Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2022 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

The Most Disturbing Thing About My Meeting With Mark Zuckerberg

May 19, 2016
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to meet with some of the senior staff at Facebook, including the CEO and COO. I found the meeting deeply disturbing — but not for the reasons you might think.

Before I dig in, since I’ll be talking about bias, let me share a bit about mine. I have been an avid Facebook user for about 8 years. I have 3.2 million followers. I consistently see high engagement on my Facebook page. We have begun using Facebook’s live video streaming platform and are encouraged by the results and plan on utilizing it more. The Facebook staff has always treated me and my staff kindly. They have been responsive, helpful, and available. I came into the meeting today wanting to believe that Facebook was a good, if not perfect, actor.

RELATED: Glenn Meeting With Mark Zuckerberg to Talk Facebook, Free Speech

Walking out of the meeting, I was convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing. They were humble, open, and listened intently to everyone in the room.

So what disturbed me?

Before I answer, let me give a bit more background.

I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms. If I had all the time, data, and money in the world, I would not be able to do anything with it.

I accept the possibility there may be evidence that Facebook — or said more clearly, someone or even multiple people who work for Facebook — may have done something that skewed the output in some way to game the system. But so far, I have not seen that evidence. And we looked for it. There are people at my company who understand this stuff far better than I do and they haven’t seen that evidence.

As a reminder, this entire controversy began when one former member of the Trending team — one — claimed Faceboook was suppressing conservative voices.

RELATED: Facebook Manager in Charge of Trending Topics Is Max Clinton Donor

Now I want to be very clear on this point. This issue, the Trending Topics issue, the reason we are supposed to be up in arms, is a relatively new product that Facebook readily admits is far from perfect. Maybe later we will go into the details of the multiple products and how each one MAY be impacted by an unconscious bias — and how Trending topics in particular MAY be vulnerable to manipulation — but the reason I went to Facebook was not to find out whether there was a small issue, but to see whether there was a real issue. A top-down initiative from management to marginalize conservative voices. We can, and will, debate the merits of some of the complaints against Facebook, but, in my opinion, there is no evidence of a top-down initiative to silence conservative voices.

Even if some employees would want to do so, it would be really hard. It does not seem reasonable to me (or the President of my company who is far more technical then I am) that this bias could have the impact some claim unless it comes from the top. Just a couple bad actors could not move the needle in a significant way.

I don’t know off the top of my head how many employees Facebook has, but it’s a lot more than one. I do know they have 1.6 billion users, and that serving those users can’t be easy. To ensure every user has the experience hoped for is no easy task, but what I saw at Facebook was a team of people who were trying.

So, why did Facebook hold the meeting at all if they are doing nothing wrong? Are they just looking for cover? Is this Kabuki Theatre? Am I a rube?

Maybe, but I’ve been called worse. If I find out there is more to the story, I will blast them — but I don’t think there is.

Why?

This is what I heard today:

In a country that is deeply divided, the largest and most important company in human interaction and content consumption saw the conservative movement in an uproar over ONE person, making ONE accusation, against ONE of their products. One story and the pitchforks came out. Now that’s something we conservatives are accustomed to, but not so much for those on the left.

Sure, the purpose of the meeting today was to appease the angry voices, at least to some degree. They took the opportunity to explain to us the details of their products and how they really can’t be consciously biased, although they did admit that unconscious bias can creep in. But to me, the purpose of the meeting from Facebook’s point of view was to acknowledge that if one story and one accusation can bring out the pitchforks, the more fundamental issue to address is a lack of trust.

Conservative media, which was started as a reaction to the inherent bias in the main stream media, does not trust anyone outside our circle. Hell, we don’t even trust the people inside our circle. So it’s understandable that going to Silicon Valley, for many conservatives, is like going into enemy territory.

THROWBACK: Why Does Glenn Believe the People of Silicon Valley Are so Important?

Silicon Valley is liberal, not a little bit liberal, a lot liberal. For example, I had a lunch today with a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur who donates to Democrats. If the internet is to be believed, he donated $250,000 to an Obama Super PAC. And when he (or was it someone else on his team?) described San Francisco, he described it as “leaning to the left.” Conservatives see San Francisco as falling off a cliff to the left.

That difference in perception is enormous.

I understand why conservatives are suspicious of Silicon Valley. It can feel a lot like the main stream media. But I’ve told you many times that I feel at home in Silicon Valley. I love the energy. These are people who want to innovate and disrupt, they want the government to stop regulating their businesses, they want small business to succeed, they value personal responsibility, etc. Why they are liberal? I don’t know, but in general, they’re not Progressives, at least not the folks I met with today (though I’m sure there were a few).

So, as a general rule, we do not trust them. And with one story, conservatives told Facebook, “There’s nothing left in the trust bank. There’s no goodwill. You must have been scamming us this whole time.”

I know I will be blasted by people for my position on this. I will be called a sellout. I will be accused of taking money or cowering for fear of retribution. (Of course, if I took the other side — that Facebook really was out to screw us, I would also be called names. Oh well, I just call it like I see it.)

So what disturbed me about the Facebook meeting?

I sat through a meeting that, to me, felt like I was attending a Rainbow Coalition meeting, that people (not me) had come with a list of demands.

I looked around the room, I heard the complaints, I listened to the perspectives, and not a single person in the room shared evidence of any wrongdoing. Maybe they had some, but it wasn’t shared. They discussed how Facebook’s organic reach and changes in algorithms has impacted their business. While at the same time admitting that Huffington Post has been struggling with the same issues. I heard people discuss community standards, pages being shut down, posts being removed — and I do believe that happens and it’s something Facebook could do better, and I hope they will — but we were not there because of that. We were there because of this ONE accusation on Trending Topics.

I sat there looking around and heard things like:

1) Facebook has a very liberal workforce. Has Facebook considered diversity in their hiring practice? The country is 2% Mormon. Maybe Facebook’s company should better reflect that reality.

2) Maybe Facebook should consider a six-month training program to help their biased and liberal workforce understand and respect conservative opinions and values.

3) We need to see strong and specific steps to right this wrong.

It was like affirmative action for conservatives. When did conservatives start demanding quotas AND diversity training AND less people from Ivy League Colleges.

I sat there, looking around the room at ‘our side’ wondering, ‘Who are we?’ Who am I? I want to be very clear – I am not referring to every person in the room. There were probably 25-30 people and a number of them, I believe, felt like I did. But the overall tenor, to me, felt like the Salem Witch Trial: ‘Facebook, you must admit that you are screwing us, because if not, it proves you are screwing us.’

What happened to us? When did we become them? When did we become the people who demand the Oscars add black actors based on race?

Someone made a good point at the meeting. The invitation alone from Facebook is staggering. Conservative voices are rarely, if ever, invited to the table for an open dialogue.

Has Twitter, Google, or any other Silicon Valley giant invited conservatives to speak, to understand what we are feeling and seeing? Has any other company or entity said, ‘Yes, many of our employees are liberal, many of us don’t understand you, but our goal is to be an open platform where ALL ideas (with limitations on hate and abuse, etc..) are welcome?’ Has any other organization with 1.6 billion users admitted that while their foundational values are the opposite of ours, it is bad business to cut off a segment of the population?

Mark Zuckerberg really impressed me with his manner, his ability to manage the room, his thoughtfulness, his directness, and what seemed to be his earnest desire to ‘connect the world’. I asked him if Facebook, now or in the future, would be an open platform for the sharing of all ideas or a curator of content? When I asked this question I told him I support his right to pick either direction. They are a private-owned company with investors who can decide what is right for them. They can decide what is right based on profits or based on interests or on principles or on social justice. I hope that they want to be open, but I will fight for their right to be who they want to be even if I do not like their decision. Without hesitation, with clarity and boldness, Mark said there is only one Facebook and one path forward: ‘We are an open platform.’

He went on to discuss that they are far from perfect, that they are always working on the algorithms, the improvement of the newsfeed, the user experience, etc. The goal, though, was very clear – to be an open platform. When I looked into his eyes and his team’s eyes, I believed him and I believed them. I hope I am not proven wrong.

How do I square this with other accusations from people and organizations I respect like CPAC and Matt Schlapp? I can’t. I don’t know what CPAC experienced, and I don’t know if they are right or not. I have seen Steven Crowder’s complaint, and I have no response other than I love Steven and hope he gets the satisfaction he deserves. I have spoken to others off the record who have made similar claims as CPAC’s. How do I square those complaints? I can’t.

RELATED: ACU Chairman: Conservatives Want to Take a Two-by-Four to Washington, D.C.

Maybe one day, maybe one day soon, I will be able to synthesize these two opposite perspectives. Maybe one party will show solid evidence or a smoking gun. But until then, based on our research and my personal experience with Facebook, I believe they are acting in good faith and share some very deep, fundamental principles with people who believe in the principles of liberty and freedom of speech.

Featured Image: Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman, Chief Executive, and Co-founder of Facebook

DISTURBING: Trudeau's parliament to EXPAND its euthanasia laws in 2023 to enable clinically depressed and mentally ill residents to kill themselves with medical assistance

Courtesy of Right to Life, UK

Canada’s medically-assisted suicide program, formally called “Medically Assisted In Death” or MAID, was passed in 2016 for those who suffer from a lethal or debilitating illness. As Glenn discussed on his show this week, a staggering 30,000 Canadians have chosen to take their lives since its passage. In 2021 alone, more than 10,000 ended their life through MAID, accounting for 3.3% of Canadian deaths that year. This year, Trudeau’s parliament is expanding Canada’s MAID access to include those who are mentally ill and suffer from depression starting in 2023.

This should disturb you deeply.

There’s more to this story that is troubling than the initial guttural reaction to state-assisted suicide. As Glenn pointed out in his program this week, almost as many Canadians have died of state-assisted suicide in 2021 (10,000) as of COVID-19 in the same year (14,000). The sheer number of Canadians seeking medically-assisted suicide is indicative of the loose enforcement of limiting MAID access. Even under MAID's current restrictions, lenient doctors and government agencies have offered and provided euthanasia to residents who simply were "tired of life."

Almost as many Canadians have died of state-assisted suicide in 2021 as of COVID-19 in the same year.

Les Landry seeks euthanasia because he's afraid of poverty

Take, for example, Les Landry, a 65-year-old Canadian resident who already received one of two doctors’ signatures required for MAID approval. He doesn't have a debilitating illness or a deadly disease--he is afraid of becoming homeless. Landry admitted he “doesn’t want to die" but the "pain of living is more than the dear of death." He already has received one of two doctor's signatures required for MAID and says he will simply “shop around” for a doctor who will give him his second approval.

Nancy Russell receives a lethal injection to avoid facing another COVID lockdown

Or take the case of 90-year-old Nancy Russell who received a lethal injection in 2020 because she didn’t want to face isolation and loneliness during Canada’s strict COVID lockdowns. According to CTV News who broke the story:

“Russell, described by her family as exceptionally social and spry, was one such person. Her family says she chose a medically-assisted death (MAID) after she declined so sharply during lockdown that she didn’t want to go through more isolation this winter.”

Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old Canadian woman, opted to end her life rather than face another COVID lockdown.Courtesy of Right to Life, UK

Canadian Paralympian Christine Gauthier was offered unsolicited access to euthanasia

It's clear that MAID is being given to mental health cases outside of the current restrictions.

But it gets more disturbing.

MAID is being offered to disabled residents who weren’t seeking state-assisted suicide in the first place.

MAID is being given to mental health cases outside of the current restrictions.

Former Canadian Paralympian and military veteran, Christine Gauthier, testified in Canada’s House of Commons that she was offered MAID by the Department of Veterans Affairs when she was following up on her request to receive a wheelchair ramp for her residence. Recounting the event, Gauthier said, “I have a letter saying that if you're so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAID, medical assistance in dying.”

Canadian Paralympian and military veteran, Christine Gauthier, who was offered unsolicited access to MAID, spots one of her training clients in a gym.David Donnelly/CBC | CBC

People on both sides of the aisle are deeply disturbed...

Under Canada’s new expansion of MAID, what doctors turned a blind eye to de facto is now going to be permitted by law: approving medically-assisted suicide to mentally ill residents.

This has sparked an outcry from both pro and anti-MAID spokespeople alike. Nicole Scheidl, Executive Director of Canadian Physicians for Life, who takes an anti-MAID stance, says:

“That goes to the very heart of what the physician thinks — the quality of life of the person in front of them, And clearly, that's not a decision that should ever fall to a doctor. As well, people who are suicidal don't clearly see that they need suicide prevention. They all want suicide assistance.”

Even Chris Considine, a pro-MAID lawyer who has advocated for patients seeking medically-assisted suicide, expresses worries concerning the law’s expansion into mental health:

“In addition, there are underlying causes for mental health which are not strictly organic,” Considine said. “There may be depression caused by poor housing, poor job prospects and other issues, which will drive people into a deep depression. Those issues could be solved, and therefore, there may not really be a need for MAiD.”

Glenn calls it as it is... "evil"

As Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, rightly said, Canada’s MAID laws are “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”

He hit the nail on the head but missed the greater picture. Canada’s MAID laws are not a threat to disabled people alone, but a threat to all residents. Laws that view human life as circumstantially extinguishable are a threat to everyone who lives under those laws.

Glenn put the issue simply: “We are dealing with evil. We are not dealing with mere policies.” We can only describe the issue as such if we believe that evil is any violation of human life and dignity. Yet that’s the rub: we are increasingly becoming a civil society that is devoid of respect for human dignity–and we know all too well from this past century the consequences of this belief.

“We are dealing with evil. We are not dealing with mere policies.”


Dare to call it treason? Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' expose conspiracy between FBI, CIA agents and Big Tech to sway election results

Aurelien Meunier / Contributor, SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Gwengoat | Getty Images

I’d like for you to imagine a scenario where employees in the federal government reached out to Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather a few weeks before an election and convinced them to not do a news story that could affect the outcome. Just called them up and said, “Hey, we know you have the facts of a story exactly accurate, but what if you hold off on running that story until after the election, because it might hurt our guy’s chances…” Like they do in, you know, Communist China.

"Twitter Gate" exposes how government manipulates Big Tech for their own agenda

What Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk have exposed is one of the most egregious examples of agents within the U.S. Intelligence Community conspiring with two of the largest media platforms in the world to purposely change the outcome of an election. And while there are those who are making the claim that these are private companies and therefore can do whatever they like with their algorithms and content, the same cannot be said of the current and former government agents—all of whom took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The internal Twitter files provided by Musk reveal the purposeful manipulation of these media platforms at the behest of those within the government and power apparatus in D.C. who wanted a particular outcome—the defeat of Donald Trump and the successful election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.

Conspiring with two of the largest media platforms in the world to purposely change the outcome of an election.

Some months ago, Zuckerberg confirmed the same sort of election-oriented interference was also going on at Facebook, with the FBI suggesting to Facebook’s content moderators that certain stories should be suppressed or blocked. Facebook did their bidding. Taibbi’s articles exposed that Twitter had gone so far as to actually block the New York Post's bombshell reporting from even being shared in private and direct messages—holding the story hostage and blocking their account for several weeks.

Those members of the media who failed to do their jobs in 2020 have now turned to attacks ad hominem, attempting to discredit Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk. Yet nobody in the press who is now attacking Taibbi has disputed any of his reporting.

Government uses Big Tech to interfere in elections

So, what we have here is now a confirmed conspiracy whereby Government agents convinced media platforms to actively work to change the outcome of an election. Musk, now CEO and owner of Twitter, has openly stated that now-fired employees of his company engaged in election interference. When done by private employees of a private company, election interference may be illegal. When done by government agents, it may rise to the level of treason, since they subverted the constitutionally mandated process of free and fair elections.

They subverted the constitutionally mandated process of free and fair elections.

Americans seem to have long accepted the notion that the CIA and FBI engage in election interference in countries around the world, putting our thumb on the scale to support our favored candidates. However, most Americans would be horrified to learn that our intelligence agencies are engaging in that type of activity here in our own country. But that seems to be precisely what’s happened. The majority of Biden voters who learned about the Hunter Biden laptop story after the election have indicated it would have changed how they voted. The outcome of that election was certainly impacted.

Watergate. Teapot Dome. Iran-Contra. All massive scandals in our nation’s history which altered politics and proved the value of the 1st Amendment and the special protection we provide to journalists. But those privileges come with a counterbalancing set of responsibilities. The freedom of the press is vital, there is a reason they are called The 4th Estate, and there is a reason we grant them legal and social protections against pressure or manipulation of the government.

The press is supposed to be our check against the consolidation of power by governments, by companies or religions. The press doing the bidding of the government is what they had in Soviet Russia or what they have in China and North Korea today. Without a free and independent press, you can’t have a free and independent civilization.

The press doing the bidding of the government is what they had in Soviet Russia or what they have in China and North Korea today.

Big Tech's unholy marriage with the Swamp

For those of you wondering how deep the Swamp really is, look no further than former Deputy Director of the FBI turned Twitter editorial consultant James Baker. I think this was one of the things that Donald Trump underestimated when he ran on the Drain the Swamp campaign promise in 2016. Most of us and Trump’s team seem to have believed that was a job they’d go do in Washington, as if that is where the Swamp began and ended.

But given the unholy marriage between Silicon Valley and D.C., the revolving door that now exists between the White House and Congressional staffers and Big Tech, the Swamp isn’t now just D.C., it’s also big Media. And I don’t mean NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, that isn’t the media anymore. The media is now Twitter, Facebook and TikTok, because that is where people actually get their news. About 80% of news media consumption happens via social media, so that is where the Swamp is now.

The Swamp isn’t now just D.C., it’s also big Media.

James Baker, famous for being one of the primary purveyors of the Trump Russia-collusion hoax, also turns out to be the filter through which Twitter determined to limit access to the original New York Post story about the Hunter Biden laptop. I think this is something that Trump and team learned the first time around that I hope they take into account if he truly decides to run for the White House again. The Swamp doesn’t end at the Potomac. When Facebook and Twitter are doing the bidding of the FBI and CIA, suppressing free speech and the freedom of the Press, that’s the Swamp. Private companies doing the bidding of 3-letter agencies can no longer claim independence or privacy. They are agents of the government, agents of the Swamp, and any claim they had to the 1st Amendment’s protections of Free Speech or Freedom of the Press are thereby forfeit.

None may dare call it treason, but at the very least, there must be accountability, and those in the government who ordered this story to be surpassed must be investigated and, if laws were found to be broken, should be prosecuted. If we don’t, what’s the point to a free and independent press at all?

Bigger than Balenciaga: The progressive roots of child-grooming

The scandal that erupted recently over the ad campaign from fashion brand Balenciaga not only put a spotlight on the evil effort to sexualize children in our culture but also emphasized the fact that many of America’s progressive elites seem to think this trend is okay. Media outlets like the New York Times were more concerned about the outrage against Balenciaga coming from the right than they were about a fashion brand posing children with teddy bears dressed in sexual fetish attire.

On tonight's episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck asks, "What alternate universe is this?!" As more child-grooming tactics have come to light, good parents have protested graphic sexual content in our schools. But the media, left-wing school boards, and even the Biden administration have treated the parents as a far greater threat than the disturbing content aimed at children.

Few understand what we’re up against better than author James Lindsay, who was banned from Twitter for saying child-grooming is not okay. He and Glenn expose the groups and motivations behind the trend to normalize child sexualization and the dark origins of how this movement began.

Watch the full episode of "Glenn TV" below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck: Why the DEA really seized ANOTHER Hunter Biden laptop — and how George Soros is connected

Photo by (Left) Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images/ (Right) FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images

There are some odd stories in the news right now. For starters, new questions have been raised about Hunter Biden after a very suspicious DEA raid, a strategy session for a smear campaign, and another incriminating laptop. Meanwhile, an SEC official removed a meeting with Hillary Clinton and George Soros from his calendar. And Sam Bankman-Fried has been arrested in the Bahamas — coincidentally right before he was supposed to testify to Congress.

On the radio program this week, Glenn Beck broke down the details of the mysterious meeting the head of the SEC had with Clinton and Soros, the latest Twitter File revelations, and the next chapter in the "FTX saga."

Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn "string together" five recent stories that show just how corrupt our leaders in D.C., Big Tech, and elsewhere in the world have truly become. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.