hoax, which it was. What did CNN, NPR, and New York Times report? They reported the hoax as true. Right now, I don't think they all used the word bleach. CNN did. They may have said injecting disinfectants, which is the same story. They just don't use the word bleach.

All right. How about, do I really need to go down the list? I don't need to go down the list anymore, right? What was the last fake story you read in Breitbart? I mean, I usually consume the news based on links that people send me. So I don't read every word of any of these publications. You know, I read the things that people say, "Hey, you should look at this." But I don't think that this characterization of hyperpartisanship could hold up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny. It's not even close to being an accurate framing of reality and it's pretty easy to prove.

You know, all you have to do is look at the hoax reporting. Who reported the most hoaxes? I don't think it's going to be close, but you know, I haven't looked into it, but I don't think it's close. And so if Facebook can decide that one site that reports the truth in terms of those hoaxes, that's the part I know about, and they can boost the ones that reported the lies and still are, how do you say that Facebook is not a publisher?

Because this is the very definition of a publishing decision. They've made a judgment call, a wrong one, a very wrong one, but you know, that's how judgment works. You don't get them all right. It's a judgment call on what content you should see. That is Section 230. That is a publisher. It's not even close to being a communication platform. We're not even in the same galaxy as being like the phone company.

When was the last time the phone company told you you couldn't make a phone call because the person you're calling was hyperpartisan? It's like, I'm sorry, we cannot connect this number. You are dialing your friend who is hyperpartisan. Let us refer you to some Democrats who are less hyperpartisan. Does the phone ever do that? I mean, I don't make many phone calls anymore because phone calls are for losers, but I feel as if that feature is not in my phone. Am I wrong about that?

And isn't the whole thing about whether they're editing content? That's the whole question, right? Why are we even talking about this? Why is this even a question? We're way beyond the fact where you can even wonder, "Huh, I wonder if they're making editorial decisions." Who is wondering that? Who is so stupid that they don't see that this is 100% publishing? It's not even slightly not publishing.

I have to admit this is, is this the first time I've talked about this topic? Maybe the first time in any detail. And the reason is I've sort of monitored this Section 230 thing and I thought to myself, well, this is more of a lawyer question because as soon as you get into these gray areas, if you're not a lawyer, the gray is just gray. And even if you are a lawye