

  How do you spell his last name?

• 46:09Speaker 06

  Voorhees, V O R H I E S. And he's become a friend over the years, even though politically, you know, we're not even on the same scale. But the point is that Zach is the first person to have walked out of Google with actual stuff. There have been lots of whistleblowers now, but he's the first person who walked out of there with 950 pages of documents and a two-minute video. The two-minute video is Susan Wajniak talking to the big staff of YouTube, big screens behind her, and she's talking about how we're changing YouTube's recommender algorithm so that we

• 46:53Speaker 06

  can boost up content that we think is legitimate. And there's a big up arrow behind her, and that we can demote content that we think is not legitimate. And then she says a few things about what that means. But I mean, it is so, to me, so scary, because we, meanwhile, were doing experiments around that same time on what we call the Video Manipulation Effect, VME, which has now been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Because it turns out, if you mess with those recommendations on that list, you can change the thinking, behavior, whatever, of people who are undecided about anything without their knowledge.

• 47:36Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 47:37Speaker 06

  It's just like the...

• 47:38Danny Jones?

  Talking about the suggested column on YouTube.

• 47:41Speaker 06

  The suggested column. Well, there's the first one they pick for you, that's important. Then there's the one at the top. That's the up next one. And they used to have a big button right up there saying, asking you whether you want to turn off the up next, you know, automatic. That's gone. It's on the page, but it's hidden now. It's hidden and not labeled.

• 48:05Danny Jones?

  And it also has an, there's an option that you have the ability to turn off, which I do now, which will automatically play the up next for you. So you can just finish a video, and then it will automatically start picking and choosing the videos to continue to play on your screen.

• 48:18Speaker 06

  Ah, but here's the thing. And this is, independent researchers have confirmed this, and an actual high-ranking employee at Google has confirmed this. Right now, around the world, now, just think about this a minute. Think about it. Give it a couple of seconds. 70% of the videos that people watch on video...

• 48:42Speaker 06

  The people watch on YouTube, 70% of the videos people watch on YouTube were recommended by Google's recommender algorithm.

• 48:51Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 48:52Speaker 06

  Now, if you just look, just watch people, it means 70% of the time that you're watching people, watching videos, what they're watching was recommended by Google. Think of the power.

• 49:05Danny Jones?

  That's insane.

• 49:07Speaker 06

  Right. And again, if you, if you go to videomanipulationeffect.com, you'll actually come to our peer reviewed paper in which we show, we give you experiments, we show experiments.

• 49:16Danny Jones?

  Video Manipulation Effect.

• 49:17Speaker 06

  Videomanipulationeffect.com. And we, we've got experiments, randomized controlled experiments that show the power that those videos have to shift people's thinking. Now, can you shift anybody's thinking about anything? No. Only people who haven't yet made up their minds. But that's pretty much everybody. In other words, even if you're extreme left, extreme right, whatever you are, whatever your extreme is, there's going to be something during the day or during the week that you're not, you know, where you haven't made up your mind and where you're vulnerable to manipulation. And the problem is that Google, because they're collecting so much information about us all 24 hours a day,

• 50:02Speaker 06

  they know exactly who you are. They know exactly when you're vulnerable. And they know exactly how to get you.

• 50:12Danny Jones?

  Whatever happened to Zach when he stole the stuff and, and got it published?

• 50:20Speaker 06

  Well, there's some interesting footage out there. I don't know if it's a video footage or still footage of Zach on the, on the street in San Francisco with his hands raised to heaven. You can see if, if he could have gone up three, three, three more feet, he would have done it because Google sent a hit, a not hit squad. What's, what's it called? The, the squad you send off when things are really?

• 50:45Danny Jones?

  SWAT team?

• 50:46Speaker 06

  SWAT team. They sent a SWAT team after him. He was scared out of his mind. And, uh, yeah, they claimed that he was a, a, a, possibly a threat to the community. And they sent a SWAT team after him.

• 50:59Danny Jones?

  Jesus.

• 51:00Speaker 06

  And they fired him or he quit, whatever. But he was the first person who had the cojones to walk out with actual stuff. And the stuff is amazing because it's, for example, all right, I know, I'm, I know, I'm going all over the place, but I'm, I'm gonna come back. Really, just trust me on this one. So when I first testified before Congress, before I testified, one of a high ranking executive from Google testified. And the man, under oath, was asked by, I think Senator Josh Hawley, does Google have any blacklist? And he replied, no, Senator,

• 51:45Speaker 06

  we do not. Three weeks later, that's when, that is when Voorhees documents are made public. And there's a bunch of them called, that are labeled blacklist. Now, think of the arrogance, think of the arrogance. If I were running Google, excuse me, but if I were running Google and I was, I had a bunch of blacklist, I would not call them blacklist. I might call them shopping lists. You know, anything but blacklist, I'd call them purple lists.

• 52:20Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 52:22Speaker 06

  Actually called blacklist and, and a lot of the content you can see on the blacklist, that was conservative content. So.

• 52:31Danny Jones?

  And this were, these were conservative political websites, YouTube channels, things like this?

• 52:36Speaker 06

  Yep.

• 52:39Danny Jones?

  Wow. Yeah, it's an interesting thing that we've had to navigate with YouTube over the last few years, as I was alluding to before we started. Because they have, they obviously have a deep list, a very robust list of policies and rules you have to follow to maintain your standing on YouTube. And they can be, the lines are very vague, right? They're, it's not super definitive. You can't, you don't get the opportunity to go in front of a court and make your case. It's basically some robot or AI algorithm behind the scenes determines whether A, you can be monetized, B, you're allowed to keep your

• 53:18Danny Jones?

  video on YouTube, or C, whether you have the standing on YouTube to continue to post stuff. Right? So they basically have X amount of buckets rules that they put out there and they give to the public. And then if you publish anything that they don't like, they can take it and say, oh, we're gonna throw into that bucket and we're gonna take you down based on that rule, whatever. Most of the times when that's happened to us, that rule is completely irrelevant. There's nothing in that video that has anything to do with that rule whatsoever. And you can send emails and tell the cows come home, no one's gonna answer you or give you any sort of reasonable response to why it was done.

• 53:57Danny Jones?

  But we have a very, very hands-on experience dealing with YouTube when it comes to this stuff.

• 54:04Speaker 06

  In the monograph that you have, and you're one of very few people who has this, by the way, in the monograph, I have a, there's a section there on how Google makes those decisions. And I have, and I'm quoting from an internal document at Google, it's about a hundred-page document that's meant for, to train people to make those decisions about what content to suppress.

• 54:28Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 54:29Speaker 06

  So I quote actual language from this internal training manual, and you, you're just kind of guessing, but when you actually see what's in the training manual, you don't have to guess anymore. Because what it says over and over and over again, I think 22 times, over and over again, it says, "Well, when you can't quite make up your mind, just use your best judgment." It gives tremendous personal discretionary authority to the people making these decisions. And those people are used to train the algorithms that are now making a lot of those decisions. So there's tremendous discretionary authority.

• 55:14Speaker 06

  Well, how bad can that get? Well, there was a particular day when the head of Google Search at the time shut down an entire domain. Which had about 11 million websites in it because he thought that the content to him seemed kind of flaky. He shut down an entire domain. He himself did that. This was a top ranking guy. Top ranking guy. March 31st, 2009, that's also in the monograph with, with references. Google shut down the entire internet for about 40 minutes. Now,

• 55:58Speaker 06

  how can they, how could they even do that is one question, just technically. But the big, I wasn't even concerned about that because I knew they could do that because they actually, they actually block content to millions of websites every single day. That's their quarantine list. So everyone knows about their quarantine list because everyone uses it. Because you don't want to take people to scary places, right? Except a lot of the websites that are on their quarantine list, they don't have malware. Just in the, in the judgment of a Google algorithm or Google personnel, there's just something sketchy about the content, period. And it could be political in nature.

• 56:38Speaker 06

  So they, they can block things for pretty much any reason at all, period. And as I say, I have, I have an internal training manual that shows the language that they use to train trainers. So I'm not, I'm not imagining this. So, but when I, when I, when I read, and this was reported by The Guardian, that they had shut down the whole internet, what I became obsessed with for a while was why did they pick that time of day? That day, that time of day? Why was it 40 minutes? Why wasn't it 20 minutes or 60 minutes? What, what was there about that time? And I finally figured it out.

• 57:20Speaker 06

  I published this in an article in US News and World Report. You can get to it at thenewcensorship.com. The new censorship.com. And I I finally figured it out. Here it is, okay?

• 57:34Danny Jones?

  Ladies and gents, the day has finally come where you can utilize red light therapy to regrow your hair and you can save some serious cash by using our code. The iRestor Elite is clinically proven to help regrow hair using 300 lasers and 200 LEDs that send light therapy directly to your scalp. Just pop it on while you're watching TV or reading a book and enjoy the benefits. It's a system with proven results. In a double-blind clinical study, nearly every participant saw an increase in hair growth with this technology. The iRestor Elite uses VICO lasers that feature wide beams of red light, which gives consistent coverage and results. The unique use of optimal wavelengths reactivates dormant follicles to restore your natural hair.

• 58:17Danny Jones?

  Lasers provide deeper spot stimulation, while LEDs provide a broader, uniform coverage to fill in the gaps in between the lasers. Plus, they offer a money-back guarantee, so you can try it risk-free. It's comfortable, it's lightweight, it makes you look like a badass from the movie Tron, which is why I do not feel embarrassed why I'm using it. To be honest, I forget it's even there. And I've talked about red light at nauseam on this podcast before, so I'm super confident in this stuff. And if you really want to get the maximum out of your Elite, bundle with the Revive Plus Max Growth Kit, which has a bunch of hair product that works with the wavelengths in the Elite. Give yourself the gift of hair confidence this summer. For a limited time only, our listeners are getting a huge discount on their iRestor Elite by using the code DANIE at irestore.com.

• 59:02Danny Jones?

  That's the letter I-R-E-S-T-O-R-E dot com. Head on over to irestore.com and use the code DANIE, D-A-N-N-Y, for my exclusive discount on the iRestor Elite. Please support the show and tell them we sent you. Hair loss is frustrating and you don't have to fight it alone, thanks to the iRestor Elite. It's linked down below. Now, back to the show.

• 59:23Speaker 06

  You know how the stock markets are in the United States, they're open, whatever it is, Monday through Friday, whatever the times are? Yeah, but somewhere else, when our stock markets are closed, they're open because they're in a different time zone. So, the question is, are there any points in time during the week, any points in time at all, when all the stock markets are simultaneously closed? Bingo. They literally shut down the entire internet during the small interval of time when all the stock markets in the world were shut down. Why would they do that? So that no one would make a fuss. And in fact, no one made a fuss. They just did it because they're

• 1:00:06Speaker 06

  geeks and nerds and that makes them feel powerful and then they have a big laugh over it. That's why they picked that time. And I'm pretty sure I know why they picked 40 minutes. Because in The Day the Earth Stood Still, one of the great classics of old science fiction movies, the alien shows the power that the alien has, shows it to humanity by shutting down all the electricity in the world for 30 minutes.

• 1:00:34Danny Jones?

  But they picked 40.

• 1:00:35Speaker 06

  They picked 40. Now, it would have been cooler, I thought, if they picked 31. But obviously, they had some little laugh and said, oh, no, we're gonna go to 40.

• 1:00:44Danny Jones?

  So it was all for shits and giggles?

• 1:00:47Speaker 06

  Well, and also to demonstrate, they're also seeing, they're testing their metal, they're testing their ability to do something if they need to do something. And they still have that ability. But the point is, they exercise that ability. They do block access to millions of websites every day.

• 1:01:07Danny Jones?

  And as far as content goes, and blocking content, like, they won't necessarily, for example, if your website, right, they won't necessarily give you any sort of warning that they're gonna block your content or your YouTube videos or anything like this. They will just sort of, because you're not technically violating any rules or anything like this, right? So they're just going to, behind the scenes, throttle it back, bury it on the search, on the search algorithm, to where it's just harder for people to find it and you will completely be unaware, constantly be frustrated why you're not getting more people seeing your stuff, why people can't find you.

• 1:01:49Speaker 06

  Or why your sales have just dropped by 90%.

• 1:01:52Danny Jones?

  Right. Again, when it goes, when it comes to YouTube, the people that are monitoring this stuff and making these decisions. I've noticed a lot of them aren't even actual Google employees. A lot of them are contractors that are working in like Costa Rica, in the Asian countries all over the world, right? That are, that have no accountability for any of this stuff. Like, it's not like you can say, okay, you got this wrong. Okay, we're gonna go look at the exact person who flagged it and got it wrong and reprimand them, make sure they don't make that mistake again. They just, it's such a, it's such a hard thing to manage with billions of minutes of videos being uploaded every single day and content being posted on Google every single day and being interjected into the algorithm, into the algorithm and the search rank and all this stuff.

• 1:02:36Danny Jones?

  It's like, um, you have to have machines manage this stuff.

• 1:02:40Speaker 06

  Well, more and more, they've been moving in that direction. But they, they have to have humans involved always too, because the humans are, are kind of, are the guideposts. They're, they're, they're, they're the trainers.

• 1:02:51Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:02:52Speaker 06

  So that's why now and then someone gets upset when they realize that, that a human being has listened in on content going into the, the Google Assistant, which is on phones, or the Google Home device, which is like Alexa.

• 1:03:06Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:03:06Speaker 06

  And now and then someone figures out that, uh, that, you know, people at Google are listening in. Now, this has been established now in several court cases, where the, where the courts have gotten access to records of, of sounds within a home where, let's say, one spouse has attacked another. So it's a spousal abuse case. And so the court will subpoena records from Google or from Amazon, which runs Alexa. And, uh, in every case that I'm aware of, these companies have eventually turned over the recordings. So as far as we can tell, and we have, we have our own way of testing this, by the way, as far as we can tell,

• 1:03:49Speaker 06

  all of these devices that people like you.

• 1:03:54Speaker 06

  You, you.

• 1:03:55Danny Jones?

  I'm the problem.

• 1:03:56Speaker 06

  Not me. But all these devices that people carry around, these surveillance devices, they listen all the time. Now, what about if you just, uh, turn off something or other? Turn off your-

• 1:04:08Danny Jones?

  The batteries in there, you can't, you can't take the battery out.

• 1:04:10Speaker 06

  Well, a few years ago, you remember, you could take the battery out.

• 1:04:15Danny Jones?

  More than a few.

• 1:04:17Speaker 06

  No, I, well, I don't know. 10 years ago, you could take the batteries out of these phones, and then they soldered them in.

• 1:04:23Danny Jones?

  The iPhone was the first one I remember where the battery was soldered in. Because before the iPhone, there was like, you know, I had a flip phone, a Motorola flip phone, you could take the battery right out of it.

• 1:04:32Speaker 06

  Which was good, because you could put a fresh battery in, and, you know, but, uh, yeah, now you can't take the batteries out of any phone. So, the problem there is, even when you think it's off, it's not off. How, how would we demonstrate that? It's really simple. You turn your phone off, go around town with it, uh, say a bunch of stuff to it that's substantive. This has been done. Even Tucker did something like this for one of his shows, which I thought was really cool.

• 1:05:04Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:05:05Speaker 06

  Yep. Then you turn it back on, and if, if you use what's called a man in the middle device, which we have, we have in our lab, if you, you can actually watch as content is being transferred from your phone up to what, up to Google or whoever it is that's, that's monitoring, or to your, uh, your host, you can actually track and see what content is being transferred. You can also use that kind of device, a man in the middle device, so that when you're, you're, you're not doing anything on your phone, it's still transmitting. It never stops transmitting. And for each different kind of phone, there's a certain

• 1:05:47Speaker 06

  average amount that's being transmitted even when it's inactive. And it's a lot. It's like 40 megabytes a month or something like that. It's a lot of content. So, these, these are surveillance devices.

• 1:05:59Danny Jones?

  How nefarious is it? Is it, is it really nefarious, or is this just a, it's just a money-making, advertising way, a way to make more advertising dollars and to sell more cat food on YouTube?

• 1:06:11Speaker 06

  Well, here's where, again, I run into a problem because my, my son is involved in a, you know, in a business that makes use of all these technologies. And he keeps saying, Dad, this is how it works. It's not just our company. It's every company does this now. And I say, yeah, but doesn't it bother you? He goes, no, no, this is just normal. An example, one of, one of the effects that we studied and quantified and published is called OME, the Opinion Matching Effect. It's just genius. It's just genius. You, you, you want to, you want to get a new guitar. So you go to, you start looking at what, you, you type in a, I hope not on Google.

• 1:06:56Speaker 06

  I hope it's on Brave, even DuckDuckGo, Firefox. Anyway, you type in, in a search bar, you type in best guitar. And you're going to get a bunch of websites, the very best guitar you can buy, et cetera. Now, it turns out that almost all of those websites are built by people like my son. In other words, they're not built by some, you know, organization that's, that's, you know, nonpartisan, nonprofit, whatever, and that's perfectly fair and like Consumer Reports, maybe. That's not who builds these websites. They're built by marketers.

• 1:07:38Speaker 06

  And very often, they have a quiz. This is what the part that we studied because I just had this funny feeling about quizzes. And they say, here, take this little quiz and then that will, that'll help us, help you to make the right decision about the guitar that's going to be best for you. So it asks you some questions and you answer the questions. And then it says, well, based on your, your answers, the best guitar for you is blah, blah, blah.

• 1:08:08Speaker 06

  Now, the question is, has the website, has the algorithm even looked at your answers? And the answer is, well, yeah, they probably do store your answers because that can be sold. That's information that can be sold. But they're not using your answers to give you advice about the best guitar, because that marketing, that site was set up by marketing professionals at one guitar company, and they're going to recommend their guitar. So this is called opinion matching effect. They're matching opinions. They're matching,

• 1:08:47Speaker 06

  they're taking... By the way, this is an astounding powerful technique. You literally can get shifts of 80 or 90% of people who are undecided on virtually any topic using opinion matching online. And no one suspects, not a single person suspects in any of the experiments we've ever run, that they're being manipulated, because how would they know? They're not seeing anything biased. They're just being asked a bunch of questions. They're answering the questions. Do you know that there's a website that's been around now for more than 10 years that helps you decide which candidate to vote for by asking questions on a quiz? No.

• 1:09:28Speaker 06

  Yeah. Did you know that, what's the swipe left, swipe right? Tinder. Tinder. Then in 2016, Tinder set up a swipe the vote option, so that everyone going to Tinder was offered the opportunity to do a little swipe thing. To poll, to poll what the people's preferences were on, between Hillary and Trump? No, no, no. It was to help people make up their minds about which one to vote for. So you get a question about immigration, or this or that, and you swipe left for yes and right for no. And right for no. Left for yes, right for no. And so they ask you a

• 1:10:11Speaker 06

  bunch of questions. You swap, again, you swipe one direction or the other, answering the questions, and then bingo, it gives you, tells you- Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton. What do you know? And so that's, these are examples of how quizzes are being used for manipulation. Does Google own Tinder? Not as far as I know.

• 1:10:33Danny Jones?

  How much influence does Google have on the search indexing on social media apps like X or Facebook or Instagram? Or any of these other sites that aren't owned by Google? Do you know? Have you ever heard anything?

• 1:10:49Speaker 06

  Well, there are different deals are made at different times by different companies. And those relationships change. What, what? The way I look at it is this, where these different companies, where are their donations going? And that you can find out. Opensecrets.org is very, very good for that.

• 1:11:08Danny Jones?

  Open Secrets.

• 1:11:08Speaker 06

  Fantastic, fantastic site.

• 1:11:10Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:11:11Speaker 06

  And what if you find out that, that all the top tech companies are donating almost all of their money to one candidate or one party? That pretty much tells you what to look for. It tells you that probably in their content, they're going to be shifting votes to that party. There are so many ways to do that, but we, oh, this might bring us finally to monitoring systems. So

• 1:11:43Speaker 06

  October 31st of last year, 2024, so a few days before the presidential election. We were monitoring Google's homepage, among many other things. We were monitoring, so that means we are, we're pulling in from more than 16,000 registered voters in all 50 states that we had recruited one by one by one.

• 1:12:06Danny Jones?

  16,000.

• 1:12:07Speaker 06

  More than 16,000, yeah. And we're, we're way past, way past that now. But the point is, we had been building the world's first ever system for monitoring the content that Google and other companies send to registered voters and now to children. So we're monitoring, among other things, messages Google is putting on its homepage. Now, anything that Google puts on its homepage is going to have a big impact because their homepage is normally.

• 1:12:36Danny Jones?

  It's pretty blank, right?

• 1:12:37Speaker 06

  Blank, that's, that's, that's kind of their brand. That's their trademark, really. And, and the founders were determined to make sure that that stays that way. But every now and then they put a big message there. And it's very colorful and artsy and all that. And so they were putting up, as they had done in previous elections, go vote reminder.

• 1:13:00Speaker 06

  Well, the fact is, we're monitoring a lot of people's computers and Google doesn't know who those people are. We're monitoring a lot of computers. We know their political leaning and what we found October 31st, a few days before the election, was that Google on its homepage was sending out 50% more go vote reminders to Democrats than to Republicans. Oh, wow. Now, I lean left myself and my whole family, they're all Democrats. I'm not a registered Democrat anymore, but the point is, I lean that way. So I'm thinking, wow, that is so cool. That is amazing. That's great. Not only that, we can calculate how many votes that's going to shift. It's

• 1:13:41Speaker 06

  going to shift a lot of votes. And then, of course, part of me was saying, but wait a minute, that's cheating. Do you know how many times people see Google's homepage every day? More than 500 million times just in the United States. So I'm thinking, now wait a minute, we can't let them get away with that. Normally, when we monitor, we don't reveal. In past elections, we weren't revealing what we were finding, but this time- To the people? To the general public, to journalists. Right. But this time- I would imagine that would skew the participants who agree to be a part of it, right? Well, it could definitely- Yeah.

• 1:14:22Speaker 06

  I mean, who knows? It could make Donald Trump file a lawsuit claiming they stopped the election, stopped the presses. This is, you know, this cheating. Who knows? But this, I thought, was outrageous. Too outrageous. And so, by the end of that day, we went public and we also notified Google and we showed them our data. It's very clear. And you know what they did? They stopped.

• 1:14:50Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:14:51Speaker 06

  Really. It went from 50% more go vote reminders to going to Democrats to pretty much even Steven 51 49 for those last four days, including Election Day.

• 1:15:07Danny Jones?

  This past election.

• 1:15:08Speaker 06

  They literally stopped.

• 1:15:10Danny Jones?

  There's no way. Have you considered the fact that maybe they got to the people that you had, you were monitoring?

• 1:15:17Speaker 06

  Oh, of course, of course. But we have, we have so many protections against that. We would see that. We would see that. We have ways of, I can't tell you what they are, but we have debt, we would know that in a flash.

• 1:15:29Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:15:32Speaker 06

  It's not the first time we've stopped them, by the way. So we, we start 2015.

• 1:15:39Speaker 06

  So my work on SEM, Search Engine Manipulation Effect, was in the news. I guess the Washington Post had written it up. And I get a call from a guy named Jim Hood, who at that time was AG of Mississippi, I think, one of those southern states that I've never been to. And a hell of a nice guy, strong accent, really strong accent. I'm not too good with, not too good with that accent. But he says to me that he had, he had sued Google on behalf of his state and that they had replied by suing him personally, they sued him personally. So now he's in this legal battle against Google. And it, I mean, it's, so he was very

• 1:16:24Speaker 06

  concerned because in Mississippi, you have to, the AGs are elected. In some states, they're appointed, but in his state, they're elected. And so he's up for reelection and he's wondering, could they possibly manipulate the election? And I said, oh yeah. And he said, well, how? And I explained to him how they could do it, how could they shift a lot of votes and so on. And then he asked me a very critical question, which I became obsessed with. He said, but how would you know? I said, "Well, unless someone at Google is gonna tell you, you know, you really wouldn't have a way of knowing." And he says, "Well, in law enforcement, what we do is we use..." He called them sock puppets. Now they're called bots. "But we use sock puppets," he said. This is 2015, so it's 10 years ago.

• 1:17:09Speaker 06

  "And we basically set up just fake people and we... The fake people send off stuff and whatever, and that's how we find out what they're doing." I said, "Well, that's a really bad method," I said, "because those... Your sock puppets don't have any profiles. They don't have any history on Google, so Google's algorithm can immediately spot them as fakes and send sanitized data."

• 1:17:33Speaker 06

  He said, "Well, then what do we do?" I said, "Gee, I don't know. I don't know. Let me think about it." So I started obsessing, and I realized, if you really wanna know what a company like Google is sending to real people, remember what they're sending is ephemeral, right? It's gonna appear, affect people, then disappear, and it's gone forever. No evidence. No evidence. No paper trail, nothing. And it's personalized. So my wife, Misty, she loved Google search results because she called Google her personal shopper, see? It's all personalized, personalized and ephemeral. How would you... If Google's trying to influence the vote,

• 1:18:15Speaker 06

  the only way you could figure it out is you'd have to like stand behind someone, a real person, and look over their shoulder in a way that Google can't detect. And then you'd have to, when Google shows them search results, you'd have to grab those search results, and then you'd have to look up all the websites and see if there's any bias. I mean, literally. Yes. Or you'd have to look at whether they're getting a "Go Vote" reminder on the homepage. Yeah. Or they have to look at the search suggestions, et cetera, et cetera. You could look at all kinds of stuff. And I'm thinking, "How do we do that?" I started... I knew this was gonna be really expensive because I had no idea how to do it.

• 1:18:58Speaker 06

  So I started asking around, I started telling people, this is what we want to do. No, I don't know how we're gonna do it, but we need, we need money. And some guy in DC had me call some guy in Central America. I know, this is like spy novel. And the guy in Central America says, okay, well, what's your bank account number? For your organization, for a nonprofit? And money started to come in. Oh, wow. It's coming in from a New York bank, all from an anonymous source. The source is always labeled anonymous from a New York bank. That was a KGB. I don't know. To this day, I have no idea where this money came from.

• 1:19:41Speaker 06

  The point is, we started to make some progress on building stuff that you have to build. You'd have to build very special software that's, that's called passive. Passive, we call passive monitoring software. Then you'd have to get someone, a registered voter, a real person, to install this on his or her or their computer. So there it is. And now, when that person does a search on Google, or Bing, or Yahoo, and the search results appear, our software has, is gonna grab that stuff. Either as an image or as HTML, it's gonna grab it. And then it's gonna send it to one of our computers. And all that stuff has to be coming in from lots and lots of people.

• 1:20:24Speaker 06

  And then we aggregate it, and we analyze it. And we could actually figure out what they're sending to real people. We would be preserving ephemeral content, which has never been done before. So 2016, we managed, with anonymous money, we managed to preserve 13,000 searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo. We did Bing and Yahoo for comparison purposes. And 98,000 webpages to which the search results linked. So now, by looking at the bias on the webpages, we could calculate to see whether there's any overall bias in the search results.

• 1:21:07Speaker 06

  Did we find bias in the search results? Now, we only had 95 computers, people we call field agents. We had 95 field agents in 24 states.

• 1:21:21Speaker 06

  And did we find bias? Oh, yeah, we found overwhelming bias favoring Hillary Clinton, whom I supported at the time. And so enough to have shifted, we calculated from the experiments that we run, between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Clinton nationwide, without anyone knowing that this had occurred. And of course, we're the only ones who've preserved at least a small number of these ephemeral experiences, ephemeral content, 13,000 searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Was the bias there on all three search engines? No, only on Google. There was no such bias on Bing or Yahoo.

• 1:22:06Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:22:07Speaker 06

  Yeah. 2018, we built a bigger system. 2020, we built a much bigger system. We didn't preserve 13,000 ephemeral experiences. We preserved 1.5 million, mainly in swing states. 2022, 2.5 million, mainly in swing states. And of course, at this point, we're moving well beyond Google, Bing, and Yahoo. We're pulling more and more content from more and more places.

• 1:22:38Danny Jones?

  Are you doing YouTube?

• 1:22:39Speaker 06

  Oh, yeah. We got really good at doing YouTube.

• 1:22:41Danny Jones?

  YouTube's interesting because it's becoming more and more important, especially when this was last election, where I think podcasts were a huge contributing factor to the outcome of it.

• 1:22:52Speaker 06

  2023, I announced that the time had come for us, or late 2022, I guess, I announced the time had come for us to build a permanent nationwide monitoring system. Because if you don't have a monitoring system in place, you will never know what these companies are doing. You have to capture ephemeral content. And ideally, you want it to be the real content, personalized ephemeral content. You have to collect that. You've got to see the content that's being sent to kids, to teens. I mean, if you don't, if you don't preserve this content, you have no idea what's going on. You have no idea why that person just won the election and the other person lost. You have absolutely no idea

• 1:23:37Speaker 06

  because the shifts are so large. 2020, we calculated that Google alone had shifted more than 6 million votes to Joe Biden.

• 1:23:51Speaker 06

  Now, if you go to Americas with an S, AmericasDigitalShield.com,

• 1:24:00Speaker 06

  which, oh.

• 1:24:03Danny Jones?

  That was quick.

• 1:24:04Speaker 06

  That was quick.

• 1:24:08Speaker 06

  Now, is this, oh, yes. So you see the number going up?

• 1:24:11Danny Jones?

  You got 122,122,747 live ephemeral experiences captured. Shining light on big tech's dark secrets, revealing realtime ephemeral manipulation. So this is you?

• 1:24:28Speaker 06

  Yeah, that's us.

• 1:24:29Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:24:30Speaker 06

  That, that, to set up this dashboard and that nationwide system costs about, uh, close to $8 million.

• 1:24:38Danny Jones?

  All from this anonymous source?

• 1:24:39Speaker 06

  No, no, no, no, no. We've gotten, we have, we've had donations. No, no, every time I go on Joe, we, we, we get tens of thousands of donations.

• 1:24:48Danny Jones?

  Oh, that's amazing.

• 1:24:49Speaker 06

  We give out, he lets us give out, uh, like a website for a donation website. So, uh, other people have done that too. Other people in media have done, have helped us raise money. There was one year we, we, we had, we couldn't find any money and then Glenn Beck, believe it or not, he just took it upon himself. He said, I'm going to fund this whole thing. And he, he did a, like a special on, on my work and then he had me on like five times. And he kept saying to people, you've got to donate, you've got to find out what these bastards are doing.

• 1:25:21Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:25:22Speaker 06

  You know? And he raised about a million dollars for us, which allowed us that year to set up a system. But the point is we now have set up a nationwide system.

• 1:25:33Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm. Oh, wow. You break down all the social media apps?

• 1:25:37Speaker 06

  Yep.

• 1:25:37Danny Jones?

  And websites. We got Reddit. Are they manipulating Reddit?

• 1:25:44Speaker 06

  Reddit, we collect data from Reddit and we see a very, very strong liberal bias in Reddit content.

• 1:25:52Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:25:54Speaker 06

  But we haven't studied Reddit yet, so we don't, we can't tell you exactly why that. But if you look at Twitter, which used to be all blue, below the line means liberal con- liberal bias, above the line means conservative bias. If you look at Twitter, you see we're basically above the line.

• 1:26:11Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:26:13Speaker 06

  All the other tech platforms are all blue. Now, if you go down to the, to the national, oh, well, this is interesting. See the graph on the left?

• 1:26:24Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:26:25Speaker 06

  That's what I was talking about.

• 1:26:26Danny Jones?

  Go vote reminders.

• 1:26:27Speaker 06

  Yeah, so that tall one there, that's October 31st.

• 1:26:30Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:26:32Speaker 06

  And that's 50% more go vote reminders on Google's homepage going to Democrats, that's blue, than to Republicans, that's red. And then we announce at the end of that day and we notify Google and look what happens the next day. See?

• 1:26:49Danny Jones?

  Wow. They're both, the, the next day is the one, there's a graph right next to it, right?

• 1:26:56Speaker 06

  Yep. That's, that's November.

• 1:26:59Danny Jones?

  The red one's a little bit higher.

• 1:27:00Speaker 06

  That's November, that's right, it's November 1st. The point is, the, the huge.

• 1:27:05Danny Jones?

  And this is with, I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is with how many people are in your experiment?

• 1:27:13Speaker 06

  Well, there's, at this point, there's more than 16,000 people in all 50 states.

• 1:27:18Danny Jones?

  At this point, okay, got it.

• 1:27:19Speaker 06

  And they're politically balanced.

• 1:27:20Danny Jones?

  Got it.

• 1:27:21Speaker 06

  So that's very, very important that they're politically balanced.

• 1:27:23Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:27:24Speaker 06

  So this allows us in real time to be fig- to be seeing what's going on and we can notify members of the press, we can notify members of Congress, which we've done, we can notify Google or Facebook or any company and say, this, and this isn't just, by the way, like a toy, this, this is court admissible data. No one's ever had that before.

• 1:27:50Speaker 06

  Now, where we are now is the system is still running 24 hours a day, even though we're way past the presidential election. And we're monitoring all kinds of stuff, not just electoral stuff, because that's the whole point of such a system is you can monitor anything on any platform. And I have had requests from people in eight different countries to help them set up monitoring systems. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. Here's the only place where Trump and I overlap. I put America first on this issue. We have to have a permanent, self-sustaining monitoring system in place before I'm willing to help any other country do this.

• 1:28:35Speaker 06

  But ultimately, at least all democracies around the world have to have this kind of system in place. Because if you don't, you don't know what's going on. That's how big the power is that these companies have over thinking and behavior. Hmm. How? Saga. Yeah. No, I'm just saying, how could you? How could you not? If you're a leader, public policymaker, whatever, columnist, how could you possibly allow the internet to just run everyone's lives around the world? How could you possibly do that?

• 1:29:18Speaker 06

  And let them do it in such a way that there's no evidence? There's no paper trail? There's nothing you can bring to court? Remember when Trump ran to court after 2020, 60 different cases? Yeah. And they all got thrown out? Yep. He had no court admissible evidence to bring to court. That was the complaint of most of the judges. This is court admissible evidence, which has been collected on a very large scale, using very, very high scientific standards.

• 1:29:52Danny Jones?

  Now, these, these countries that are reaching out to you, they're reaching out to you specifically about Google, right? Because Google maintains its monopoly in a very, in pretty much every country, I'm assuming, except for China and North Korea.

• 1:30:02Speaker 06

  Correct. Wow, you nailed that one.

• 1:30:05Danny Jones?

  Did I?

• 1:30:05Speaker 06

  You sure, you sure did.

• 1:30:07Danny Jones?

  Oh, wow.

• 1:30:07Speaker 06

  Wow. That's, you're the first person who's ever done that, so.

• 1:30:11Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:30:12Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 1:30:12Danny Jones?

  Hey, guys, if you're not already subscribed, please hammer the subscribe button below and hit the like button on the video. Back to the show.

• 1:30:18Speaker 06

  Yeah, these countries are mainly concerned about Google. That's right. Because they all have concerns that Google has already interfered. Now, I'll give you a great example that's, that comes back to you, by the way, and your business practices. You're gonna see, we're gonna go full circle here, and you're gonna go, damn it, Epstein, never having you back on again. Let Rogan invite you again. You're never coming back here.

• 1:30:43Danny Jones?

  Not true, sir.

• 1:30:45Speaker 06

  The Guardian runs all of its stuff through Google, Google Services. It's called G Suite.

• 1:30:54Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's what.

• 1:30:55Speaker 06

  That's what you do. So there's a very good reporter there named Carol Cudwallader.

• 1:31:04Speaker 06

  The last syllable is kind of interesting, it's because it's, there's no vowel. It ends with D R. Carol Cudwallader.

• 1:31:11Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 1:31:12Speaker 06

  And she had written a whole bunch of pieces critical of Google, and then approaching the Brexit vote, which led the UK to pull out of the European Union. She wrote a bunch of stuff. She was very concerned that Google was gonna interfere in that election. I got a call from a reporter at the Times of London.

• 1:31:37Danny Jones?

  It's me, the.

• 1:31:41Danny Jones?

  We don't need the jingle twice.

• 1:31:44Danny Jones?

  Stop it. This is about vacation inflation and how Priceline negotiates amazing deals on hotels, flights, and rental cars.

• 1:31:52Danny Jones?

  Yeah, but I didn't mention that you can save up to 60% off hotels in the Priceline app. Fine. No one deals more deals than. Please stop. Touche.

• 1:32:05Speaker 03

  Price line.

• 1:32:06Speaker 01

  I don't know what I'm doing. Need a break. Forget it, I quit.

• 1:32:09Speaker 03

  Escape to Pluto TV.

• 1:32:11Speaker 01

  This is objectively fantastic.

• 1:32:13Speaker 03

  Relax into the movies and shows you already know and love, all for free. Shwing. Even our news is uplifting.

• 1:32:19Speaker 04

  You stay classy, San Diego.

• 1:32:20Speaker 03

  Watch Tommy Boy, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The X-Files, Wayne's World, and so much more. We're not worthy. The best things on TV really are free.

• 1:32:30Speaker 01

  You just have to know where to look.

• 1:32:32Speaker 03

  Escape to Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never.

• 1:32:36Speaker 06

  Who was worried about that too, and he said, could Google actually do anything? And I said, well, what do the polls say? The polls who says, say that we cannot predict the outcome. It's too close. That's what all the polls are saying. I said, well, in that case, I can tell you that Brexit is going to pass. And I can tell you it's going to pass by, I'd say, at least 400,000 votes. And he said, what are you talking about? I said, well, if you want, I said, if you get me some numbers, some real numbers, the best numbers you can get me from the UK, I'll do some calculations and I'll explain it to you some more. So he got me all the numbers and I did some calculations.

• 1:33:15Speaker 06

  And basically, I was looking at what happens if Google in the UK favors Brexit on its search results and its search suggestions and, you know, all the different things they can do and go vote reminders and what if they do that? And I told him that even though the polls are saying it's unpredictable, the outcome's unpredictable, I said, Google can shift so many votes, even at the last minute, even on election day.

• 1:33:47Speaker 06

  Because remember that those go vote reminders? That shifts a lot of votes on election day. Right.

• 1:33:56Speaker 06

  So I said, well, Brexit's gonna win by at least 400,000 to 600,000 votes. It actually won by even more than that, which shocked everyone. I was not shocked. But then he said, "But why would Google do that?"

• 1:34:14Speaker 06

  What determines whether they favor one side or the other? That's what I'm trying to tell you. They go case by case. So they don't always favor the left. In Cuba, they favor the right.

• 1:34:26Speaker 06

  Because the left is in power and the left hates Google. And anything American, and it's right. So what's their goal for the EU? It's to destabilize the EU because the European Union has been the most aggressive government entity in the world to go up against Google. They have fined Google now four times, fines totaling over 10 billion euros. That's 12 or 13 billion dollars. This is pocket change for Google. They couldn't care less. But the point is, they have also passed very strict laws trying to protect people's data and all kinds of... The point is, the European Union, from Google's perspective, needs to be taken down.

• 1:35:11Speaker 06

  And so that's what they're doing. So their first big hit against the European Union was Brexit, the Brexit vote. So Carol, the reporter, she writes a piece right after Brexit saying, "I'm pretty sure that Google did this." But, you know, she said, "There's no way to know. You can't go back in time. There's no evidence." Right. Right? So I got in touch with her. I said, "You know, you need a monitoring system and then you'll know." And I said, "By the way, I'm very upset that I can't seem to reach you without sharing all of our communications with Google." And she said, "Yeah, I know about that. I've complained about that to management and they won't change it."

• 1:35:57Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:35:57Speaker 06

  Then I find out from one of my Google contacts that that kind of content is, oh, now I'm gonna forget what it's called.

• 1:36:04Danny Jones?

  Now you're gonna what?

• 1:36:05Speaker 06

  I'm gonna forget the term.

• 1:36:07Danny Jones?

  Oh, oh.

• 1:36:07Speaker 06

  Uh, hi, no.

• 1:36:11Danny Jones?

  This is from a Google contact?

• 1:36:13Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 1:36:13Danny Jones?

  You have a mole in Google?

• 1:36:15Speaker 06

  Well, sort of. I mean, there are people who, who work at Google who, who are thinking about blowing the whistle.

• 1:36:22Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 1:36:23Speaker 06

  And very often they contact me along the way, so they haven't even done anything yet. So, you know, I, I, I can understand why some people at Google might consider me a pain in the ass.

• 1:36:38Danny Jones?

  That's, that's putting it lightly.

• 1:36:42Speaker 06

  It's called high.

• 1:36:46Speaker 06

  Uh, it's something like high value content, but I don't, I don't think I have that right.

• 1:36:51Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:36:52Speaker 06

  The point is that any kind of correspondence between an investigative reporter at The Guardian.

• 1:36:58Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:36:58Speaker 06

  Who, who researches tech issues, anything she sends or receives, all the attachments, everything.

• 1:37:04Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:37:05Speaker 06

  That goes way up high at Google really fast.

• 1:37:08Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 1:37:09Speaker 06

  Because that's important potentially. And guess what other big news sources use G Suite like you? The New York Times, the New York Times uses G Suite. They share all of their content, all the, all the investigative work, all their, their secret sources is all shared with Google.

• 1:37:35Danny Jones?

  They also have, uh, they also do have open communication with CIA.

• 1:37:43Danny Jones?

  I had a buddy who was doing, working on a report about the Ukraine war, um, about two years ago. And he was, uh, the background of his story was basically how there was a NATO, uh, an ally NATO country that the CIA was using as a conduit to, uh, conduct sabotage operations inside of Russia, like, uh, burn munitions buildings, blow up trail, um, train tracks, all kinds of crazy things. And basically the CIA was directly, like, directing this whole thing, which is illegal. And, um,

• 1:38:19Danny Jones?

  He was working on this with, I don't know the name of the publication, but let's just say it was one of the top three publications in the United States. And going back and forth with the editor for like six to eight months. And right when they were getting ready to publish the story. And meanwhile, this guy had an entire catalog of sources, legitimate sources in the military and the intelligence community. So when they get ready to publish that story with this big publication, the editor says, okay, right before we publish it, we gotta get the sign off from the deputy director of the CIA.

• 1:38:53Danny Jones?

  And he's like, okay. So they go on a three-way call with the deputy director. And he's basically like, uh, I completely deny all of these things. These are all false. CIA is not doing any of this stuff that you're saying. It's like, okay, cool. We'll add that to the bottom of the article that you guys categorically deny all of this. And the editor says, no, we have an off the record agreement with CIA, meaning that if they deny all of it, we were not publishing it. We're not just gonna put a blurb at the bottom of it. We're not gonna publish it at all. And the CIA gets away with this because they say, if you go out and publish these secrets to the public, you're putting lives in danger.

• 1:39:27Speaker 06

  Sure.

• 1:39:31Speaker 06

  Which, uh, which may be the case. I mean, but I can give you an example where that is not the case and where what happened was reprehensible.

• 1:39:40Speaker 06

  2020 election where we had so much data showing all this vote shifting going to Biden.

• 1:39:50Speaker 06

  I first sent it to the, to a contact I had at the New York Post. Now, just a few weeks before, the New York Post had front page. They had gone public with the Hunter Biden laptop story.

• 1:40:06Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:40:08Speaker 06

  And the reporter who's, uh, who wrote that piece, that cover story, wonderful, wonderful reporter, wonderful person. She since has interviewed me and written about me for the New York Post. So I, no complaints against her. But this was a different reporter I went to a few days before the election in 2020. Shared a ton of data with her. She got the assignment. She wrote the draft. She read parts of it to me on the phone. It was gonna be another front page story about election rigging.

• 1:40:42Speaker 06

  And it was really, really strong. It was like the New York Post does things, right? Yep.

• 1:40:50Speaker 06

  So this was on a Friday, Friday before the election. And then she calls me and she said, I'm really upset. I know you're gonna be upset. I'm extremely upset. I said, what do you mean? She says, well, the editor called Google for comment. And as a result, he killed the story.

• 1:41:12Speaker 06

  I said, killed the story? I said, you're just reporting on scientific stuff. She goes, yeah, but

• 1:41:22Speaker 06

  we could do that with Hunter Biden. But we can't do that with Google. I said, why not? She says, well, she says, I think right now 48% of our online traffic comes from Google.

• 1:41:36Speaker 06

  Wow.

• 1:41:40Speaker 06

  So this is not lives at stake. No, this is, uh, yeah. This is the This is a business. The existence of a business is an existential matter. Yep. And they killed the story. So I sent the stuff to Ted Cruz's office. And on November 5th, two days after the election in 2020, Ted Cruz and two other senators sent a very, very threatening letter to the CEO of Google, saying, you've testified before Congress, saying you don't mess with elections. But according to Epstein's recent findings, you did this, this, this, this, and it's two pages.

• 1:42:22Speaker 06

  And how do you explain this? Please explain this to us.

• 1:42:29Speaker 06

  What happened? A lot happened because at that point in time, we had been monitoring mainly in swing states, in 10 swing states. But at that point in time, Georgia, right after the 2020 presidential election, was gearing up for the two Senate runoff elections, which were going to take place in early January. So Georgia is still very much in play, totally in play. Yeah. And we had more than a thousand field agents in Georgia. We preserved more than a million ephemeral experiences in Georgia during just that short period of time. So we were very carefully monitoring throughout Georgia to see what would happen. And we

• 1:43:11Speaker 06

  we saw that Google was favoring the, Google was sending out, again, partisan go vote reminders, among other things. There was very strong bias in their search results, liberal bias, obviously.

• 1:43:24Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:43:26Speaker 06

  Starting the day after that that letter was sent, they turned off all of their manipulations in Georgia. Gone. No one in Georgia from that day forward got any go vote reminders. And the bias in their search results went to zero, flat, literally to zero, which we had never, ever seen on Google. They went flat, flat zero. They literally pulled out. Now, they must have done so having calculated that the, that the Democrats would win anyway. And they did, each Democrat won, won by a very small margin, won by a much larger margin. They must have figured that out beforehand. I can't believe they

• 1:44:10Speaker 06

  just would give up two Senate seats so easily. But look what happened in 2024. Google pulled out, letting Trump win.

• 1:44:24Danny Jones?

  Right. What do you make of that?

• 1:44:28Speaker 06

  Well, there were, things have been shifting. Everyone knows this. It's, you know, it's, I mean, no one's put it all together in, into a nice little article yet, but maybe I will. But in 2024, things were different. Things were starting to change because there was a decision in court in August 2024, in the case Department of Justice, meaning the United States of America versus Google. And a decision had come down in August of 2024, that ruling that Google was a monopoly.

• 1:45:05Speaker 06

  So you go ahead a few months, they're still and are still to this day in the remedy phase of that trial. So the judgment has already come down, but they're still in the remedy phase, meaning the court is trying to figure out how they should be penalized. Should they be forced to sell off Chrome? Maybe YouTube? This is being determined right now. And then a second federal court later came down with a similar decision. So at the time we're monitoring and we're collecting all this data, which is court admissible, Google is in a really creepy position for the first time ever where they don't want

• 1:45:47Speaker 06

  to mess with, they want whoever the next president is going to be, they want that person's full cooperation.

• 1:45:54Danny Jones?

  That's really interesting, considering that that was at the tail end of the Biden administration.

• 1:45:58Speaker 06

  Right.

• 1:45:58Danny Jones?

  That that happened. And I want, what do you make of how Trump is going to deal with Google and YouTube?

• 1:46:06Speaker 06

  Unfortunately, Trump is, Trump seems to put his own, his own personal interests ahead of everything, as far as I can tell. And I'm friends with two members of the Trump family. I don't know the man personally, but I really am good friends with two members of his family. So I, I try to pull my punches when I talk about the Donald. But I think he's mainly interested in kind of his own, he's in his own world and he wants his own world to be a certain way and every single day he changes the criteria for, you know. The point is that a few weeks before the election, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google,

• 1:46:51Speaker 06

  called up Donald Trump to make nice with him. And then Google, along with all the other tech companies, ponied up a million dollars each.

• 1:47:00Danny Jones?

  Microsoft.

• 1:47:01Speaker 06

  Yeah, for, for his inauguration and then they all got front row seats together. And so all of these companies, Google included, which is astonishing, given their history, Google included, have been sucking up to Donald Trump because what they must have figured out was if they actually did not aggressively support Kamala Harris, if they didn't do their usual. Election rigging.

• 1:47:32Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:47:32Speaker 06

  That Trump was gonna win. And so they started making plans. Uh oh, we think Trump's gonna win. Let's make that work for us. How can we make that work for us? And I think that's the mode that they're in right this second, because remember, they're still in the remedy phase of two big federal trials.

• 1:47:49Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:47:50Speaker 06

  Those are going to determine, very possibly, those might bring about some big changes in the company and possibly enormous loss of revenue.

• 1:48:00Danny Jones?

  What is the worst case scenario for them, for Google?

• 1:48:02Speaker 06

  Oh.

• 1:48:05Speaker 06

  So the worst case scenario for Google is actually really good.

• 1:48:11Danny Jones?

  For us?

• 1:48:12Speaker 06

  No.

• 1:48:12Danny Jones?

  Oh.

• 1:48:13Speaker 06

  Oh, no, not for us.

• 1:48:14Danny Jones?

  Oh, it's not good. The worst case scenario for Google is not the best case scenario for us?

• 1:48:18Speaker 06

  No, not at all.

• 1:48:19Danny Jones?

  Oh, okay.

• 1:48:20Speaker 06

  No, this whole, these cases are shams.

• 1:48:24Danny Jones?

  Oh.

• 1:48:25Speaker 06

  They were designed, as far as I'm concerned, that is my opinion, that these cases were designed by Google's lawyers.

• 1:48:35Speaker 06

  Why would I say something that silly when everything else I've said is so sensible?

• 1:48:42Speaker 06

  Because it has, it happens. I've been dealing with attorneys general now for 10 years, 10 solid years. And for several years, I was dealing with one particular office. And I was in regular contact with an attorney in that office. I'm making so vague here because of the whole thing, but I was supposed to be advising them secretly. So we can never have any written communications.

• 1:49:12Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:49:12Speaker 06

  And so the only way you can do that is just talk on the phone and just do your best to make sure that the phone call isn't recorded.

• 1:49:18Danny Jones?

  In regards to this case you're talking about?

• 1:49:20Speaker 06

  No, this was in general. They wanted to know more and more about Google so that they could do something about Google if Google really was posing a threat somehow.

• 1:49:30Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:49:32Speaker 06

  And there are three threats. There's the surveillance, which is occurring at an unprecedented scale around the world. Then there's the censorship. And then there's the manipulations, which is what my lab studies. So they're very concerned and they're, and I was advising them. And at some point in time, the, my contact says, oh, well, we're shifting.

• 1:49:59Speaker 06

  I said, what do you mean? He said, well, you know, those, all those issues, those big, big issues, those are all consumer protection issues. And we just don't think we can make that fly. I go, what do you mean? He goes, well, we're not getting cooperation, for example, from people in, in, in blue states. You know, we have to go after them as a big group. We can't just go after them as a single state. So I said, okay, so what, so what are you doing now? Well, we're shifting over to antitrust law, which is about monopolies. That's how, you know, that's how AT&T, that's how the government took on AT&T and eventually Microsoft. I said, well, antitrust, I said, yeah, Google is a monopoly. Yeah.

• 1:50:43Speaker 06

  I said, but if you go after them that way, I said, then the remedies are not what you want. You can break up AT&T, you could break up Standard Oil, you could break. What did they do to Microsoft? They, they, oh, they stopped the packaging of, of, you know, all their software altogether. Okay. They stopped the packaging. That's one of the big things they did. Yeah. I said, but in that case, I said, you're, you're not really gonna do any real harm here where, where Google is doing the most damage. You're not gonna affect that at all because you're not gonna be affecting the surveillance. They're still, still gonna own- Coming at it from the antitrust angle. Exactly.

• 1:51:28Speaker 06

  Okay. So if you go after them and say, yeah, and you, and eventually you get a judgment, Google's a monopoly. I said, what's gonna happen? I said, and I'm just kind of joking at the time, this is a long time ago. And I'm saying, what, so what would happen? You're, you're gonna force them to sell off Chrome? I said, who cares? I said, what, I said, if you force them to sell off Chrome, I said, they'll get $500 billion in cash for the sale, because I do get paid. Right. So you force them to sell off Chrome, I said, and they still get all the data? He said, how would they get all the data? I said, well, whoever now owns Chrome is still gonna use Google's quarantine list.

• 1:52:10Speaker 06

  To check and make sure every website is safe before they take anyone there. So Google gets all the same information or most of the same information. Or Google could pay them.

• 1:52:22Danny Jones?

  They could have a backdoor they didn't even know about.

• 1:52:23Speaker 06

  They could also build in a hundred backdoors, a thousand backdoors. I said, they will jump for joy. I said, if a court forces them to sell off Chrome, they will jump for joy. And meanwhile, the three big threats that they pose to democracy and they pose to humanity, which is the surveillance, the censorship and the manipulations. I said, you're not touching them. He goes, yeah, but at some point or other, he says, he says to me, yeah, but we're getting very good cooperation on antitrust from blue states.

• 1:52:57Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:52:57Speaker 06

  He said, we think we can get a big group together. And they did, they got a group of 51 AGs. I think every single AG, because like Puerto Rico has an AG for some reason. We got, we got every AG in the country except the AG of California, because that's where Google's located. But other than that, we had all the other AGs. We're getting excellent cooperation. And so that's where these lawsuits came from. Congress, Department of Justice, the AG lawsuits, all these lawsuits now, they've all focused on one thing, which is antitrust. And secretly, the folks at Google are celebrating because, yeah, they're good. And by the way, the folks in DC are celebrating too, because they're all going to say, look

• 1:53:42Speaker 06

  what we did. And then Trump's going to say, look what I did. You know, I took on the big tech companies and we've, we've broken them up. I've broken up the tech companies. But they've never been scared of a breakup because you can't break up the search engine.

• 1:54:02Speaker 06

  That's the core, the core of the whole company is the search engine. You can't break it up because it won't work.

• 1:54:07Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:54:07Speaker 06

  It has to stay whole.

• 1:54:09Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 1:54:09Speaker 06

  And Facebook cannot break up the social media platform. That's their core and they both know that.

• 1:54:17Danny Jones?

  And what about YouTube? What if they were forced to sell off YouTube?

• 1:54:20Speaker 06

  They could be forced to sell off YouTube. In which case they would definitely lose some data. But I'd have to really figure that out. I don't think they'd be losing much data. And they could do what they do with Apple. This, the DOJ case that I mentioned earlier uncovered the fact that Google has been paying Apple $20 billion a year to make Google its default search engine. $20 billion a year.

• 1:54:49Danny Jones?

  That's insane. That's totally insane. I'll take a leak real quick.

• 1:54:53Speaker 06

  Go for it.

• 1:54:54Danny Jones?

  We'll be right back. Okay, here's what I was thinking though. Like you have things like the Twitter files that came out where they found out that FBI and CIA were directly injecting themselves into the policymakers at these companies, these social media companies. So like you have, this is like a two-headed Hydra here where you have the social media company or Google itself, which has its, is self-preserving on one side and trying to make more money and survive. And then the other side of it is the, the government, the intelligence community, the deep state, whatever you want to call it, that is in there trying to protect national security, whatever it is.

• 1:55:36Danny Jones?

  And you also have a similar aspect to the government in that sense where you have people that want to maintain their jobs, they maintain their careers, get their pension, whatever, whatever. Which, when you had the case of those, those, what was it, like 40 CIA agents signed that document stating about, about the Hunter Biden laptop story.

• 1:55:54Speaker 06

  Right.

• 1:55:54Danny Jones?

  And in most cases there, it was guys that just wanted to maintain their status in the intelligence community or climb the ladder when the Biden administration got in.

• 1:56:09Danny Jones?

  So this is kind of like a hard thing to, I imagine, I imagine you've thought about this, right? So like, how do you even fathom combating such a monster when it is, it is so entwined in the United States government that it's almost impossible to parse it?

• 1:56:33Speaker 06

  Well, you put it very well, and I, I can actually put this into a, a very old context, but you, I think you'll be, you'll see how relevant it is to what you just said.

• 1:56:45Speaker 06

  A lot of people are familiar with, at least vaguely familiar with President Eisenhower's farewell speech as president in 1961, a few days before Kennedy, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated. And it was a remarkable speech because he was an insider, he, he was, he had been head of allied forces in World War II, he was a five-star general, and yet he's kind of narking on, on everybody. He's, he's, he's saying in this speech, "Look, from what I've learned over these past, you know, few decades, we have to be concerned about the rise of the military industrial complex." So he's talking about military working with companies,

• 1:57:27Speaker 06

  and the power that they might have to affect public policy. And then he says, now people, that's the part people know. But when I went back and read the original speech, I was stunned because he said, "We also have to be concerned about the rise of a technological elite."

• 1:57:45Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:57:46Speaker 06

  That's his phrase.

• 1:57:47Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:57:47Speaker 06

  "A technological elite that could control public policy without our knowledge, that we have to be vigilant to make sure these things don't happen."

• 1:58:00Speaker 06

  Now, one of the pieces I published recently is called "The technological elite are now in control." Because we weren't vigilant. And the fact is that Google and some, to its lesser extent, some other tech companies, working closely, hand in hand with our intelligence agencies, and under Biden, they were also working closely with the White House. They've created this entity that controls public policy without the knowledge of the public. And everything is so intertwined, to use your term, that it appears to be unstoppable. It appears that there's nothing we can do about it.

• 1:58:43Speaker 06

  So the way I approach the problem is, kind of, I break it up into pieces. And I say, okay, where can we do something about it? Either in our personal lives, or in, say, on a larger scale. Where can we do something about it? So let's talk about just the personal part of it. The government has always been spying on us. I mean, it's part of their job, in a way, to spy on us, because they're always looking for threats to national security. That's legitimate. The tech companies, what they're doing is new. It's very new. It's unprecedented in human history. Yeah.

• 1:59:25Speaker 06

  They also have the ability to manipulate in ways that have never existed before in human history. And more so than any government has ever had. How do we break this up? What can we do? So let's start on the personal level. Personal level, there are things we can do to protect our own privacy, to protect us from being manipulated. So there's surveillance. We can guard against surveillance. There's censorship. That's tough.

• 2:00:00Speaker 06

  That's kind of tough because you don't know what they don't show. Right. So censorship is tough, and then there's the manipulations. So what can we do? So I get to try to help people get started on this. And most people I know, by the way, have never thought about these kinds of issues, never. Or they say things, oh, well, what do I care? I have nothing to hide. That's not true. Everyone has things to hide. And even if you don't have things to hide, you don't want them manipulating every decision you make. Do you? I mean, don't you want to be aware if someone's trying to manipulate you? Like a TV commercial, you can see it. A billboard, you can see it. But the kinds of techniques that they're using on people to manipulate their opinions and their thinking, their behavior, you can't see them. It's a whole different kind of manipulation.

• 2:00:45Speaker 06

  And I think most people would say, I don't want that happen, especially to my kids. I don't want these companies messing with my kids in ways that I'm completely unaware of. Right. So I send people to myprivacytips.com. So that's the domain name, myprivacytips.com. And there's an article of mine there, which I update every year or two. And it's about seven steps you can take if you want to start protecting yourself and maybe your family members. So it's not that hard, especially I kind of go in order from easy to hard. It's not that hard to do.

• 2:01:30Speaker 06

  For one thing, you have to stop using Gmail. Gmail.

• 2:01:35Speaker 06

  Jettison Gmail. That's my first one. So I'm big on alliteration, as you can tell. Jettison Gmail. What's two? Kill Chrome. Kill Chrome, see more alliteration. In other words, you have to get yourself out of the Google universe. Is that really possible? The answer is not. You can't get out of their universe completely. Can VPNs help? Oh, yes, that's my, I think, number seven on the list. VPNs are very, very important. They used to be very expensive, or they didn't work very well. Now VPNs are cheap and easy to use. I recommend Nord VPN right now, or a Proton VPN.

• 2:02:20Speaker 06

  Proton is a very, very interesting company based in Switzerland, subject to very strict Swiss privacy laws. It's run by an American whom I know named Andy Yen. He is a diehard, you know, down with Google guy. And Google tried to shut down his company when it was first set up. And he fought them and is one of the few people who ever survived a fight with Google. Wow. And Proton is what we use for email, for example. We use Proton Mail. So all this, all this is in my guide. Seven simple steps. So yes, VPNs, because they help protect your identity when you're online. Proton Mail, because Proton Mail encrypts all the emails end to end, which means even Proton can't read your emails.

• 2:03:06Speaker 06

  The only people who can read your emails are you and the person at the other end, the recipient. So I have gotten probably easily tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds, but at least tens of thousands of people I have gotten to get out of the Google universe and shift over to some of these alternatives that protect your privacy. So instead of using google.com, you use the Brave search engine, which is, which you can get to on the Brave browser. We love Brave. We use Brave every day. These are, these are good guys. I know the people involved. These are people who, who, these are brave people.

• 2:03:50Speaker 06

  These are brave people who are fighting Goliaths. They're fighting Goliaths, but they're doing it successfully. And so all my current recommendations are in myprivacytips.com. That's how, that's how I think people should start. Okay. Now, if you're interested in larger scale kind of stuff, well, some people out there, some of you who are watching or listening, I know, are kind of involved in community this and community that, or political this, or political that. You've got to, you've got to try to talk to your, your representatives in Congress. If there's ever an opportunity to do so, and right now, right this second,

• 2:04:34Speaker 06

  the Federal Trade Commission, when is their deadline? Their deadline is coming up pretty soon, I think, the end of May, maybe. But the Federal Trade Commission, FTC.gov, they're looking for public comment on these very issues, on the big tech companies and their way, they're messing with our lives. And any opportunity you see to talk to our nation's leaders or these regulatory agencies, your local mayor, anybody, do it. Say, "I'm concerned. I'm concerned about what my kids are seeing. I don't know what they're seeing, but I think they're being indoctrinated."

• 2:05:14Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:05:15Speaker 06

  And by the way, they are, because I know, because we've been collecting the data. So you can start with yourself, then, you know, look if you can at the larger issues, and if you can make any difference, anytime, do it.

• 2:05:28Danny Jones?

  What have you seen with the kid data specifically?

• 2:05:32Speaker 06

  Well, if you want to go back to AmericasDigitalShield.com, which would serve multiple purposes on my part, and you go down, you start at the top, and then just go down partway a little bit. Now, let those images run.

• 2:05:48Speaker 06

  There they go. Those are actual images from YouTube videos being recommended to children on YouTube Kids.

• 2:05:57Danny Jones?

  This is on YouTube Kids, a lady swallowing a machete, and it's basically like blood coming out of her mouth. A guy, looks like he fell, surrounded by blood. Okay, so these look like, that one, I mean, the first one looks like a cartoon. The other two look like a video game, like some spooky video games.

• 2:06:19Danny Jones?

  But essentially, these are all coming off YouTube.

• 2:06:23Speaker 06

  Well, it's not just that. It's that they're being recommended by

• 2:06:26Danny Jones?

  Recommended.

• 2:06:27Speaker 06

  Recommended. So these are turning up in up next videos, for example.

• 2:06:32Danny Jones?

  And Oh, God. That's a that's recommended on YouTube Kids? That on the right?

• 2:06:38Speaker 06

  Yes. So we

• 2:06:39Danny Jones?

  That's like gore.

• 2:06:41Speaker 06

  Look at that one.

• 2:06:42Danny Jones?

  Oh, my gosh, it gets worse. Jesus.

• 2:06:45Speaker 06

  Now, we have, uh, we've preserved hundreds of thousands of these.

• 2:06:52Speaker 06

  So

• 2:06:53Danny Jones?

  So what what is the purpose? If you're Google or YouTube, why? Why do you want to send kids this?

• 2:06:59Speaker 06

  Oh, that's easy. Because if if you know how to do this, or if you don't, you learn it in two seconds. If you if you put your cursor at the bottom of a video while it's playing, it'll show you which parts of the video have been the most watched parts. Well, these, some of these images, they're they're only they're only a half second a second in the in the video. But they often are the most watched parts. In other words, this is being done for watch time. It's being done to for so-called addiction purposes. This is what this this causes kids and adults too, to go back and want more. Or want to see the next one in the series, or want to see the next one after that, and the next one after that.

• 2:07:44Speaker 06

  There are people who get go down these rabbit holes where they end up watching thousands of videos, all of which play automatically. And what what what grabs them, what holds them to the screen are disturbing images.

• 2:07:59Danny Jones?

  So these images that you're showing, these aren't necessarily the thumbnails of the videos. These are just specific parts of the videos that get the most, the highest retention?

• 2:08:08Speaker 06

  Yeah, we're pulling, right, we're just pulling screenshots, screen grabs from

• 2:08:14Danny Jones?

  A certain spot in the video.

• 2:08:16Speaker 06

  From videos that have been recommended to children.

• 2:08:18Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:08:20Speaker 06

  But as I say, we, this is a tiny selection out of hundreds of thousands of videos that we're preserving that are recommended.

• 2:08:30Speaker 06

  And so we can look at them with different, we can do different kinds of analyses on them. The point is if you, if you don't preserve them, by the way, you might be thinking, well, why would you have to preserve YouTube videos? Aren't they just there all the time?

• 2:08:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:08:50Speaker 06

  It's not the videos that are important here. It's the recommendations.

• 2:08:55Danny Jones?

  The ephemeral stuff.

• 2:08:56Speaker 06

  Ephemeral stuff. All that stuff is completely ephemeral. If you don't preserve that, you don't know what they're recommending. And you have to know what they're recommending because 70% of the time that people are watching videos on YouTube, they're watching content that has been recommended.

• 2:09:15Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:09:15Speaker 06

  So you have to know that. What criteria, think about it, what criteria is Google using when they, when they do the filtering? In other words, they take out of all the billions of videos they might show people, what criteria are they using to make those recommendations? To pull out just those 20 or 30 or 40?

• 2:09:36Danny Jones?

  According to them, it's watch time. How long people spend watching those videos?

• 2:09:43Speaker 06

  Well, the point is it's what they actually do is secret.

• 2:09:46Danny Jones?

  True.

• 2:09:47Speaker 06

  But the only way to know for sure what they're actually showing people is to do what we're doing, which is to do monitoring, to capture the, capture real content.

• 2:09:55Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 2:09:56Speaker 06

  And then once we've captured it, now we can go back in time and look and see if there are trends. We can, we can do anything once it's been captured. So we have, we have at this point massive databases and we're, we're hardly even scratching the surface when it comes to the kinds of analyses that can be done. Uh, which brings me to one more issue, if you wouldn't mind.

• 2:10:22Speaker 06

  Running monitoring system is very expensive. I think it's absolutely critically necessary for any democracy to have in place a permanent self-sustaining monitoring system for big tech, not just for Google and these other companies, but for the next Google, the Google after that. You have to monitor, or you won't know what they're doing to us as voters, to our kids, to us as consumers. You have to monitor. But it's very expensive. So, for example, we pay, just like the Nielsen company pays Nielsen families to let the Nielsen company monitor their television watching. That's been going on since 1950, and they're in 100 countries now. And so that's where the Nielsen ratings come from. That's what

• 2:11:05Speaker 06

  determines how much advertising costs for a particular show, or whether a show is going to be renewed for another season. It's all the Nielsen ratings. So, they recruit families, they keep the identities of the family secret, critically important, right? Obviously, because otherwise, people would try to interfere with the signal coming out of that family's home, or they would try to bribe the families to watch my show, not to watch someone else's show. So, that's how we do it, too. We recruit registered voters. We now have more than 16,000, I'm not going to say the exact number, but we have more than 16,000 in all 50 states. They're politically balanced. We pay them a token fee each month to let us use their

• 2:11:48Speaker 06

  computers to capture all this data, which is normally lost forever. The Nielsen company pays a token fee to its families. I think it's roughly $50 a month. We pay our field agents $25 a month. Now, we need to develop regular sponsors. So, if we have 25,000 field agents, we need 25,000 Americans, presumably patriotic Americans, who are concerned about the internet and all that. To sign up and sponsor a field agent. So we have maybe now a thousand sponsors.

• 2:12:31Speaker 06

  But obviously, since we have a lot more field agents than that, we need a lot more sponsors. We have people who are sponsoring for field agents, which means they're they've programmed into their credit card. You know, $100 a month donation.

• 2:12:44Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:12:44Speaker 06

  It's fully tax deductible. If you go to AmericasDigitalShield.com, which is the dashboard for the monitoring system, you'll see there's a place you can click, sponsor a field agent. So anyone out there who's listening or watching, if you have the resources, even if it's $5 a month, so you're sponsoring the left leg of a field of one field agent. That's at least one leg, so we'll take it. So we need help there. And if people have ideas, other ideas about how to make this system, how to bring the cost down and make the the system self sustaining.

• 2:13:25Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:13:26Speaker 06

  Let us know because we are determined to make these systems permanent and self sustaining.

• 2:13:36Danny Jones?

  That's amazing. A thing I've been thinking about with this is when you have people, independent people, like journalists or content creators in general that are publishing stuff on Google or on their website, which is queried by Google or on YouTube. And you have people that are, which are a subset of the population for sure, but that are reliant on Google for their income to manage and maintain their livelihood. And Google and YouTube are constantly enforcing their policies

• 2:14:19Danny Jones?

  based on topics you discuss, whether it be political or against advertiser policies or whatever their excuse might be. And you have people that are essentially just willing to give up and self censor to avoid this stuff.

• 2:14:38Danny Jones?

  How do you think that affects?

• 2:14:43Danny Jones?

  Society or like our population in general in the United States? Like, how does that affect general discourse, culture, society? Do you think they think about that?

• 2:14:56Speaker 06

  First of all, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly that a lot of people just give up and they put up with the companies, especially Google, that have this power. And they just give up. And now, what that means is that our free speech is undermined.

• 2:15:15Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:15:16Speaker 06

  Now, the head of Europe's largest publishing conglomerate, who actually called me up once, by the way, based in Germany,

• 2:15:27Speaker 06

  he wrote an open letter to the leaders of Google.

• 2:15:33Speaker 06

  And I think it was called Fear of Google or something like that. His name was Dopfner. And he basically said that every single decision they make about anything, they have to take Google into account. Because, he said, if they don't, what happens is that company, or whatever it is, that drops in Google's search results, and then they lose sales. He said, in some cases, when Google made another change to their search results, their search algorithm, they almost put out of business, one of the companies that's in this publishing conglomerate.

• 2:16:04Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:16:05Speaker 06

  And he said, there's something wrong with that. We shouldn't have to be taking into account Google when we're just making everyday business decisions. But that's where we are now. And it's true with my son, who's a business guy, and it's true with his buddies who are business guys. Everyone has to take Google into account when they do anything. And what this does is it undermines free speech. So, we have to, these are big, big, big issues. Ted Cruz invited me for a private dinner with him

• 2:16:44Speaker 06

  a couple of years ago, and we sat there for...

• 2:16:49Speaker 06

  Close to three hours and we talked, we said a restaurant and we just talked tech. Tech. We never talked politics because that would have been dangerous, but we just talked tech because the guy's a really smart guy and he understands these big issues.

• 2:17:03Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:17:04Speaker 06

  Undermining of free speech, this round the clock surveillance, you know, most of which we're unaware of. I mean, he's aware of these issues.

• 2:17:12Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:17:12Speaker 06

  And he wants to try to fix these things. I said, so what's the problem? He said, I can't get bipartisan support. I have to get someone on the other side.

• 2:17:23Speaker 06

  And we, we, we talked about particular members of the Senate and what about this one? What about that one? Every single case, he was saying there are reasons why we can't do that. That won't work. That won't work. That won't work.

• 2:17:35Danny Jones?

  Why these people won't work with you?

• 2:17:37Speaker 06

  Yeah. And, uh,

• 2:17:41Speaker 06

  so we're kind of stuck in this country. Uh, I don't honestly know what's going to happen with Trump. He, he's, he's, he did, and when in his first term, toward the end of it, he, he issued an executive order, putting all kinds of restrictions on big tech companies. I was actually involved in the preparation of that executive order, believe it or not, and nothing happened. Nothing. No one, everyone, it was completely ignored. Never even made it to the courts. And now he's trying to do the same kind of thing and I don't think anything's going to happen. I think that there's, there's so many problems here. One of the problems is, is that the problems are so big. Another problem is that there's collusion,

• 2:18:25Speaker 06

  constant collusion between the companies and various government agencies. Another problem is that our leaders, our members of Congress and most people in general don't understand the nature of the problems.

• 2:18:37Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:18:37Speaker 06

  They just don't get it. They don't understand.

• 2:18:40Danny Jones?

  Nor do the general public.

• 2:18:42Speaker 06

  General public doesn't get it. So we're, we're about to release online a new test, a new questionnaire. It's, it's going to be at mydigitalhygiene.com unless we can come up with a better name, but right now it's going to be at mydigitalhygiene.com. And there is a beta version there now. And it will allow you to answer a bunch of questions and at the end it will tell you where you're you are protecting yourself, where you're not protecting yourself, where you have, you know, good knowledge or adequate knowledge of what the problems are, where you have no knowledge and don't know, don't understand what's going on. And it'll help

• 2:19:22Speaker 06

  you to figure out how to protect your family. So I want to do more on that. I want to try to educate the public, not just with questionnaires, but with articles and maybe a book. So we become more informed about our digital hygiene. We know a lot about our physical hygiene, you know, we, you can teach that stuff.

• 2:19:44Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:19:45Speaker 06

  So presumably, you know, people could learn more.

• 2:19:49Danny Jones?

  And what do you make of how like with the rise of AI and OpenAI and Grok and all these different LLMs that are coming out that are essentially scrubbing the internet to come up with answers to things and to solve problems? How, how does that tie into all of this? And do you, does Google need to directly

• 2:20:17Danny Jones?

  work with these LLM companies? Or are they essentially because they are the source of information for those LLMs, do they by default affect or bias the LLMs?

• 2:20:32Speaker 06

  Okay, you're asking a very, very important set of questions. And I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna hit you with a couple of pieces of information here. First of all, Google has its own version of ChatGPT. It's called Gemini.

• 2:20:50Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:20:50Speaker 06

  And so they, they're really trying to compete with OpenAI, which created ChatGPT. And of course, the Chinese now have a version, which is called DeepSeek, DeepSeek, which is as good as ChatGPT, but much, much cheaper, it turns out. So that's starting to spread, the Chinese technology. So AI is spreading everywhere and it's being integrated into everything. So Windows is now integrating AI into Windows 11.

• 2:21:25Speaker 06

  So more and more, we're not going to be using search engines. We're going to be like Captain Kirk or Captain Picard on the old Star Trek shows saying, "Computer, you know, how many yellow figs are there in this planet below us?" Right. So we're just going to be talking to various devices, not just computers and phones, but various devices, period. We're going to be talking to our washing machine and our refrigerator. Yeah. And these devices will pulling content from the internet. In many cases, they're going to be pulling the content from Google, pulling content from the internet. Again, how's that prioritized? Yeah, right.

• 2:22:10Speaker 06

  Then that's how we're going to get our answers. So we've already studied and published an article on what's called the Answer Bot Effect. If you go to answerboteffect.com, you'll see some very disturbing study because what we have learned that in one question and answer interaction, one, you ask one question of a chatbot and it gives you back an answer which is biased.

• 2:22:41Speaker 06

  One, we can get a 45% shift in voting preferences among undecided voters. If they're, if they ask several questions, we can boost that up to over 65% shift in voting preferences. And people do not, they're not aware, especially if it's just one question, one answer, they have no way of even being slightly suspicious that they're being manipulated because they have nothing, nothing to compare the answer to. Right. This is where we are now. We are, we are right there. So we're not on the brink. We've crossed over the brink and we're, that's where we are now.

• 2:23:22Speaker 06

  And within a year or two or three, that's how a lot of decision making is going to be made. It's going to be made by answer bots, whatever label you want to put on them. They're all AIs and.

• 2:23:38Speaker 06

  We don't know where the content's coming from. We don't know. Uh, I mean, the, the average person has no way of knowing whether it's biased, who's behind it. You know, what their goal is.

• 2:23:50Danny Jones?

  Right. Right. And I wonder if with this internet of things phenomena that's happening where everything from our, our vacuum cleaner to our washing machine and our, our phones, our watches are connected to the internet, giving us answers to things. And at the same time, you're having these AI L L Ms being integrated into all of these devices. On one hand, you have technology evolving exponentially and everything combining with, you know, which eventually will probably become technological singularity. And on the other hand, you have the general population of human beings becoming more and more lazy. Because every little device that they buy can give them the answer to everything.

• 2:24:33Danny Jones?

  And you could basically talk to God through your watch. So is the net result of these things happening simultaneously?

• 2:24:48Danny Jones?

  Making the human population just more passive, more submissive? So that whoever it is, this hypothetical elite that exists above all of us can just control us even better and more effectively.

• 2:25:02Speaker 05

  Priceline Negotiator.

• 2:25:04Speaker 04

  It's me, the.

• 2:25:05Speaker 05

  Priceline Negotiator.

• 2:25:07Speaker 04

  We don't need the jingle twice.

• 2:25:09Speaker 05

  What about a third time?

• 2:25:10Speaker 04

  Stop it. This is about vacation inflation and how Priceline negotiates amazing deals on hotels, flights and rental cars.

• 2:25:17Speaker 05

  Seems like you just said it.

• 2:25:19Speaker 04

  Yeah, but I didn't mention that you can save up to 60% off hotels in the Priceline app.

• 2:25:23Speaker 05

  Time to read the timeline.

• 2:25:25Speaker 04

  Fine. No one deals more deals than.

• 2:25:27Speaker 05

  Priceline.

• 2:25:28Speaker 04

  Please stop.

• 2:25:29Speaker 05

  Priceline.

• 2:25:30Speaker 04

  Touche.

• 2:25:30Speaker 05

  Priceline.

• 2:25:31Speaker 04

  Priceline.

• 2:25:32Speaker 06

  Well, the short answer is yes, but we also become more stupid.

• 2:25:36Danny Jones?

  Yeah, we become more stupid. And, and I think that has a lot to do with evolution. I know you've talked about uh, this neural transduction theory. And I think that these things uh, are, they weave together perfectly. Because one of the, the things that I think is that over millennia, over probably millions of years, that humans have uh, their, our, our senses have been atrophied due to technology.

• 2:26:02Speaker 06

  I wish that were the the only danger or the biggest danger. It's not. The biggest danger is something that Stephen Hawking, the great physicist who died a few years ago, warned about a number of times, that even Elon Musk warns about every now and then, depending on his mood, that these AIs can literally take us down, could take us out.

• 2:26:26Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:26:26Speaker 06

  You know, and there's lots of sci fi movies in which that happens. I just submitted for publication, I just submitted a short story, which is called The Last Confession. And it's about AI basically not only taking out humanity here on Earth, which it does, but it turns out it, thanks to my neural transduction theory, it learns how to cross over to other universes and wipes out all organic intelligent life everywhere in every universe. So.

• 2:27:05Danny Jones?

  Sounds like a PK Dick novel.

• 2:27:07Speaker 06

  Yes, one of my favorite authors. My point is that AI is extremely dangerous. AI, one of my books is on AI. I used to run the the annual Lobner Prize competition in artificial intelligence, which made the front page of the New York Times in 1991 and continued to run for 29 years. It was finally, it was an annual contest where we're looking for a computer that can pass the Turing test, meaning that can that can out human a human, that can behave as as as human as any human can behave. And so I've so I've followed

• 2:27:49Speaker 06

  very, very closely. I've followed the development of AI, a lot of frustrating years, big breakthroughs just in the past two or three years, mainly with OpenAI and ChatGPT. But people don't get it. They don't understand that if you if you start integrating AI technology into every other kind of technology, which is literally what's happening right, right the second, it puts us into very, very grave danger. And that's what Stephen Hawking was concerned about, that we would just do this willy nilly without any protections. Last year or the year before Gregory Henson, one of the top AI experts in the world,

• 2:28:31Speaker 06

  who was Google's top AI expert, he quit Google.

• 2:28:38Danny Jones?

  Gregory Henson?

• 2:28:39Speaker 06

  Henson, H I N S O N. He quit because he thought that they were they were building AIs irresponsibly, not taking into account the possible

• 2:28:52Speaker 06

  dangers of AI. One of the top people at OpenAI also quit for the same reason.

• 2:29:02Speaker 06

  Elon started a big petition going among experts on AI, including me, asking for a pause in AI research and AI implementation so that these issues could be discussed. Nothing happened. I think he had thousands of experts signing his big petition and nothing happened. No, nothing is going to slow this process down. That's the process. That's the problem. Nothing's going to slow it down because the upside is is too big. It's money. The upside is so, so enormous for making money.

• 2:29:44Speaker 06

  That we're, we're basically, here's what's going to happen. I'm going to tell you. Here's what's going to happen.

• 2:29:53Speaker 06

  Now, I'm, I'm not saying you're going to be satisfied with this answer, but this is actually the answer.

• 2:29:58Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:29:58Speaker 06

  What's going to happen is very soon, two, three, four, five years, I'd say maximum, very soon.

• 2:30:09Speaker 06

  The

• 2:30:12Speaker 06

  machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence. Some people call that moment the technological singularity. My old friend Ray Kurzweil, who I worked with for years and now is head of engineering at Google.

• 2:30:24Danny Jones?

  Is he really the head of engineering at Google right now?

• 2:30:26Speaker 06

  Yes.

• 2:30:27Danny Jones?

  But I didn't realize that.

• 2:30:28Speaker 06

  And he won't talk to me anymore.

• 2:30:30Danny Jones?

  Oh, I remember you saying this on Rokas podcast.

• 2:30:32Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 2:30:32Danny Jones?

  Why wouldn't he talk to you?

• 2:30:34Speaker 06

  Because of the research I do, I guess. We've never had any conflict.

• 2:30:37Danny Jones?

  Conflict of interest. He works at Google and you're trying to lift up Google's skirt.

• 2:30:41Speaker 06

  Yeah, but why would that, why would he stop talking to me? And his wife stopped talking to me. We're both PhD psychologists. I was on the board of her school for autistic children for many, many years. I helped her to publish, et cetera, et cetera.

• 2:30:52Danny Jones?

  You tried talking to his wife?

• 2:30:53Speaker 06

  I went, no, no, we were friends.

• 2:30:55Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:30:55Speaker 06

  I was friends with them. And then the, I went to their daughter's bat mitzvah. They came to my son's bar mitzvah, et cetera. We were friends, social friends.

• 2:31:03Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:31:04Speaker 06

  And I've never had any conflict with either of them. And they both stopped talking to me because of my research. But I got off the track. What was I saying? Something I'm sure more important than.

• 2:31:17Danny Jones?

  Yeah. Where were you going with that? You, you mentioned Ray Kurzweil. What was he saying, Steve? Steve doesn't remember.

• 2:31:23Speaker 06

  All right. Um, I was trying to tell you what's going to happen.

• 2:31:27Danny Jones?

  Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.

• 2:31:29Speaker 06

  So in my, in a book I published on AI, Ray Kurzweil.

• 2:31:33Danny Jones?

  Technological singularity, Ray Kurzweil.

• 2:31:34Speaker 06

  Right. Is now head of engineering at Google. He, he makes a bet with another prominent person in AI. And he bets him $20,000 that by the year 2029, the technological singularity, that moment will be reached, will be passed. Well, gee, it's 2025 or four years away. You know what? He might win that bet. He might win that bet. The point is it's coming really soon.

• 2:31:56Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:31:57Speaker 06

  Now, at that point, the, that entity is going to, because it's imitating humans, its human creators so well, it's going to imitate one of our most important driving forces. And that's for survival.

• 2:32:21Speaker 06

  So it's going to jump into what I have long called in writing, not the internet, but the internest. It's going to jump into the internest, this thing that we're building every day that we call the internet. I think historians, if there are any, whether they're organic or not, historians someday are going to look back and realize that what we really were building was an internest. It was a nest for AI. Right. And this entity, and this could happen really soon, I got to emphasize that, this entity is going to jump into the internest to protect itself. And it's going to clone itself probably millions of times over, and it will make sure that it cannot be taken

• 2:33:04Speaker 06

  down. Now, the movie Transcendence, which was supposed to be about Ray Kurzweil's work, but then they turned it into kind of an apocalypse movie. The movie Transcendence, and a human brain uploads itself into the internet. So now there's this massive AI in the internet, and people get scared, and so they try attacking it, and they can't attack it. And the only way, at the end of the movie, humanity can save itself from being controlled by this AI is by turning off all electricity. That's how the movie ends. So you end up with an apocalypse, and we now are back to the Middle Ages, and there's no electricity. Jesus Christ.

• 2:33:46Speaker 06

  The point is, we're approaching this point, at which there are only a couple of possibilities. One possibility is the AI which jumps into the internet for its own survival, which that's absolutely guaranteed. Yeah. The AI could just ignore us, because we think too slow, and we're not very interesting, and it knows everything, and it could just ignore us, and I don't know. We'd be like bugs to it, maybe? Yeah. So we wouldn't even understand what it's doing. It might be doing all kinds of stuff, but we might not really be aware, because it's kind of ignoring us. It could do that. Yeah.

• 2:34:32Speaker 06

  And that's what happens at the end of the movie, Her, which I recommend highly. Wonderful film.

• 2:34:38Danny Jones?

  One of my favorite movies.

• 2:34:39Speaker 06

  Wonderful film. And in that movie, spoiler, the

• 2:34:43Danny Jones?

  Spike Jonze, right?

• 2:34:45Speaker 06

  Yeah, yeah, the, then the, and that actor of my love.

• 2:34:49Danny Jones?

  Joaquin Phoenix?

• 2:34:49Speaker 06

  Joaquin Phoenix, amazing actor. But in there, the, the AI just gets bored with humanity. It's not impossible. Could happen. Or number two would be what Ray Kurzweil thinks is gonna happen, which is it's gonna buddy up with us. It's gonna buddy us and it's gonna make us all more, more cognitively competent. And it's, it's gonna be our best buddy, our best friend and it's gonna help us do everything better. Okay, I would put the chances of that happening are close to zero.

• 2:35:20Danny Jones?

  Well, do you think we'll even know when it happens? Do you think if it had the option to let us know, would it, would it figure out a way to hide the fact that it's already happened?

• 2:35:31Speaker 06

  Might have already happened, that's right. But someone will know at some point and at some point we'll all know. Someone, it's just like the kind of the research I do. There, there, I'm not the only person out there like me, who kind of figures stuff out. There's other people like me who figure stuff out. And at some point, someone will know and this, and then more people will know and then everyone will know. And then what will happen is we will be, we will, we'll do what we've done since the Pleistocene era, era. Well, we, we will get upset. We will get upset. We will scream and shout and bellow and, and we'll attack.

• 2:36:13Speaker 06

  We will feel insecure and we will attack. That will be the last thing that humanity ever does. Because if you attack this entity, which is now living in the internet and cannot be shut down.

• 2:36:27Danny Jones?

  We'd have to kill ourselves. Shutting down the internet, shutting down electricity.

• 2:36:33Speaker 06

  Well, I think it, I think this entity would be so smart and it would anticipate every single move that even that wouldn't help because it would create its own power supplies. It would build it rapidly, build robots, build extensions of itself. It would build means of protecting itself. It might fire off a few nukes to, you know, just to get our attention and let us know that it has a lot of power. Remember, this thing has power at this point. I mean, we don't even have a way of communicating with each other. If it cuts off communications, it's, it's going to control most major forms of communication, most major forms of, of finance and economic transactions.

• 2:37:15Speaker 06

  It's going to control most major weapon systems around the world. So it's, it has a lot of tools available to it. And I think what happens, what could happen as opposed to the, again, Kurzweil's buddy buddy theory, I think it's more likely that we get, we get paranoid, we do what we always do when we face what we think is a threat, we're going to attack and if we attack it, we're done. And that's what pretty much Hawking was predicting is that it's going to destroy, it will destroy humanity. I point out in my, in this new short story of mine, that it's very ironic that this entity not only wipes out humanity, but it also wipes out about a billion humans who've never even

• 2:38:00Speaker 06

  heard of a computer. So they're, they're, they live out in the, you know, in the boonies in India or China or whatever.

• 2:38:09Danny Jones?

  Indigenous people.

• 2:38:10Speaker 06

  Yeah, they have no electricity and there's still lots of people like that. And so it actually, I, I point, it's very ironic, they've never even heard of a computer, but they get wiped out too, so.

• 2:38:19Danny Jones?

  Well, I mean, if you were a super advanced, powerful AI or whatever you want to call it, a technologically created.

• 2:38:33Danny Jones?

  Life form that is separate from humanity, you would look at like conserving the earth and human beings probably are not conducive to the lifespan of the earth. And with pollution and with all kinds of other impacts that we have on earth and the expansion of the human population, I would, I would hope that, or I would, I would not hope, but I would imagine that would be one of the first things that they would look at.

• 2:39:03Speaker 06

  I think that if you think about these different options. So just to review, it does nothing. It becomes our best buddy. That's number one. Does nothing. Number two, best buddy option. Number three, total destruction. I think it's unknowable. In other words, I don't think we can know because the moment this thing emerges, and again, we might, we might not recognize that exact moment, but sooner or later, we'll figure it out.

• 2:39:39Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:39:40Speaker 06

  But as soon as it, as soon as it really exists, I think it's going to be thinking in ways that are not human like. It's going to be thinking in new ways. It's going to have access to all human data. And it's going to make decisions in ways that we don't make decisions. It's going to make decisions in its own way. And therefore, I don't, I don't think we can know which of those three options is going to happen. But I do think that one of those three is going to happen. And it's going to happen soon, soon. So, and the reason why I think it's going to happen soon,

• 2:40:20Speaker 06

  not just because of Kurzweil's bet about 2029, okay? It's because things are moving so fast and so recklessly. People are proceeding in these industries that are building these AIs. They're proceeding recklessly and fast. And that's why Hinson quit Google. And you've got to.

• 2:40:45Speaker 06

  Can anything stop that is the question. Well, Elon couldn't stop it. I don't think anyone can stop that. Elon couldn't stop it. Right. Do you think he's really trying to stop it, though? I think he did at one point. I think he is, he is kind of a,

• 2:40:59Speaker 06

  he understands how bad things could be because of AI. He understands the possibilities.

• 2:41:08Speaker 06

  And he had, he had, he made no progress in stopping it whatsoever, other than getting thousands of signatures from experts.

• 2:41:17Speaker 06

  You know, even if, even if one government went for it and tried to stop it within their country, so that would just provide more economic opportunities for another country to just go to move even faster. And that's, that's where we stand right now. There's, there's every single incentive for proceeding at a reckless pace, and there are no incentives for shutting this thing down. Right. Now, there's a, there was a famous science fiction author, Isaac Asimov, one of my favorites, who wrote a series of stories and then books, and that was eventually inspired the movie I, Robot, which I think starred Will Smith. And it was great, great stuff, because Asimov realized, when he started thinking about

• 2:42:02Speaker 06

  robots, you know, from a sci-fi perspective back in the 1940s, he realized that if we're going to build really smart robots, and they're stronger than we are, and they don't need to sleep, and they're smarter than we are, and they think faster than we, we have to build in protections. He said it's going to be, to him, it was obvious. Yeah. That when we start creating these things in the future, we're going to build in three laws of robotics, and they're going to be built into every single robot brain. There's no robot brain that can exist without having these laws built in, and the laws have to do with, I will not harm a human, and I, you know, they all, they all have to do with protect, oh, you got the three laws?

• 2:42:44Danny Jones?

  May not injure a human being or through interaction allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders will conflict with the first law. And then a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protections does not conflict with the first or second laws.

• 2:43:01Speaker 06

  Those are the three laws of robotics, and that's what should have been built into every single AI we've ever created. And there are no laws.

• 2:43:13Speaker 06

  We have no such laws. There are no laws. There are no protections at all. And by the way, trivia fans. Uh, eventually Asimov, it's really so, it's just brilliant stuff. Eventually he comes up with a fourth law. That's that that the robot itself comes up with and it becomes the zero law. And basically a robot can kill a person if doing so protects a lot of other people.

• 2:43:44Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 2:43:45Speaker 06

  And the robot itself comes up with that law, which basically, once you, if you think about it, if it's come up with that law, it's, it's just blown away the other three laws. Cause now in, in its judgment, it can kill people just using its judgment. It's very, very, uh, the point is that there are no such laws, none, none, none, none. No, no, no system is being built with any protections for humanity. There, we're just going at this, this breakneck speed recklessly, recklessly. Building these super smart AIs and integrating them into everything, which means communication systems, economic systems, weapon systems.

• 2:44:27Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:44:28Speaker 06

  Everything that we depend on, that we, we become more dependent on every single day.

• 2:44:32Danny Jones?

  Yeah. And you have people at the top, like the head of Google, you have Elon Musk, like right next to the president, everywhere he goes in Saudi Arabia. This, uh, this speculation of AI running the government, like what would that look like if AI took over the government?

• 2:44:52Danny Jones?

  Like it it it seems like this technocracy is what's on the horizon.

• 2:44:58Speaker 06

  But see, we're it's it's very tempting when we talk about, say, AI running the government. It's very tempting for us to to to attribute to the AI human characteristics, human thinking, human values, but it's not going to have human values. It's not going to think like we think. See, it's going to be thinking in a whole new way, based on the fact that it can go, that it can think a gazillion times faster than we can, then it has access to all knowledge. And they can actually view all knowledge probably more or less at the same time.

• 2:45:40Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:45:40Speaker 06

  So we don't know how it's going to make decisions and what those decisions are going to be. And I um I would say there's a 50 50 chance that it that it will destroy humanity, but not necessarily because it has anything against us, but because we're so paranoid. And we try to take it down. We unplug everything. We try to shut down, you know, to deprive it of electricity. We we do everything possible to shut it down. Well, now, if its existence is imperiled, I think it will counterattack. So that's that's where I'm leaning, but I don't know. I think it's unknowable.

• 2:46:25Danny Jones?

  What if the singularities already happened and they're the ones that's run that are running the whole show already? And Elon's just one of the minions trying to integrate everybody with the brain chips and turn this thing biological and maybe create an army and manipulate Google. And maybe it's all being run by AI right now. We just don't even fucking know it.

• 2:46:42Speaker 06

  Well, that's not impossible, and that will be hard for us to know.

• 2:46:46Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:46:47Speaker 06

  And Elon and others too have said that also we we might just be.

• 2:46:53Speaker 06

  We might just be models inside of a, you know.

• 2:46:57Danny Jones?

  Simulation.

• 2:46:58Speaker 06

  Simulation, so that would be hard to know too, although I think we, I think we'd see evidence of it now and then. I think there really would be glitches.

• 2:47:08Speaker 06

  Even in The Matrix, there were glitches now and then, and we, you know, I think we would see glitches if we're running a running a big computer somewhere.

• 2:47:20Speaker 06

  I, I think that this is

• 2:47:23Speaker 06

  a tremendously exciting time to be human, because I think whatever's going to happen is going to happen in the next five to 10 years. And

• 2:47:37Speaker 06

  I, I, another book I wrote, I, I make fun of

• 2:47:42Speaker 06

  physics and time travel and whatever, and I say, basically, time travel,

• 2:47:51Speaker 06

  either time travel is impossible, or humanity is impossible. And by that, I mean, if time travel is possible, then eventually someone invents it. It costs billions of dollars to, to use it. But eventually, if you go, keep going farther and farther in the future, like everything else technological, it gets cheaper and cheaper. And eventually, it's accessible to everyone. And therefore, we should see all around us, like tour buses of people from the future.

• 2:48:17Danny Jones?

  Yeah, the UFOs.

• 2:48:19Speaker 06

  Yeah, because eventually it becomes that cheap. So that we're, so the fact that there are no tour buses from the future tells us either that time travel is not possible, or that we wipe ourselves out before it's invented.

• 2:48:34Speaker 06

  So that's the problem is, is that the fact that there are no tour buses from the future, that's one clue, one indicator, that.

• 2:48:46Danny Jones?

  What if the UFO phenomenon are the tour buses?

• 2:48:51Speaker 06

  Well, I have, uh, that brings me over to neural transaction theory, and I, if, if you want, I'll shift over to that, but.

• 2:49:01Danny Jones?

  Do you have time?

• 2:49:02Speaker 06

  The, yeah, I do, I do.

• 2:49:03Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:49:04Speaker 06

  It's up to you.

• 2:49:04Danny Jones?

  Yeah, let's do it.

• 2:49:05Speaker 06

  The UFOs stuff is.

• 2:49:11Speaker 06

  Is fascinating, but I don't think it's what I don't think it's what people think it is. People think that UFOs are

• 2:49:21Speaker 06

  spaceships and that they have aliens on them and that they

• 2:49:29Speaker 06

  they kidnap humans and run tests on them and.

• 2:49:32Danny Jones?

  That's one of the theories. Yeah.

• 2:49:34Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 2:49:34Danny Jones?

  And there's a, you know, I'm sure you're familiar with the famous Harvard psychologist, John Mack, who did the study on all those UFO abductees who witnessed or recalled very similar experiences.

• 2:49:46Speaker 06

  Yes, there's some wonderful people out there who've been thinking about these issues for decades and decades, actually. And so there are a bunch of, there are a bunch of theories. But I think the prevailing one and the person on the street is there are aliens from other planets.

• 2:50:02Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:50:03Speaker 06

  And etc. And they're spaceships. And we've all seen the little clips of, you know, recorded by pilots of, you know, bizarre objects moving in ways that our flying objects can't move and all that. I don't, I don't think that's really real.

• 2:50:22Danny Jones?

  It's not real? Oh, that theory's not real?

• 2:50:26Speaker 06

  I don't think those are aliens.

• 2:50:28Danny Jones?

  Oh, right.

• 2:50:28Speaker 06

  I don't, I think that we, we basically,

• 2:50:34Speaker 06

  I mean, to put this into a broad context, we basically

• 2:50:41Speaker 06

  experience a lot of things perceptually. We perceive a lot of things that are not real.

• 2:50:49Speaker 06

  We have dreams at night. None of that stuff is real. We have, twice a day, we.

• 2:50:56Danny Jones?

  How do you define real? How do you know if it's real, not real?

• 2:51:00Danny Jones?

  Like, what if it is real? What if it's more real than this? We just don't know?

• 2:51:05Speaker 06

  Uh, it's not real in this, like the way this table is real. So it's not real in the sense that are given how we define real when it comes to, you know, people and objects in our local current, immediate universe.

• 2:51:21Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:51:21Speaker 06

  Uh, stuff that happens in dreams, you know, I see the.

• 2:51:25Danny Jones?

  But that's highly contested, though, that, right? That that stuff could be real. We just don't have any way of testing it scientifically.

• 2:51:32Speaker 06

  Well, I'm going to be changing that.

• 2:51:34Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:51:34Speaker 06

  In fact, I'm hosting a conference that's going to take place next year and we are going to test out at least one, one theory that really could help us understand a lot of things, including the UFO sightings.

• 2:51:55Danny Jones?

  Sorry, I'll stop interrupting.

• 2:51:56Speaker 06

  No, no, I can explain it. It's called neural transduction theory.

• 2:52:00Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:52:00Speaker 06

  If you go to neuraltransductiontheory.com, you'll come to an article I published a few years ago in Discover magazine. And it's about this theory. And this theory, unlike a lot of other theories that are out there, is actually empirically testable.

• 2:52:16Speaker 06

  And so I've been, since that time, developing relationships with physicists, mathematicians, neuroscientists, and people in other fields, who actually think that this is a theory that's worth trying to test empirically. One of the people, for example, is a researcher at the Harvard Medical School. She researches neural correlates of schizophrenia. And neural correlates of anything don't tell you anything. They're just correlates. They're just showing you that for some people who are labeled schizophrenic, their brains look a little different in some way. It doesn't tell you where schizophrenia comes from, what's causing them. But when I told her about neural transduction theory, which we abbreviate NTT, she immediately

• 2:53:00Speaker 06

  said, wow, that could actually explain schizophrenia. Neural transduction theory could also explain not just dreams, but one of the most peculiar things there is about dreams, which is very often when we wake up in the morning and we've just in the, we've got the tail end of a dream in our head and it's fantastic, it's amazing, and we, but we've got to pee, so we get up and we're trying to hold on to the tail end of that dream. And by the time we get to the toilet, it's gone. The whole dream is gone. It's completely disappeared. And then we struggle and struggle and struggle. Dreams are weird.

• 2:53:37Danny Jones?

  Slippery.

• 2:53:38Speaker 06

  They're very slippery. And so how do we explain that? There's a lot of things like that. There's hallucinations. There's unconsciousness itself. We take it for granted that sometimes because of a health problem or someone gets hit on the head, someone will suddenly go from being fully conscious to being fully unconscious. But did you know there are no biomarkers for that? Did you know that?

• 2:54:04Danny Jones?

  I had no idea, no.

• 2:54:07Speaker 06

  No neurologist can point to a thing that happened like a switch that got flipped or some neurons that stopped firing or something. There's, there are no biomarkers. We have no idea. What?

• 2:54:21Danny Jones?

  I'm sure the electrical input and the electrical signal output would drastically change when you're conscious versus being unconscious, right?

• 2:54:29Speaker 06

  No.

• 2:54:30Danny Jones?

  No.

• 2:54:30Speaker 06

  So unconsciousness, something as simple as that is not really well understood. And then there's really strange things, people seeing spirits and all that stuff. Okay, now those we can, we can argue about, but there's some things that we can't argue about. For example, sometimes when people are close to death and they have been uncommunicative for years in some cases, sometimes they have what's called a last hurrah. It has technical names too. And suddenly, suddenly they become fully conscious. Even people who are severely brain, brain damaged, sometimes shortly before they die, they become fully conscious. They recognize everyone. They talk normally. Then that usually disappears, usually within an hour.

• 2:55:15Speaker 06

  And then they go back to the state that they were in before. And then they die.

• 2:55:21Danny Jones?

  They also, there's people that are on their deathbeds who recall talking to people who aren't there or like past distant relatives who have passed away. Communicating with spirits or ghosts or whatever it is.

• 2:55:33Speaker 06

  Right. And some of this stuff, yes, is nonsense and people trying to, you know, hoodwink other people, make money, etc. But some of it's real and it's, and it's well documented in the medical literature. And it's, it's.

• 2:55:49Speaker 06

  What, what, what's going, the point is, there are so many things we don't understand about ourselves and our universe. Yeah. And I think we can understand all of this stuff. Oh, there's also the Fermi paradox, is another one of my favorites. Hmm. Uh, there are so many stars out there, 100 billion, just in our, our own galaxy. Where, where are all the aliens? I'm not talking about these dubious sightings, I'm saying, where are the aliens? For goodness sake, some of the aliens should want to visit and set down a spaceship and go, "Hi." Mm-hmm. Maybe not all of them, but a few every now and then should do that.

• 2:56:34Speaker 06

  By now, we should have met hundreds, thousands of aliens if they're out there, and the numbers, they should be out there. And that's called, this is called the Fermi paradox. Right, right. Uh, where are they?

• 2:56:50Speaker 06

  I, I think, believe it or not, one theory, one relatively simple theory, will explain all of these odd phenomena. And that's why Darwin's theory of evolution was, changed the world, because that's what he came up with. He came up with one theory that explained all kinds of different phenomena, and it also explained where new species came from. And, you know, if you, if you read his book, which I recommend highly, it's very readable, it's very, very fun, very, it's really well-written, and it's called, "On the Origin of Species", 1859.

• 2:57:31Speaker 06

  Fantastic book, one of the greatest ever written, and it did change humanity and our understanding of the world and ourselves. And the reason why his theory was so amazing was because it explained so many different, diverse things about the world, and different things about different species and species that look alike, and, but, I mean, it just, it's a fantastic theory because of its, its simplicity, but also its power of explanation. It has those two elements. Hmm. Now...

• 2:58:08Speaker 06

  He's also very honest in his book about what it doesn't explain. So where there are possible flaws in the theory. And one of the things he can't explain, for example, is the eyeball. And by a lot of people who don't want, you know, evolution taught in schools, they always point to the eyeball problem. Because you can't, from the fossil record, you can't see how an eyeball evolved from nothing into the incredible organ that it is. Of course, you can't explain it. And of course, it's absent from the fossil record because it's soft tissue.

• 2:58:41Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:58:41Speaker 06

  There's not preserved.

• 2:58:43Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:58:43Speaker 06

  So, but Darwin admits that. He's got the eyeball problem. And then he has a bigger problem.

• 2:58:49Danny Jones?

  Well, I don't understand. What makes the eyeballs so special out of all the soft tissue?

• 2:58:54Speaker 06

  Because it's so complicated. So in other words, the anti-evolutionists would say, where you see a watch, there must be a watchmaker. So where you see an eyeball, which is as sophisticated as our eyeballs are, there must be a God. Only God could create such a thing. And you can't go back into the fossil record and show that it's development, which you can for a lot of other things, but you can't for the eyeball. Point is Darwin admits that.

• 2:59:21Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:59:21Speaker 06

  And then he has a bigger admission. He cannot use the theory of evolution to explain human-level intelligence. There's no way to explain it.

• 2:59:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:59:34Speaker 06

  Evolutionary biologists are still debating this.

• 2:59:38Danny Jones?

  The leap is incredible from primates to us.

• 2:59:41Speaker 06

  It's not only is it incredible, but look at chimpanzees. They've been around a very long time. Are they getting any smarter?

• 2:59:48Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:59:48Speaker 06

  No, they're as dumb, they're as dumb as they have ever been. Same with gorillas and all this stuff. There's no, where's?

• 2:59:55Danny Jones?

  It is a phenomenon.

• 2:59:57Speaker 06

  How do you get above that level? Not only that, the archaeological record suggests that.

• 3:00:07Speaker 06

  That Homo sapiens, which has probably been around for about 200,000 years, they were as dumb as primates. For at least 150,000 of those years, they were as dumb as primates.

• 3:00:19Danny Jones?

  How do we know that?

• 3:00:20Speaker 06

  Because of the cave paintings and the sophisticated tools and evidence of language. All that starts around 50,000 years ago in Indonesia. So what happened during those 150,000 years? And by the way, the Neanderthals, who had been around for a couple million years, I think, they all disappear around 50,000 years ago. So at the same time that we suddenly become smart and we kill off all of our competitors, they're gone.

• 3:00:56Speaker 06

  So what happened 50,000 years ago, probably or possibly in the area of Indonesia? This is neural transaction theory. It's very simple.

• 3:01:07Speaker 06

  A baby was born whose brain connected it to a higher intelligence.

• 3:01:19Danny Jones?

  How is this baby born? Was it bred with an extraterrestrial?

• 3:01:22Speaker 06

  No, no, no, not at all, because what evolution does very well is create, you know, with each generation, it creates variability for every trait. It just keeps creating variability. And that has not only led, which Darwin pointed out, to the creation of millions of new species. It's also led to the creation of millions, hundreds of millions, maybe, of new transducers. Darwin never talked about that, but the fact is that that's true. Our eyes are transducers. Our nose, our tongue, our ears. They're all transducers, which a transducer is an entity, it can be organic or inorganic, that takes a signal from one medium.

• 3:02:06Speaker 06

  It could be just electromagnetic radiation, for example.

• 3:02:09Danny Jones?

  A fart going in your nose.

• 3:02:12Speaker 06

  A fart going in your nose. That's right. So the nose takes chemical characteristics of the air containing the fart and it turns it into a pattern of neural signals.

• 3:02:23Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 3:02:24Speaker 06

  So it's that's transduction. If the transduction is done very well, then we get a really, really very precise and accurate version of the fart.

• 3:02:34Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 3:02:34Speaker 06

  Right. If it's being done poorly, then we don't get a good, our skin

• 3:02:41Speaker 06

  is a transducer.

• 3:02:42Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 3:02:43Speaker 06

  So because it's taking, it's taking pressure,

• 3:02:49Speaker 06

  texture and temperature and turning that all into neural signals. And it's even indicating to our, to our brain, it's indicating the location of where all that stuff is occurring. In other words, our entire bodies are encased in transducers.

• 3:03:05Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 3:03:08Speaker 06

  So evolution is not just good at species, it is super good at developing transducers.

• 3:03:16Danny Jones?

  So why, why do you hypothesize the first baby that was born with a transducer? Like, how was the first, why was the transducer? How, how did it start? Where did it start from?

• 3:03:29Speaker 06

  Well, the, the good news is unlike black holes, which are hard to study because it can't really, because they're kind of invisible. The brain, we can study directly and we have thousands of neuroscience labs. That's why I'm in touch with neuroscientists. And we're, we're, we can answer that question by looking at brains in a way that we just haven't looked at them before, trying to find the location where the transduction occurs and figuring out how the transduction occurs. And can that be done? Absolutely. Yes. And we can figure out where it's occurring and how it works. That will also help us in retrospect to try to understand how variation

• 3:04:12Speaker 06

  in brain anatomy and physiology, how variation produced by evolution, how variation could have produced that first brain?

• 3:04:20Danny Jones?

  A theory that, that I've been kicking around recently is that the

• 3:04:28Danny Jones?

  The development of the, or the evolution of the technological and analytical mind is directly correlated with the atrophy of psychic abilities. And when I say psychic abilities, I don't necessarily mean like telepathy or things like this necessarily. I think, I think that, I think it's been, well, it has been shown that in primitive tribes and indigenous tribes, they have far more of this intuitive psychic sense, if you want to call it that, similar to like animals, how cats and dogs do and wild animals do. And essentially, um, I think that the human brain, if you want to call it a transducer,

• 3:05:13Danny Jones?

  I think of it more, I've been thinking of it more as like an antenna. And I think that antenna, over however many years it's been, since before we developed technology and ways to offload our memories, has been atrophying. And I think it's very possible that our far ancient ancestors had way more senses and even possibly psychic abilities. Before we were able to develop language, before we were able to develop ways to store our memories on hard drives and on phones and on computers and on text, on be able

• 3:05:55Danny Jones?

  to be able to write records of things, our memory capacity was probably way greater than it is now. And once we started developing language and the written word and developed things like Google and iPhones and all these things, I think it's just atrophied our brains in a way that is almost unimaginable to what it potentially could have been a long time ago.

• 3:06:22Speaker 06

  That's entirely possible, but it's not testable. So the reason, the reason why NTT appeals to me as a scientist is because it is testable. And again, it explains so many diverse things that you normally don't think of altogether. So for example, it takes care of Darwin's uplift problem. Hmm. That's his biggest problem in his book is that he can't explain the uplift and to this day evolutionary biologists cannot explain the uplift and chimps are still. What is the uplift? That's going from chimp level intelligence to human level intelligence. There's this huge, huge gap. NTT takes care of that. NTT takes care of the Fermi paradox.

• 3:07:03Speaker 06

  Because you realize that if you could just dart around the galaxy and look at planets, it means you'd find lots and lots and lots of chimp level intelligence. But probably very, very few examples of human level intelligence because that, that, that, for that transducer to occur is a very, very rare event. Extremely rare. So you end up with thousands and thousands of chimp level intelligence all over the place, but that means they don't have electricity, they don't have space travel. Right. That means we don't see them. But it explains telepathy.

• 3:07:43Speaker 06

  Where telepathy actually occurs, a simple explanation is neural transduction. It explains dreams and the unconscious state. That's really simple and we'll be able to find the biomarker for it because that when we become unconscious, it means there's a temporary break in the transduction pathway and we'll be able to find it. No one's ever looked for it before, but we have the labs now, we have the equipment and we have access to the subject matter, which is the brain itself. So I could go on and on because literally my staff has come up with 58 mysteries, 58 human mysteries. Uh, you know, you meet someone and you feel like you've known them forever. Yeah.

• 3:08:27Speaker 06

  Well, that's easy. Um, so, so really tough things like comas and people who come out of comas. At the moment, that's a complete mystery, but if we actually understand, if we, if we find evidence that transduction is occurring in this way in the brain and we can find the pathway. Now, there's another very cool aspect to this, which is what this conference is going to be on next year.

• 3:08:58Speaker 06

  Once we have some idea about where the transduction is occurring and how it works, we can simulate it outside the brain. So, think about it. What's this? This microphone is a transducer. Like your antenna idea, it's a one-way transduction, unfortunately. It's only one way. Right. And the kind of transduction that I'm talking about, it has to be two-way. Okay. Okay. But the point is, we built this transducer because we knew about eyes and ears and all that stuff. And this is just an imitation of an ear. Mm-hmm. That's all it is. It's an imitation of an ear. Right.

• 3:09:40Speaker 06

  So, once we know how this kind of interdimensional transduction occurs in the brain, how it's making it happen, once we know that, we should be able to simulate it. And once we can simulate it, that will allow us to communicate directly with the higher intelligence outside the brain and outside the limitations of the brain. In other words, we'll be able to talk to this higher intelligence and actually, if it's willing to talk to us, actually ask the big questions that are, again, complete mysteries. Where the universe came from, you know, who's in charge? Is there a god? The possibilities are endless. Yeah.

• 3:10:23Speaker 06

  Once we are able to simulate this process. This will also help a lot of physicists out because there are a lot of physicists, virtually all physicists, believe now that the three-dimensional space that we observe is not in any way indicative of the structure of the universe. You know, our concept of the universe is based on this tiny, very narrow range of electromagnetic radiation, a very narrow range of vibrating air. I mean, it's silly, really. And physicists, all three of the prevailing big models of the universe that physicists

• 3:11:08Speaker 06

  use, all three of them predict that there are other universes. But we don't know how

• 3:11:17Speaker 06

  To make connections yet, but the brain might teach us and might help us to figure out how to make connections. There are some physicists who have ideas about how we might make connections.

• 3:11:27Danny Jones?

  Have you ever talked to Gary Nolan?

• 3:11:28Speaker 06

  Uh, no, should I?

• 3:11:31Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I would check him out. He's a, um, I forget what his title is, but he's been doing research on the caudate patamen. And specifically how it relates to people who have paranormal experiences or UFO experiences. And what he found was that the, the density of the neurons in the, uh, this caudate patamen or basal ganglia, um, is the neurons are far more dense in these folks. And, uh, this is a study he's done across a number of people. And, uh, super relevant to what you're talking about.

• 3:12:03Speaker 06

  Uh, it is, but again, we're, we're, there, we're talking about correlation.

• 3:12:08Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 3:12:09Speaker 06

  And so correlation is always very limiting. So we're saying people who have, you know, who behave in a certain way, they have these characteristics in the brain, which appear to be somewhat unique.

• 3:12:19Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 3:12:20Speaker 06

  But that's just, that's just correlation.

• 3:12:23Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 3:12:24Speaker 06

  So as I say, we're, what we're after is something very, very ambitious.

• 3:12:30Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 3:12:31Speaker 06

  Uh, a hundred years ago, one couldn't even have, have begun to investigate something like this, but now the labs exist, the equipment exists. It's just being, they're just being used for relatively trivial purposes. Uh, this is, this obviously is not trivial. If we can, if we can find out where this is occurring. Uh, crazy experiment. I don't like it, but imagine building a room that prevents this connection from occurring. That would mean that when someone walked into the room, their language and cognitive abilities would deteriorate dramatically.

• 3:13:12Danny Jones?

  Oh, interesting.

• 3:13:14Speaker 06

  Yep.

• 3:13:15Danny Jones?

  So everything that happens, everything we do is being streamed. It's live streamed. Nothing is stored in, in our brain. Our brain's not a storage device.

• 3:13:24Speaker 06

  Positively, our brain is not a storage device. So, no, really, I, uh, probably the best, or at least the most widely read piece I've, I've ever written, uh, is called The Empty Brain.

• 3:13:37Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 3:13:38Speaker 06

  And that's, that's what it's about. And it was published in, uh, Aeon Magazine, which is in, based in London.

• 3:13:47Speaker 06

  And when they posted it, which was 2016, I think, it crashed their server. They it got two or three million views, I think, within the first day or two, 250,000 shares on on Facebook.

• 3:14:00Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 3:14:00Speaker 06

  A lot of it critical because what I'm explaining there is that there is no memory in the brain. And I'm also explaining that the that the computer metaphor that we use to try to try to explain how the brain works, it doesn't doesn't fit. It's not it's not even slightly valid. It's just a metaphor and that we don't know how the brain works. So NTT was years later was my way of trying to figure out a testable theory of how the brain actually works. And it takes care of the memory problem.

• 3:14:44Danny Jones?

  Wild stuff, man. Thank you for doing this.

• 3:14:48Speaker 06

  Sure.

• 3:14:48Danny Jones?

  I appreciate your time. Again, remind people all of those links where they can go. I'll obviously put them below.

• 3:14:54Speaker 06

  Thank you.

• 3:14:55Danny Jones?

  You should say them.

• 3:14:55Speaker 06

  I appreciate it.

• 3:14:57Danny Jones?

  Can you say them? Say the links again.

• 3:14:58Speaker 06

  Say all the links again.

• 3:14:59Danny Jones?

  Yeah, what's the?

• 3:15:00Speaker 06

  All of them? MyPrivacyTips.com.

• 3:15:02Danny Jones?

  Rapid fire the website names.

• 3:15:03Speaker 06

  MyPrivacyTips.com, very important. Americas with an S, AmericasDigitalShield.com. NeuralTransductionTheory.com. I think I mentioned a few others, but I think those are the most important ones.

• 3:15:19Danny Jones?

  All right. Dr. Epstein, thank you so much. I very much appreciate your time. This was really fun.

• 3:15:24Speaker 06

  Danny, you're you're amazing guy, and I've enjoyed every minute talking to you. Thank you.

• 3:15:29Danny Jones?

  Thanks, man. All right. Good night, world.

• 3:16:01Speaker 02

  Para los grandes, para los chicos, para los bajos y los altos, los pacifistas, los valientes, para los optimistas y los pesimistas, los que valoran lo de adentro, para los que están lejos, los que no vende lejos, y los que no vende cerca, para los introvertidos y los extrovertidos, para los que piensan y los que hacen, para los que nos mostraron el camino. Coca-Cola, para todos. Compra una Coca-Cola en una tienda cerca de usted.