0:02 - Introduction to Tech Censorship
0:54 - Speaker Introduction
1:27 - Free Speech and Technology
2:08 - Philosophical Foundations of Free Speech
5:00 - Perspectives on Human Perfectibility
6:54 - Mechanics of Censorship
8:05 - Conflict of Interest in Tech
13:14 - The Role of Trustworthy News
16:42 - Media Bias and Its Challenges
20:05 - The Influence of External Funding
22:46 - Governance and Big Tech
25:44 - The Role of Government
26:32 - Power Dynamics in Tech Censorship
28:42 - The Mainstream Media's Dilemma
30:43 - The Future of Free Speech
33:07 - Closing Thoughts and Call to Action
In this lecture, Stefan Molyneux revisits his archived speech on the pressing issue of tech censorship delivered at the European Parliament. This second version of his address sheds light on the inherent contradictions surrounding free speech enabled and restricted by modern technology. Molyneux explores the philosophical foundation of censorship, reflecting on the divergence between leftist and right-wing beliefs regarding human perfectibility. He contextualizes the corruptibility of human nature, drawing from both Christian and Darwinian perspectives, to underscore the critical implications for the magnitude of power entrusted to the state and, by extension, to technology.
The crux of the discussion pivots on five major areas where large tech companies significantly impinge on free speech. Molyneux initially addresses the intrinsic conflict of interest that arises when tech giants fund and promote specific media sources, predominantly those aligning with leftist ideologies. He highlights numerous instances where tech platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube, have partnered with established media outlets, which in turn generates a biased and misleading perception of newsworthiness. This bias not only sidelines alternative views but also raises ethical concerns about transparency in the dissemination of information that shapes public opinion.
Moreover, Molyneux brings into focus the pervasive bias found within the tech industry, where the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions come from individuals who lean left politically. This inequity prompts an examination of the societal and cultural narratives perpetuated by mainstream media and the consequential silencing of conservative voices. He critiques the role that funding from external entities, such as foreign governments, plays in affecting both public discourse and policies, casting doubt on the objectivity and integrity of the information presented to viewers.
In analyzing the limitations imposed by social media and technology on free speech, Molyneux posits that these companies are attempting to navigate a complex web of legal definitions and societal expectations regarding acceptable speech. He suggests that while these tech corporations may struggle to find equilibrium in an increasingly polarized environment, the overarching agenda often skews in favor of controlling narratives that align with their vested interests. In doing so, he questions the viability of state intervention as a remedy for such censorship, arguing that the sheer scale of power and data held by tech companies far eclipses any regulatory efforts from government bodies.
Molyneux concludes by emphasizing the vital importance of allowing a diverse spectrum of voices to thrive amidst the digital landscape, advocating for resilience against self-censorship that stems from the fear of deplatforming. He frames the battle for free speech not merely as a fight against specific instances of censorship but as a broader crusade for the integrity of ideas shared in the public discourse. With a call to action, Molyneux urges listeners to remain steadfast in their pursuits of truth and free expression, asserting that the quest for understanding may require confronting adversity head-on rather than retreating in silence.
[0:00] Hi there, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. Hope you're doing well.
[0:02] So this is a little gem from the archives, actually a fairly big gem. When I went to Brussels to talk about the perils of tech censorship shortly before I was deplatformed, I did two versions of the speech. There was one, of course, with everyone there, but they had some trouble with the recording equipment and the audio. So I managed to rescue some of it from my phone and other things, which was the one that went out. But this is a second version of the speech that I did to get a better recording, and I think it's very interesting, even more passionate in a way. So this is from the archives, version two of my European Union censorship speech.
[0:54] Hi, everybody. My name is Stefan Molyneux. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak here at the European Parliament. As a philosopher, it's always a great pleasure to speak to a legislative body without having to answer charges of corrupting the youth or not believing in the gods of the city. So that's good. I am the host of Free Domain Radio, which is the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world. You can check it out at freedomainradio.com. You can follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux and also youtube.com forward slash freedomainradio. If I could get the next slide, please.
[1:28] So, the topic today is free speech and technology. Free speech is enabled by technology in ways that would have been incomprehensible to people in the past, but free speech can also be limited, controlled, restricted, and killed by that very same technology. Fire can warm. Fire can burn. A sword can be used to cut bread. A sword can be used to cut life. I want to spend this time that we have together illuminating five major areas in which big tech companies can limit your free speech.
[2:08] But I would like to start with a philosophical question, which I think really cuts to the essence, not just of our relationship with technology, but our relationship with each other, with ideas, and the power that they hold.
[2:24] One of the great differences between the left and the right is the concept of human perfectibility. To what degree can human beings be perfected? Now, what's interesting is there's kind of a wraparound. For the Christians and for the people who study evolution, the answer is that human beings are not very perfectible. Human beings are susceptible to a variety of pressures and temptations and corruptions that can undermine all of the best ideals and goals that we have. The evolutionists will say, the Darwinians will say, we are self-replicating DNA and evolution is driven by our desire to gather resources, often amorally or immorally, and lavish those resources on genetic proximity. We go and we hunt, or maybe we steal, or we bash someone's head, or we take someone's resources so that we can feed our family, our extended family, our kith and our kin.
[3:31] And so we have a veneer of ethics over a very primordial evolutionary drive and impulse to gather resources, to give those resources to groups and people we favor the most. The christians interestingly enough say something quite similar and other religions as well but the christians say that satan is very tempting satan stands under a streetlight with fishnet stockings and twirls a handbag and tempts us into selling our souls for the material goods of this world Because we like material goods We like material things And as material beings We need them in order to live.
[4:21] So human beings are not very perfectible, and it is interesting to me that Christians in particular are very skeptical of the power of the state. Why? Because human beings are corruptible, because human beings seek material resources at the expense of their virtues, we can't give a lot of power to the state because it will be used for ill. It will be used for evil. It will be used as almost all power is used in the world to punish your enemies and to reward your friends.
[4:56] The Darwinians and the Christians see the world the same way, and I think it's accurate.
[5:01] Now, the socialists or the leftists have a different view. They genuinely believe in the perfectibility of human beings. They say, if we just change the environment, if we just make a few tweaks here, change the language, write the right law, get the right people in power, utopia, perfection, paradise, is right within our grasp. So close. If we turn the workers into the capitalists, they'll be exactly the same as the capitalists. They say, I, we will use the power, not in the Darwinian sense, not in the satanic sense, we will use our power for good. We will use our power for good. And the paradise that the leftists want is so close. They believe it's so close. There's just a few people in the way. Maybe we can convince them. But if we can't, they have to go. Because the paradise that we want, the egalitarianism, the perfection.
[6:11] Is just beyond those people. We have to move them out of the way so we can get to the paradise that makes the world perfect. That's the great temptation, that they will use the power for good. And it's a key question for censorship. Because if you believe, as a lot of people on the left do, if you genuinely believe that paradise is just moving these people aside or stepping over their bodies, as sometimes happens historically, well, you've got to break a few eggs to make the omelet, right? That's what you've got to do. And that's censorship. Right now, it's in a relatively civilized form, deplatforming, demonetization, but it can change.
[6:54] So let's look at some of the mechanics. I'm going to identify five areas in which tech needs to improve. But first, Let's have a look here. This is just 2018. This is a list of the people who were suspended, banned, unpersoned, deplatformed. It's a very small list from a much larger view. Of also these people, in addition, over 800 alternative news accounts were banned by Facebook shortly before the U.S. midterms. And these are the people we can see. These are the people who had a big enough following, a big enough platform.
[7:34] That we know that they're gone. All of the people who were smaller or didn't have the following or didn't have the voice vanished and we don't even know. They're like the bodies of the unknown soldiers in the First World War where they simply found gristled body parts scattered across a trenchy landscape. They just gathered them all together and buried them, but there's a tomb of the unknown deplatformers where we don't even know where they've gone. We just know that numbers are down. Go to get the next slide, please.
[8:05] So, the first of the challenges that the social media companies, that the big tech companies face when it comes to freedom of speech is conflict of interest. Conflict of interest. It's a very, very important thing in the world. If you are a finance reporter, you report on the stock market and you say, oh, this ABC stock is fantastic, you should totally buy it, and you don't inform your audience that you hold a large amount of ABC stock, that's a serious breach of ethics. It may not be illegal. It's certainly immoral. The conflict of interest is very important because who is being censored? Everybody knows. Everybody knows who's being censored. Who's being censored.
[8:51] Is people who oppose the leftist narrative, people who oppose the left. It doesn't mean that they're on the right, but it does mean that they oppose the left. The media, as we all know, it's so commonplace in observation, it's barely worth mentioning, except kind of the keystone of the arch of this whole argument. The media is overwhelmingly left.
[9:15] So, we know for a fact that tech companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in news media. Facebook, Apple, YouTube have announced that they will directly fund handpicked what they call authoritative news sources to fight fake news. This all happened, of course, after there was this narrative that fake news propelled Trump into the presidency along with lashings of Russian collusion trifles.
[9:53] Now, it's my understanding, if you go someplace like YouTube, that they will have partnered with these authoritative news sources and they will push them up, they will promote them up in the feed. Now, the problem with this is that if you believe that the feed is organic, that the more popular the video is, the more it engages people, the higher it's going to show up in the rankings. If you believe that's the case, then if they've partnered with someone like CNN or NBC or ABC or whoever it is, then they push that up without an ad, without saying sponsored, partner, this is not organic, then you have the perception, of course, that it's more popular than it is. To me, it's a form of deception. It's a form of deception. You want sponsored content. You want content that is artificially pushed up to be identified as such so that you can judge it accordingly the way that we do in advertisements. Google, YouTube's parent company, has committed a budget of $300 million to pay for quality journalism. I may be naive, but I had the distinct impression that quality journalism wasn't quite that much for sale.
[11:09] YouTube has committed $25 million to paying for, air quote, news. YouTube has also reported that it will, quote, prominently surface authoritative sources, end quote, for users. Again, it's this promotion with no ads, probably. As of January 2018, Facebook code changes pushed establishment news sources to the top of the engagement. CNN went to the very top often.
[11:37] So they're heavily invested in buying, promoting, paying for, and promulgating left-wing news. So if anti-left-wing outlets, alternative media outlets, pushback, discredit, undermine the authority of the organizations that these tech giants have invested in, that harms their investment. It's a conflict of interest. If they can de-platform people who criticize their partners and their investment recipients, the value of that investment goes up.
[12:14] Who's talking about this conflict of interest? Mark Zuckerberg has recently stated as a goal that he aimed to promote, quote, high quality news that, quote, helps build a sense of common ground. What does that mean, common ground? Nobody knows. Nobody knows it in any formal sense, any syllogistic sense, any empirical sense. Everybody knows what it means. Common ground with the left, with their partners and their investment recipients. Now, you can't have both high-quality news and also news that helps build a sense of common ground. You have to pick one. You cannot have both. If it's high-quality news, then it's challenging. It opposes narratives. It brings up uncomfortable questions. It creates conflict because it is only in the heat and friction of conflict and debate that we can ever even get close to this elusive ghostly beast called the truth, which is a very slippery thing.
[13:14] It's hard for any individual to grasp. It is a social activity of conflict often, of debate that can get us close to the truth.
[13:29] Now, they have their trusted sources of news to combat fake news. The question is, of course, Almost half the country voted for Donald Trump in America. Are any of their authoritative news sources conservatives? The answer is, I haven't found any. Maybe there's one. Now, Mark Zuckerberg gave an example of good, trustworthy journalism. He quoted the New York Times. Now, for old school people, the New York Times, the old gray lady, this is, they have serious fonts. They have news that rubs off on your fingers. They have a crossword. Serious people doing serious journalism. To others, perhaps a little bit less traditional, a little bit more empirical, they look at the New York Times.
[14:30] Which is supposed to be an example of true news. And it's compared to some guy in a basement with a webcam who's fake news. It's terrible. Undermining democracy. It's a danger to democracy, they say. Now, I look at the guy, you know, he's often portrayed as an overweight neckbeard in his mom's basement or something like that, ranting away about some current events topic on a webcam. And I say, well, could be real, could be fake, could be right, could be wrong. But you know what I know for sure, for absolute sure, what I know for absolute sure is that that guy in his mom's basement with the neckbeard and the webcam has never once, never once goaded, driven, and dragged the U.S.
[15:23] Into a 15-plus-year war. The New York Times did that, the lead-up to the Iraq war. They were hungry for sources that showed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It is an unerasable red stain on the history of that paper that they helped drag America into a horrendous war. They praised Hugo Chavez, which helped lead to the absolute disaster of Venezuela in the here and now where you have middle-aged women having to sell their bodies into prostitution for food, having to sell their children, for medicine.
[16:05] They loved themselves some Hugo Schaffer. They endorsed Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was one of the main people who goaded Obama into attacking Libya, deposing Muammar Gaddafi, ending a tyrannical but stable regime, turning Libya into a post-modern hellscape of warring tribes, open-air slave markets, and a massive migrant crisis that may bring down the entire Western world. But it's good, trustworthy journalism. This goes all the way back to New York Times in the 1930s. They won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the genocides and the crimes of Stalin.
[16:42] Challenge two for the mainstream media is bias.
[16:46] Facebook announced it would partner with 80 unnamed publications to create exclusive news content ahead of the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Facebook said it planned to directly fund news programming including shows from CNN's Anderson Cooper and Mike.com both hard left sources, Anderson Cooper in particular but many of these sources I assume, often parrot this Russia collusion conspiracy because you see everybody's so much against dangerous fake news that undermines democracy you know what undermines democracy is a multi-year investigation into a non-existent connection between Trump and Russia, that is really designed to simply legally harass Trump supporters. Russia collusion. True news, not fake news.
[17:36] CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, told Congress that his company could only find $4,700 in ad spending from Russia-linked accounts in 2016. That's the Trump election year. $4,700. dollars. National Review recently wrote, private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents, thanks to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public favors, gave the Clinton Foundation between 152 million dollars and 173 million dollars. I don't really care which number it is. That's insane.
[18:12] It means, and these numbers stagger the imagination, it means that the Russia collusion theory versus Russia, Russian people connected to Putin, given Hillary Clinton's foundation, Bill and Hillary's foundation, the money given to the Clinton Foundation was 36,809 times, the spending from Russia-linked accounts, $4,700. So, there's bias. Because they don't see the Russia collusion as a conspiracy theory. For them, conspiracy theories are, I don't know what, they involve crisis actors, not the destruction of two or three countries. So, there's bias. Tech workers overwhelmingly support the left. They support Democrats. In 2018, just over 1% of the $15 million that tech workers sent to candidates went to Republicans. 1% went to Republicans. The Republicans won the presidency. Trump won the presidency. It was close to 50% of the vote. It wasn't exactly a little lower, but about 50% of the vote. Only 1% of the donations from tech workers went to Republicans. Now, if you were in a region or a country where 50% of the population was black, but you were only hiring about 1% blacks, people would go and say, this is ridiculously biased, ridiculously disproportionate.
[19:41] But you can have 50% Republicans, only 1% of the money sent by tech workers goes to Republicans. And everybody's like, well, that's fine. And the interesting thing too, is you would say, well, why would you, if you weren't hiring blacks, well, that's not their fault they were born blacks. You're punishing them for something genetic. It's bad. it's wrong. There's significant evidence out there that our political perspectives, our political persuasions are genetic as well.
[20:05] There's a fairly strong genetic link. So.
[20:13] It's a genetic bias to be against conservatives, to be against people from the right. Now, 1% of the 50 million went to Republicans, 23% went to Democrats. So it's 23 times the spend on Democrats. That's a second bias. Saudi money. Here's a quote. I'll put the sources linked. Saudi money is already behind many of the biggest tech startups in the US, including Lyft, Uber, and Magic Leap. Saudi Arabia's massive $45 billion check to SoftBank's Vision Fund, the largest venture fund of all time, means Saudi money will likely be part of the biggest pool of venture money for years to come. The Vision Fund has made at least 26 investments, including into Slack, WeWork, GM Cruise, and other brand names. Over the last five years, Quid estimates Saudi investors have directly participated in investment rounds totaling at least $6.2 billion.
[21:14] Saudi Arabia's money is in multiple funds with global ambitions. One of the biggest is the Saudi Public Investment Fund, which said it plans to grow from around $100 billion today to $2 trillion by 2030. Now, why is this important? Tech workers overwhelmingly sympathize with the Democrats. You've seen executives of tech companies crying because Donald Trump was elected and vowing to whatever, right? Now, Muslims in the West overwhelmingly vote for the left. 90 plus percent, 92 percent, 96 percent, 95 percent, depending on which study you read and which location, overwhelmingly vote for the left. You got Saudi money funding a lot of high-tech startups. How is that going to affect questions around mass migration? How's that going to affect questions around mass immigration? How's that going to affect criticisms of Islam?
[22:08] It's going to affect it. It's going to affect it, no matter which way you cut it. But it's not just Saudi money. Over 20 Silicon Valley venture companies have ties to Chinese government funding, not just Chinese funding, Chinese government funding, raising concerns about tech transfer of IP. You want to talk Russia collusion? Kremlin money is behind a prominent Russian venture capitalist in Silicon Valley who has investments in Twitter and Facebook. How does that affect what happens? It's a good question. Is it even fundamentally governable?
[22:47] Because there's big debate on the right. Should there be a high-tech Bill of Rights, a First Amendment for tech? Don't fool yourself. The odds of government stepping in and somehow overseeing these companies is very low. and I would argue virtually non-existent. Let's look at why. Let's take an article from CNN, September 20th, 2018. They said, Google is defending its policy to allow third-party apps to access and share data from Gmail accounts, according to a letter made public Thursday. In 2017, Google stopped scanning Gmail accounts, for advertising purposes. What does that mean? It means you don't know who's got your data, who's got your emails going back how far.
[23:34] Susan Molinari, VP of Public Policy and Government Affairs for the Americas at Google, wrote in a letter to senators that no human employees read users' Gmail except in, quote, very specific cases where they ask us to and give consent, end quote, or for security purposes, like abuse investigations. So let's say you have an enemy. They claim that you're abusing them. Oh, look, Google can have a look at your emails. Who knows what they're going to find? Who knows which malicious employee. Let's say you're a Republican. Let's say you're somebody that the left really hates. What could happen? The company noted in the letter that it has a process in place for identifying apps that misrepresent themselves or aren't transparent about how personal data is used. Google says it is able to suspend these apps in the majority of cases before they're allowed to access data. However, it's unclear how many malicious apps have been removed. So you're a politician, someone comes along and says well you've really got to take on big tech.
[24:37] Except you're looking at that and you say gosh, what have I gotten my emails over the last 10 years or so what did I ever put on a shared drive, they have my contact history perhaps they might have my Facebook was scouring, calling call information on Android devices for some time, so they have my call history. Do they have my search history? Is there anything I've ever written or shared or searched for that could be used against me? To ask that question, of course, is to answer it for all of us, right? Do they have my GPS? Do they have everywhere I went?
[25:29] Yeah, I'm pretty sure the government's not going to do much to take on big tech. Because I think that big tech has more in the government than the government has on big tech. So those are the five major areas that I've identified.
[25:44] There are more, but I think those are the most important ones around the question of free speech.
[25:53] Fundamentally, the problem with speech and technology is not the tech companies. I have sympathy for the tech companies. They're trying to manage multiple legal systems, multiple locations, multiple definitions of what is and is not acceptable speech, lots of complaints, organized activists. It's a tough act, and I don't envy them trying to police the world and all of its communications, particularly given the volume. You've got 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. You can't be policed. You can't police the world's free speech any more than you can plan the world's economy or a country's economy for that matter.
[26:33] The problem is not tech censorship fundamentally. The problem is the goal. What is it trying to achieve? It's trying to, well, the leftist activists would like to use it, of course, to control elections, to get people into power, to punish their enemies, to never have what happened in 2016 between Trump and Hillary ever happen again. Now, why do they care about that? Because elections involve, just in America, it's around the world, it's much more, trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars are going to go this way or this way, depending on who gets into power. So when you have that kind of prize, and you believe that if you get that power, you will use it for good, and there's just a few annoying people in the way who you should convert or get out of the way, by any means necessary, the left is very open about the by any means necessary caveat to what they do.
[27:22] Trillions of dollars in play, corruption is going to happen.
[27:27] Until we can reduce the amount of control that governments have over currency and where it goes, over money and where it goes, this level of corruption is always going to be a problem. So I don't believe there's going to be state intervention. Tech companies are too powerful. They have too much knowledge about people, I believe. And studies show that they can have the power to sway elections. Do you want to get on the wrong side of big tech if you're an ambitious politician? Those who benefit will be scattered. Those who it costs will be very concentrated, namely you. It's not a good incentive model.
[28:08] I do believe that if you're going to invest in news, you have a conflict of interest when it comes to policing those who compete with your investments to the alternative media. You know, everyone in this room who's in this front row has been written about by the media, usually in a negative way. How many people who are reading that article are fully aware, are fully aware that the mainstream media is writing around their direct and largely more successful competition when they write about us?
[28:40] Because we're drawing eyeballs away from the mainstream media.
[28:43] I haven't done this for a while, but I did look this up. So on YouTube, I have a little over 900,000 subscribers now, because I don't think I'm controversial. I think I just tell the truth. But for some people, I'm controversial. So some people will follow me and they won't show that they follow me. So probably over a million subscribers all told. USA Today has 832,000 subscribers and change. So much less. NBC and CBC are both cooking around a million subscribers. So I have about the same numbers, give or take. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of people. So when they write about me, they're writing about a direct competitor who's taking eyeballs, revenue, reach, power, authority, sway from them directly. Can they be objective? No. I can write about them. I can be somewhat objective because I'm growing and they're not, but it's a conflict of interest even when they write about us.
[29:45] They should not be promoting their partners without telling the listeners, that's wrong. That's wrong. It's happening all over. The Trudeau government in Canada recently announced a $600 million media bailout. I mean, what decent journalists would stay in that environment where you're bought and paid for? So the solution, the mainstream media could look in the mirror and say, why are we failing? Why are we shrinking? why are we losing readership and viewership? They could look in the mirror and say, have we become too partisan? Have we become too one-sided? Have we stopped listening to the people? They're not doing that in general. What they're doing, they're running to the teacher and complaining about the guys, the men and women who are beating them. Now, that makes them weaker. That makes us stronger. Resistance builds strength. It's like a muscle. You don't build muscle lifting a feather, you build muscle-lifting iron.
[30:43] So we get stronger, they get weaker. Now, that's dangerous. Very little is more dangerous than a weakened prey, or a weakened competitor in this case.
[30:55] So they will run to the tech companies and try and get us de-platformed. It's easier than reassessing their own business model and confronting some of the dangerous hard leftists that are in their own organizations. The leftists, you know, who ignore the fact that there are tens of thousands of outright Marxists in American universities and instead have everybody panicked and chasing imaginary ghost Nazis all over the social landscape. If you're not talking about the communists in universities, I don't want to hear about the Nazis in the park. So they will run to the social media companies and they will try and get us shut down. They will try and de-platform us. If we survive that, we'll be stronger. They'll be weaker because it's a shameful thing to do. To shut down your opponent, to de-platform your opponent, it's just a confession that you can't compete. You can't make the argument. You can't make the case. You can't rebut. So you silence.
[31:48] Cowardly and bullying, of course. But when people see craters where other people used to be, when we see craters where alternative news figures, the alternative to lies. We see those craters and we say, ah, what were they talking about? I better not go to that topic. It's the hard sense. It's a soft censorship that leads to the self-censorship. It's the deplatforming that leads to the silencing of topics. That is the great danger. Because if we fall prey to that and we silence ourselves because other people are being deplatformed rather than doubling down on the topics that clearly threaten those in power, then we really lose. And those losses of people who've been deplatformed are all in vain. And that, that would be a true loss and deeply tragic. We have no guarantee of success. None. But we have a great opportunity. And if we fail, no, I'm going to speak personally. If I fail, I, first of all, want to make sure I did everything I possibly could to succeed. I may fail in the world, but I will not. I will not.
[33:08] I will not fail in my conscience.
[33:13] Thank you very much.
[33:22] Well thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy and i'm going to be frank and ask you for your help your support your encouragement and your resources please like subscribe and share and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world and also equally importantly go to freedomain.com forward slash donate to help out the show to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world. So thank you so much for your support, my friends. Freedomain.com.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
