nce... if there was a way to convince the advertisers that it doesn't matter, that'd be awesome.

Here's how I would do it if I were Musk. I would say this: no, we're a free speech platform and that means you would be on, you know, in the feeds of people you loved and people you hated. But people on Twitter understand that. So that would be the best argument. The people on Twitter understand that wherever they see it is not an indication of being paired. Now if they paired it with a tweet, that would be a problem. Pairing it with the comments to the tweet will just as often pair it with somebody saying, Laura Loomer, you're the worst person in the world, which maybe they agree with. So I think Twitter has a good argument, better than YouTube, an argument that because the ads are randomized, that's much different than YouTube. Now imagine YouTube. There's an hour-long video and you're associated with that. If you're an advertiser, you don't want to be associated with like an hour-long bad content. But a tweet is fleeting, right? It's one of a hundred things that person did that day. So you can make the argument on Twitter that ads are randomized sufficiently. The people don't even really associate them with the tweeter, which I think is true. Have you ever associated an ad you saw on X with the person who tweeted? I don't think it's ever even occurred to me. No, it's never even crossed my mind. But I definitely have had those feelings about YouTube where I go, oh, that's a weird ad to be associated with this content. Never had that thought with Twitter because it's sufficiently randomized. So we'll see.

Well, the foreshadowing has begun. Both CNN's Jake Tapper and the Washington Post, who he quoted in his story, say that Trump was right about Biden taking money from China. So they actually showed the clip of Trump saying the thing that Biden said is not true, and then they said no, Biden was wrong. Now Jake Tapper actually gave Biden the out that maybe he didn't know what his son was doing. So they're calling it quote a blind spot that maybe Joe Biden might have had a blind spot for what his son was doing. And then they had on Andy Levin, who's a Democrat, and he said, keep in mind this was yesterday, he said there's no whiff of Joe Biden being involved in Hunter's business. There's no whiff. Really? Really? Yeah, you haven't picked up any little whiff? Not a whiff? Nothing?

Now imagine how much of a bubble, a news bubble, you would have to be in to hear this guy say there's not a whiff of Joe Biden being involved. Now obviously he's talking about the paper trail, but that's a pretty big stretch given all that we know that is well confirmed to say that there's not a whiff. It would be fair to say there's no paper trail. I haven't seen one, not that has his name on it. And it would be fair to say I don't know of a specific crime that's suggested or at least that's proven. But to say there's not a whiff? Come on.

But here the bigger story was not that because of course the pundits are going to say what pundits do. But imagine that both the Washington Post and CNN, which you know are not real news entities, right? If I say Washington Post and CNN, your brain should automatically say oh, the fake news people, rig