Big Tech DISASTER: After the hearings, what comes next?

October 29, 2020

CEO/Founder

During Wednesday's Senate committee hearing, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester called Big Tech “the unregulated Wild West that needs to be dealt with." He spent the rest of his seven minutes babbling incoherently, but the image is still relevant. The problem being, some Americans happen to love the Wild West. Some of us feel okay with individual freedom and personal autonomy.

Senators from both parties confronted the CEO's of Twitter, Facebook, and Google at the Section 230 Big Tech hearing. Every single person involved was excessively prepared. Except for Jack Dorsey. Perhaps because Dorsey, as CEO and co-founder of Twitter, found himself in the hot seat recently. Literally that morning, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, page A1, was a story about how a feckless Dorsey was essentially ambushed by his own company “when with little explanation the platform he leads began blocking its millions of users from sharing links to a pair of New York Post stories about Joe Biden 's son, Hunter Biden. Within hours, lawmakers said they would subpoena Mr. Dorsey to explain his decision."

Maybe it was the nose ring, or the extra grey in his Fu Manchu, but Dorsey was blindsided. He was still fighting off embarrassment. Just a few days ago, he (rightfully) criticized his own company for their poor response to the Hunter Biden story. And you could practically read Dorsey's thoughts as he struggled to remain deadpan through the hearing.

Democrats repeatedly bemoaned the fact that the hearing was being held less than a week before the election — as if they were actually doing any campaigning anyway. They kept to their usual gaslighting. Accusing conservatives of being unstoppable conspiracy theorists. Republican senators were unwavering. If you closed your eyes and listened, it felt like a furious yet pitch-perfect sermon, one last concerted charge toward saving the republic.

Mike Lee, in particular, was a bulldog. Ted Cruz was like Zoro, swiping and attacking. Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, fresh off the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, was even fresher than she was last week.

But here's what it was really about: Wednesday, the figurative public execution did not happen. Everybody was too well prepared. It was less of a Senate hearing, and more of a peek at some neglected downtown, windows boarded up. Ultimately, we were left wondering, what comes next?

Jack Dorsey, in particular, appeared tired or annoyed.

For too long to remember, what all of us have been nervously wondering is whether or not social media companies would screw up this election like they did in 2016. And at the hearing we saw them respond personally. Jack Dorsey, in particular, appeared tired or annoyed.

The hearing mostly focused on Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

It was clear that both of them have been nervous about this election. That they've spent a lot of time worrying about it. They were skittish. These are the final moments of an entire American legacy. The gravity weighs on all of us. Nerves are frayed with everyone.

But, in moments of daunting pressure, we see a person's excellence appear or vanish. If someone can do their job under intense pressure, then we're impressed. We're relieved. Zuckerberg did fine — he's been through plenty of these hearings. Google CEO Sundar Pichai chimed in occasionally, but the focus of Senators' ire was on Twitter and Facebook.

Both companies have grown into empires, growing at a rate that nobody could keep up with. Yet benefitting exorbitantly from their own willing ignorance. They follow the mob, and Alex Jones is gone. Then Gavin McInness. Then a little closer. Then a little closer to you and me.

Going into the 2020 election, social media CEO's have been worried about “a Hack and Leak," a data-dump of hacked material that goes viral on their platforms, like Guccifer 2.0 in 2016, when an anonymous source released damning emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Facebook and Twitter were nervous about an “October Surprise," a last-minute dump of leaked documents that had the potential to sway the election. Everyone has been so skittish. Facebook employees even literally role-played drills on how to handle any situation that would influence the election.

If you can believe it, Facebook's was a far more actuarial response, more cautious, more subtle. They choked the newsfeed, revamping their ever-dubious algorithm. Straining to please everyone all at once.

Twitter's approach was more ... Twitter-like: Aggressively dumb yet unwaveringly confident. They would drop the ban hammer, blanket-banning links to supposed leaked information, and even suspending accounts that re-tweeted those links. Which is why, last week, we saw a ton of legacy bluecheck news outlets and journalists drop like flies for no more than sharing the Hunter Biden story.

Something is wrong when both sides are complaining about the same thing but blaming one another for it. The same time that we conservatives were pointing out obvious ideological bias by Big Tech against Donald Trump, a slew of progressive and liberal outlets were screaming ideological bias in favor of Donald Trump. An “expose" in the October 19th edition of the New Yorker claimed to expose rampant conservative favoritism, as if Silicon Valley were actually an assemblage of conservatives — which is clearly, provably false.

So when the Hunter Biden story broke, they sprung into action. Because, let's be honest, there are a lot of aspects of the whole story that don't make sense. The laptop. Guiliani's lawyers.

Twitter panicked. They attacked. They freaked out.

Facebook and Twitter responded to the Hunter Biden story with their new policies. All of it has played out like a cheap soap opera. Facebook tried to mute it. Twitter panicked. They attacked. They freaked out.

Both companies had readied for contingencies that involved hackers, criminals, extortionists. They were so skittish that they fired shots at noncombatants. Instead of hackers, they were attacking the nation's oldest daily paper, founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 — which was 218 years ago — a daily with the fourth largest distribution in the nation.

The laptop is real. The story is a tangle. And the social media response was a disaster. They told us not to look at the giant pink elephant. Guess where we are staring now?

But what direction should legislators take their investigation of Big Tech? What sort of policy changes should they offer? How would changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act affect conservative outlets? The legislation, passed into law in 1996, states that: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

It is worth mentioning that the left also has a distrust for Big Tech. Harper's September cover story was “The Big Tech Extortion Racket," in which — remarkably — the author compares the fight against Big Tech to the Boston Tea Party, likening Big Tech to the British East India Company and their trade monopoly. But where conservatives take umbrage with anti-conservative bias, the left considers Big Tech to be authoritarian, or that Big Tech doesn't censor conservatives enough.

As usual, the problem here was one of self-awareness: The Democrats had none. They have devoted too many hours, or years, or even decades, monologuing into mirrors. Well, those tactics no longer work — Donald Trump changed that.

I can tell you what I know: Social justice is a system of endless diminishing. It keeps devouring itself into nonexistence. It has mutated into the monster it is because we have budged, and budged, and budged. But we cannot budge anymore.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep