“Even if we’re removed from these platforms, we still have to be talked about on them, which means the impact of our news has to be big enough that we can force them to talk about it.” “James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, which was recently removed from Twitter, said.
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas group collected testimony and video evidence from dozens of internal whistleblowers at major companies like Google and Facebook.
“From the beginning, during the time I worked there, whenever Trump gave a speech, like when Trump gave the State of the Union speech, Facebook told us to look for hate speech in his speech.” Ryan Hardwig, a Facebook whistleblower, said.
At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), we spoke with James O’Keefe, and two whistleblowers – Ryan Hardwig, who worked for a company that manages content for Facebook working for Facebook; and Zach Vorhies, a former Google engineer who exposed nearly 1,000 pages of internal Google documents last year and who is now suing (Google-owned) YouTube for removing several right-wing YouTube channels before the election.
“What we’re trying to prove is that this was a malicious attempt to accommodate some kind of political agenda, not a reasonable (content) filter to protect them (media platforms) from some liability.” Wallis said.
This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
The impact of our news has to be big enough to force them to talk about it.
Jan Jekielek: “America Uncanceled” is the theme of CPAC 2021. You’ve been through a lot of cancellations, but you’ve also done some anti-cancellation stuff.
O’Keefe: Yes. “The Twitter account of Project Veritas (Project Veritas) was permanently deleted. It was outrageous because they gave us the option to delete the video tweet of us talking to the Facebook vice president on the street, and we didn’t delete the tweet because CNN does that all the time, and Twitter doesn’t censor numbers on lampposts and so on (note: Twitter asked Project Veritas to delete the tweet) (Note: Twitter asked the Truth Project to remove the tweet because the video exposed private information such as lampposts in front of the Facebook vice president’s home).
After reporters from CNN and The New York Times contacted Twitter, Twitter decided to permanently deactivate our account. This is very scary. But I believe content is king, not platforms. I believe content is king, and if the news is good enough, it will put itself in the mainstream media.
People say we should use Parler or some other platform or create a new platform, and that worries me because I think we need to go to “town square” and not leave “downtown square” where the important events are happening. downtown square” and then whispering in a small inner circle.
I’ve been doing that for 12 years, I’ve been trying to get comments in the New York Times and the Associated Press, and we’ve been doing that. So even though we’re removed from those platforms, we still have to be talked about on those platforms. That means the impact of our news has to be big enough that we can force them to talk about it.
JACKIE YOUNG: Earlier, when asked why the Truth Project was blocked, a Twitter spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the Truth Project Twitter account had been permanently blocked for repeatedly violating Twitter’s private policies. “The video from The Truth Project shows Facebook Vice President Guy Rosen being questioned by a Truth Project reporter outside his home. The video quickly shows the number on the house and a nearby light pole, but does not show the full street name or other such revealing content. The makers of the video also blurred out the visible license plate numbers.
Suspending our account is tantamount to crossing a Rubicon river that has never been crossed
Jay Kay Young: What did you go through at CPAC? Let’s take it from there.
O’Keefe: We have six whistleblowers. They came up to speak yesterday and it was very inspiring. I think, hopefully, the six will turn into sixty, into six hundred. It’s a victory for the human spirit, the human spirit. They are from Pinterest (Chinese translation:缤趣), Google, Facebook and the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service). They reported the inside story, they lost their jobs for the public’s right to know, and it can be quite amazing to watch. I think every time someone does that, 12 or more know-it-alls come to us. We’ve become a clearinghouse for these brave insiders, these brave people.
Jacky Young: That’s very interesting. The fact that you have insiders at Salesforce, a U.S. company that provides personalized software for customer service. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like that before, so please tell me about it.
O’Keefe: Salesforce is one of the largest customer relationship management organizations (CRM) in the United States. It’s like a cloud foundation for customers, so you can store all the information about your customers, clients or donors, if you’re a foundation.
Salesforce is a public company, very big, one of the Fortune 500 companies. After January 6, a few weeks ago, Salesforce informed us that they were ending their relationship with us.
At the same time, a whistleblower within Salesforce revealed that the chief operating officer said they would suspend business with anyone who had made statements that could indirectly lead to violence. We don’t know what they mean by “could indirectly lead to violence,” but this is a river they, the tech companies, have never crossed (Crossing the Rubicon, Roman law forbids any general to bring troops across the Rubicon, Caesar broke the taboo) I think by suspending our account, they crossed a Rubicon that had never been crossed before.
We released that tape of Salesforce’s chief operating officer, whose name is Bret Taylor. We ran into him on the street and asked him, “Why did you cancel us?” So it’s scary what’s happening now, and I don’t know what’s going to happen, but it’s not good.
Jay Kay Yang: Like you said, it seems like more and more of these arbitrary rules can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Is it really just because it supposedly “makes me feel uncomfortable and could lead to violence”? Does it really lead to violence? How do we determine that? And by whom? We are entering a world where there are no surprises.
O’Keefe: It’s a clash of ideas about what the First Amendment should stand for. We can’t have proper governance if people aren’t informed, and that information (available to the public) has to not be fabricated by the mainstream media. Then, we have some lawsuits to recover damages. Now we’re suing the New York Times for defamation, as you probably know, and that’s because the New York Times called our coverage in Minnesota a disinformation campaign and said it was a lie.
The New York Times quoted a quote made up by a Stanford University researcher that I was an expert on disinformation. The New York Times ran the claim on page A, and then USA Today reprinted the New York Times, and then Facebook took the USA Today story and used it as their fact-checking mechanism. So it’s a kind of propaganda vortex. The system was manipulated to contradict the real, original information.
The tape that we recorded in Minnesota was unquestionably about cash for votes, and that guy got the whole lab. As for the New York Times calling it spreading lies, I don’t know what they mean. But because the Big Tech platform has allied itself with the NYT to manipulate the narrative, we have to fight back. The only way I know to do that is through litigation, so we are suing the New York Times and will also sue CNN.
Fidelity (Fidelity Investments), a banking institution, also told our donors that they were not allowed to give us money, so we will have to sue Fidelity. We have to get these people to testify under oath, force them to answer our questions, record these testimonies and put them on YouTube. We have to fight back, that’s the only solution.
Jay Kay Yang’s aside: We contacted Salesforce and Fidelity, but they did not respond. A New York Times spokesperson responded as follows: “We believe our reporting played an important role in examining the information provided to citizens about voting and voting fraud during the election. We look forward to defending the story in court.”
Tell the truth even if your voice trembles and will be canceled
JACKIE YOUNG: There are a lot of people, certainly at CPAC and elsewhere, who will be watching this interview and I’m sure they’ll be saying to themselves, one, I don’t want to get canceled, and two, what do I do when it comes to this? So much power concentrated in so few large companies. That’s always been a concern of ours.
O’Keefe: These are deep and practical questions, and I don’t know the answers, but I do have one answer, and that’s to tell the truth. It’s like the old cliché, even if your voice trembles, even if you’ll get canceled, tell the truth. I’m here, I’m with you, you’re interviewing me because of the work that we do. We do impactful reporting. A month ago, we did a story that resulted in the firing of a PBS lawyer who was caught on a hidden camera (saying that all the children of Trump supporters should be sent to reeducation camps). The Associated Press also did a story on it, so we have to be honest.
By the way, I don’t consider myself part of the conservative movement. I’m a fact finder. If that makes me appear conservative, so be it. Many conservatives are worried about losing their Twitter accounts. Think about how ridiculous that is! That’s like saying, “I’m worried that the New York Times won’t like me if I tell the truth.”
If they’re really worried that Twitter will kick them off the platform, then I think their fears are ridiculous. Twitter shut down one of our accounts, but that won’t stop us. Eventually, we’ll be distributing news through our agents and other people will upload our little video clips to any platform, because content is king.
So I encourage people who are asking, “What do I do?” You can donate to organizations that are doing great work, or you can subscribe to the Epoch Times, or you can go out and do journalism. There are a lot of stories that need to be told, and people are hungry for the truth because we know the mainstream media won’t do it.
My solution is to focus on finding the facts
JACKIE YOUNG: The question is, why (is) the mainstream media not doing its job to present the truth?
O’Keefe: I’ve been reading Noam Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing Consent,” which is not right-wing, by the way.
JACKIE YOUNG: I’ve actually been thinking about that book, too.
O’Keefe: Everyone should reread that book. It answers your question. There is a symbiotic relationship between the mass media and the powers that be, yet journalism has been destroyed. 25 years ago, there were investigative reporters in every state capital, and that doesn’t exist anymore because the big tech companies have drained all the revenue from the newspapers, which are now being bought by hedge funds, who have fired all the reporters, so there’s no reporting, no news reporting, just narrative, it’s all narrative.
In fact, because of the divide between audiences, facts don’t matter anymore, it’s opinion and narrative that matter, so my solution is to focus on finding the facts. The purpose of investigative reporting is to find the obviously guilty facts, the facts that shock the conscience, the facts that inspire outrage.
So 30 years ago, 40 years ago, there was journalism that exposed scandals, and now it’s gone, it doesn’t exist, and it’s against the interests of these big companies to do that kind of thing. They’d rather just appease the audience.
Dean Baquet of The New York Times (editor-in-chief of The New York Times) only wants to provide subscribers with content that they want to read and hear. So did The Washington Post, which was acquired by Jeff Bezos (founder and current chairman and CEO of Amazon.com). Marty Baron (editor-in-chief of The Washington Post) is retiring from The Washington Post. I think the solution is for citizens to take matters into their own hands. That’s what we’re trying to do at Project Truth, we’re creating a legion, an army of whistleblowers. We have six, seven, eight, nine …… right now, but this year we’ll get to 50.
JACKIE YOUNG: And of course, there are some new media outlets that are trying to tell the truth.
O’Keefe: You have some good people here, and you’re doing a great job. You’re challenging some of the most powerful people in the history of the world, so I admire that. We’re fighting an uphill battle.
Jay Kay Young: Any more thoughts? James.
O’Keefe: I’m sorry, I’m going to take this opportunity to provide our tip line
[email protected]
Do a shout out. That’s
[email protected], if you have inside information and you want to contact us, go here, right on this channel. I’ve had a lot of people say to me, “I’m a teacher,” or “My sister works at Facebook,” and people come in droves to get in touch with us.
JACKIE YOUNG: Thank you for another interview.
O’Keefe: Thank you.
Facebook always gives “exceptions and accommodations” to the left to silence conservatives
JACKIE YOUNG: We’re going to be interviewing Ryan Hartwig, who used to work for a Facebook contractor as a content moderator and has been considered a Facebook whistleblower, at the 2021 CPAC conference. The theme of the conference is “The Uncanceled America. What are you doing here at the conference?
Hartwig: I’m here to speak with the Truth Project. I was on stage with James O’Keefe and other whistleblowers on Friday afternoon (Feb. 26, 2021). It was my first time at CPAC, and as you said, “An Uncensored America,” and there couldn’t be a more appropriate theme for this year’s CPAC conference, given how outrageous we’ve seen Facebook’s censorship become.
JACKIE YOUNG: Why don’t you tell me about that? You still know a few doors about this.
Hartwig: I’ve worked for Facebook contractors for almost two years as a content moderator. I started working for Phoenix in 2018 and started out as a moderator of Spanish-language content, targeting Latin America, and a lot of that content was political. Meanwhile, about halfway through I switched regions to cover English-language content for North America.
I saw a lot of political posts and I saw Facebook giving “exceptions” (exceptions) that were basically, essentially, designed to silence conservatives and censor conservatives.
I started vetting for Facebook in 2018. I spent a year there and noticed some examples of bias. I wrote to a congressman and a couple of senators, but didn’t get a response, so I contacted the Truth Project. I offered to film with a hidden camera. They sent me a camera, and I filmed with a hidden camera for about nine months.
Jacky Yang: The filming process resulted in some very, very interesting material. Tell me about this. We also (insert video footage to show viewers) when we’re talking.
Hartwig: One example of bias that I found was CNN anchor Don Lemon. He said on air that white males are a terrorist threat, and afterwards Facebook gave us instructions as a content partner to say, “We know this violates our hate speech policy, but we’re going to treat it as a newsworthy ‘exception to the rule’ accommodation.” This is an “exception” that Facebook gave to Don Lemon. We always see “exceptions” made for the left and not for the right.
In another example, during the (LGBT) “Gay Pride Month” in June 2018, Facebook launched a new policy on “Gay Pride Month,” but in that policy they said: attacking White heterosexual men are morally bankrupt for not supporting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people, which is allowed. I took a screenshot and filmed it. Here are a few examples.
Since the beginning, during the time I worked there, whenever Trump gave a speech, like when Trump gave the State of the Union speech, Facebook told us to look for hate speech from his speech.
Another prominent example is that, also in the summer of 2018, there was a video that went viral online about an attack on a Trump supporter. A teenager was attacked in a restaurant, and the video went viral, with millions of views. Facebook told us to remove the video. The reasoning behind this is questionable. They asked to remove the video because the adult was swearing at a minor, and in many cases, profanity gets spread by news channels and things like that, so that really doesn’t make sense.
These are some examples. I’ve found over thirty examples of this kind of lie and I’m writing a book right now that will be published in a few months. It’s going to be published by Skyhorse Publishing, and it’s going to document all the “exceptions” and how the policy works, and it’s going to be a detailed analysis of Facebook’s policy.
You can find small changes to the policy, and they can change it every two weeks
JK Young: Do you consider yourself a conservative when you contract with contractors?
Hartwig: Yes, I’ve always been a conservative. From the beginning it was conservative. When I talk to my colleagues, most of them know that I’m a conservative. There were some other conservatives there, and I worked with some veterans. It was a very open environment, a very open workplace. We discussed a lot of things, a lot of issues, and things that we saw in very graphic videos.
We developed close relationships with our colleagues, so we would talk about politics. Some of us lean left, some of us lean more right, but we do what Facebook tells us to do to keep our customers happy, so we have to do what they tell us to do.
J.K. Young: I would say that your “touch” prepares you for this kind of bias in advance (of finding Facebook).
Hartwig: Yes, because I’m a conservative, I do notice the bias against conservatives. There are times when it’s very subtle, but after (working on) a policy like Facebook for two years, I can spot small changes in the policy, and they can change the policy every two weeks. But, yes, as a conservative, it does cause me to be alert to notice these small changes. It’s a small change, but if there are 1,000 content moderators, each deleting 200 posts a day, the changes really start to ramp up quickly.
Jacky Young: About a week ago, I talked to Kevin Sorbo (a conservative actor) and his Facebook page was deleted. What’s really interesting is that Fox News received a statement from Facebook saying that they had warned him that certain content was unacceptable. He didn’t take it down, so they took down that page. He didn’t even know there had been this statement. According to him, Facebook had communicated with Fox News, but he never got any communication about it.
I’ve heard the argument that Facebook said, “Yes, we’ve communicated, we’ve told people,” but people, like Kevin, countered, “No, they just took it down, I didn’t know that, or I really would have made the change.” That’s what he said. So, can you speak to that? Did you know about this?
Hartwig: I had no direct contact with clients or Facebook users. I check videos, posts and comments for Facebook and Instagram. I also deleted groups and pages at one point. For example, we would randomly select a group and check it, and if 30% of the posts were in violation, then we would take down the page or group.
I don’t see any notifications sent by us in my interface. I am not responsible for sending notifications to customers to explain the reason. What I do in this area is for a reason, and I don’t know if the reason is communicated to the user.
Facebook Global Affairs Director Clegg: No need to follow democratic procedures in the U.S.
Jacky Young: I understand. Tell me a little bit about the censorship environment in general. Obviously, you’ve been speaking publicly to large audiences and saying these things out loud. Now you’re writing a book that aims to expose censorship. What do you think is happening in a broader sense?
HARTWIG: When I was there, from 2018 until the election, I think Facebook was a little more cautious about how public they were about censorship. Now, I think they’ve gone bare-knuckle and really exposed their tactics. I don’t see things getting any better. Certainly, we’ve seen Trump suspended or even banned from Facebook and Twitter, and that’s bad. Nick Clegg, Facebook’s head of global affairs, said they don’t need to follow the democratic process in the U.S.
I see the situation getting worse and I think it’s good to have other options on social media, like Gab, MeWe and Parler. I think the free market should help us overcome this censorship, which is scary because Facebook is in cahoots with Google, Apple and Amazon, which are all very powerful companies.
People are looking for solutions, for example, do we want to reform Section 230 of the Communications Regulatory Act of 1996, or do we want to entertain antitrust suits? The Antitrust Act may be the way to dismantle these companies. Section 230 needs to be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court, and last month the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hear the case of Jason Fyk (against Facebook), but they chose not to take the case, so I think the Antitrust Act might be viable.
It’s frightening that political speech is being censored and suppressed. in 2018, (Facebook boss) Mark Zuckerberg testified that they don’t censor political speech, and I presented evidence to the contrary. I gave it to Rep. Matt Gaetz (D-CA), who filed criminal charges against Mark Zuckerberg with the Justice Department last July.
JACKIE YOUNG: Ryan Hartwig, it’s good to talk to you today.
Hartwig: Each other. Thank you!
JACKIE YOUNG, BYLINE: We reached out to Facebook, but they didn’t respond.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Statement Says Section 230 Challenge Welcome
JACKIE YOUNG: We’re here covering CPAC 2021 and are interviewing Zach Vorhies. Zach, gosh, we haven’t spoken in a while. You’ve been called a Google whistleblower, and you clearly are indeed a Google whistleblower. What are you doing now?
Vorhies: I’ve been very busy over the last year. There have been a few developments so far. First of all, in October 2020 there was a digital ethnic cleansing, or what they call the Great Purge, where (Google-owned) YouTube removed the pro-Trump video pages from its platform. It started on Oct. 15 and lasted until Nov. 3.
It’s still going on now, and it’s still slowly heating up in terms of blocking. But there was a massive purge on October 15, and people were so angry about it that everyone was thinking, “What are we going to do?” So I started a GoFundMe campaign (note: the purpose of the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe is to help people raise money to meet legitimate needs for themselves or their communities) at punchgoogle.com.
I raised $135,000 and sued YouTube to remove all pro-Trump video pages. This continues to this day. We tried to get an emergency injunction so that those pages could be restored by November 3. The judge threw it out without even hearing the evidence.
Now we are going to appeal to the 9th Circuit. Surprisingly, it is actually one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country. We’re hoping we’ll have a little bit of good luck with our appeal. Because, Clarence Thomas (note: a U.S. Supreme Court justice since 1991 and a conservative) has issued a statement saying that he welcomes a Section 230 challenge. So we’re framing our lawsuit to seize that moment, and we’ll see what happens in the next few months.
JACKIE YOUNG: It does. So, I’m wondering, what’s at the heart of this lawsuit? Why was Google not allowed to do what they did (posting pro-Trump videos) from October 15 onwards, as you described?
WALLACE: Even though they (Google and YouTube) have very onerous terms of service, they pretty much violated their own terms of service by removing these video pages. When we initially sued them we just wanted the videos back. I forget that (legal) term, the lawyers knew it. The basic purpose was for the judge to order them, “Hey, you guys are doing it wrong. You guys have to reinstate them.”
Maybe YouTube will turn around and come back and ban them again, we don’t know. But we were hoping that the channels would be reinstated by Nov. 3. Unfortunately, that apparently didn’t happen, and they’re still banned to this day. The point is that Google has no reason to remove these video sites because they are protected by Section 230.
What we are trying to prove is that this is a malicious attempt to play to some political agenda, not a reasonable (content) filter to protect them (the media platform) from some liability. They have a Section 230 liability protection clause. In this case, Section 230 is actually helping us, not hurting us.
JACKIE YOUNG: Right, because (since they are protected by Section 230) they (media outlets like YouTube) are basically not allowed to be publishers, they’re not supposed to be publishers. They’re supposed to be just a platform.
Voris: Indeed.
Book to be released on the inside of Google: ‘The Circular Prison’
Jay Kay Yang: I understand that you have started writing a book about your whole experience, is that right?
Waris: Yes, the book is called “Panopticon” (also known as Panopticon, panoramic prison), which is a way of designing a prison in which surveillance personnel can monitor any cell at all times, but the inmates don’t know when they’re going to be checked and only assume they’re being watched all the time. (not being watched, so they are effectively forced to regulate their own behavior), is about 300 pages long and will be distributed by Skyhorse Publishing. We are now in the final stages, iterating over the final draft and selecting the images we want to include. Obviously, there are a lot of slides that involve my reporting, so we’ll include the best ones that are already publicly available and give some more in-depth background on the book.
Jay Kay Yang: The slides you’re talking about, is that your whistleblower material on Google?
Voorhees: Yes, that’s all the information that has been released, and I released a whole bunch of documents. My goal in writing this book was to take selections, put them on top, describe what happened, and then write the story in more depth, not only about what I did, but how I did it.
I hope this will serve as a scaffolding for other whistleblowers (note: a metaphor for the support that helps learners climb step by step to the ultimate high point). If they see the evil in these big tech companies, I hope they will read this story and understand what I did, what worked and what didn’t, and hopefully they will do the same thing.
Jacky Young: That was a conversation we had so long ago, I don’t even remember it very well. I remember early on when you first disclosed this information, I heard the term “machine learning fairness” (note: in machine learning, algorithms are considered fair if their results are independent of individual characteristics, i.e., gender, race, or sexual orientation, disability, etc.). ), I don’t like the term that, I think it’s Orwellian, and perhaps, Orwellian describes it well. That’s the way people seem to think things are today. It’s very thought-provoking.
Waris: What do you mean by “that’s the way things are”?
J.K. Young: I mean it’s a common practice, or it’s something that everybody knows is going to happen.
Voorhees: What’s really frustrating is that censorship seems to be spreading from these different technology platforms. Amazon announced they’re going to start banning books. We’re entering an era of trying to make book bans the norm. The public can’t stand this kind of thing. We hate it. While we are outraged by censorship, where are the limits of censorship as it gets worse?
Even this campaign is called “The Uncensored America. We try to stop all the censorship and they continue to censor. We don’t know where their limits are. I wish I could come back to you a year from now and say, “Yes, 2020 and early 2021 were very bad, but then they stopped.” But I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I think they’re going to get worse.
Jay Kay Young: Let’s clarify. Tell me briefly, just to clarify for the audience, how does Machine Learning Fairness work?
Waris: Machine Learning Fairness is an artificial intelligence system that they have used to achieve the social justice goals of Google’s corporate culture. The way the classifier is trained is to take some labeled data, like articles, label some of them as fake news and some of them as not, and then put it through this neural network and let it learn from the trigger patterns that make up the fake news classifier.
Once that neural network is trained, you have a classifier – a classifier that distinguishes between fake news, a classifier that distinguishes between hate speech, a classifier that distinguishes between all kinds of different things. It’s a way to remove certain (so-called “fake news”) classifications. When such classifiers are used to promote social “justice”, they are called “machine learning fairness”.
Just need a recommendation engine that spans all these different platforms
Jacky Yang: I just read Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness of Crowds, which describes all kinds of intriguing scenarios, including this “machine learning fairness” that you can see in action on Google. machine learning fairness” that I had never heard of before. As we all surely realize, this is very real. Given this theme, how do we fight the “abolish America” dynamic?
Wallis: It’s disintegrating now. We used to have one big unified video platform, YouTube, and everybody was on it. There were recommendation engines running on that platform because everybody was on it. But the monopoly is disintegrating, and what’s happening now is that there are four major competitors: YouTube is still at the top, then Rumble, then Bit Chute, then Brighteon, in that order. There are also some others like Dlive, and those are the main four.
What the public is missing right now is a way to combine the best videos from all these different platforms and regroup them in an aggregation service. I realized a while ago that you can beat censorship with this kind of aggregation. We don’t all need to be on the same platform, we just need a recommendation engine that spans all these different platforms, pushing out the top videos and putting them on one unified page.
I told some people about this idea and got nowhere, so I decided that since I’ve been a programmer for ten years, I’d just go ahead and do the whole thing. I have a website that I don’t want to talk about in public right now, because we’re having a book launch. This aggregation is the secret weapon to defeat censorship.
What’s really interesting is what will the big tech companies do once the aggregation program starts to kick in? Will they start banning IP addresses? Will they cut off our service at the name server level? If they don’t, we’ll be able to defeat censorship and we’ll be able to move forward again as a unified collective, rather than being excluded from the Internet and unable to reorganize and reform.
JACKIE YOUNG: Zach Wallis, good to interview you again!
Voris: Thank you! Yang.
JACKIE YOUNG: Google did not respond when we asked them for comment.
Recent Comments