They Want to Ban Local AI (Here's Why)
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "They Want to Ban Local AI (Here's Why)" and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-17. Its weakest claim — "Claims 'they' want policies that would jail you for 20 years for having AGI in your garage." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 33 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 33 claims analyzed: 2 scored under 40, 27 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The speaker sets up a narrative of 'them' (Anthropic, OpenAI, Elon Musk) trying to ban local AI. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:01
He's painting a picture of a shadowy 'they' and 'ridiculousness' without actually saying what the hell they're doing. — Just vibes and vague accusations. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'ridiculousness' and 'camps' to imply a nefarious plot without detailing the specific actions or proposals from Dario, Sam Altman, or Elon Musk. It's all atmosphere and no substance yet, setting up an 'us vs. them' narrative.
Original quote: “We need to pace the frontier is what we have Daario and Sam Alman out there saying. And they're proposing a new way to do this, which is incredibly creative and probably impact you. If you are watching this channel for probably the reason you're watching this channel, you like local AI. So, if you…”
Elon Musk joining the 'pace the frontier' camp is 'very, very likely' due to open-source AI competition. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
He says 'very, very likely' with zero evidence. That's not a conclusion, that's just a hunch wearing a suit. 💀
Why this score: The speaker presents a strong causal link ('very, very likely') between Elon Musk's actions and the performance of open-source AI models, but offers no specific evidence or statements from Musk or others to support this direct connection. It's an assumption stated as a near-certainty.
Original quote: “they've been joined by Elon Musk. So they want to pace the frontier. This is very very likely in response to incredible showings recently from open-source models as far as their capabilities. Serious competition.”
Claiming a 'line has been crossed' when people repeatedly say things that don't manifest. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:45
A 'line crossed' for… people making predictions? That's not a line, that's just Tuesday for mortals. 🔥
Why this score: The phrase 'a line that's been crossed' uses emotionally charged language to imply a significant transgression or ethical breach. While the speaker is referring to a common human tendency to overpromise or make unfulfilled predictions, framing it as a 'line crossed' elevates it beyond simple inaccuracy or optimism into something more sinister, without defining what that 'line' actually is.
Original quote: “it's way deeper than that. There's there's a line that's been crossed when you say something over and over and it doesn't manifest and you hope that that person on the other end doesn't notice.”
Describing the 'game of confidence' where people sell products that don't 'quite exist 100%' but engineers will get them there. — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:00
He's just describing the 'fake it till you make it' tech culture. It's a common observation, not a trick. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is describing a widely recognized and often criticized practice within the tech industry, particularly among startups and product development. This isn't a 'frame' but a common observation about how products are often marketed and sold based on future capabilities rather than current, fully realized features. It's a straightforward description of a business reality.
Original quote: “And this is a game of confidence that people play. I I've seen a lot of other creators play it. I've seen a lot of other people professionally play this. They're going to say stuff that's leading out in front. They're going to sell products that don't quite exist 100%, but they know that their…”
Highlighting the repeated, unfulfilled predictions about achieving AGI, noting 'we're clearly not at AGI'. — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:37
He's just pointing out the obvious: AGI predictions have been consistently wrong. No trick, just truth. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is making a direct and verifiable observation about the history of AGI predictions. Many prominent figures and companies have indeed made claims about AGI being 'just around the corner' for years, and it has not yet materialized in the way often described. This is a straightforward critique of past predictions, not a manipulative framing.
Original quote: “When was the first time you heard somebody say, "We're on the cusp of AGI?" Well, it's been years here for me, several years. And even we're at AGI years ago, like two years ago. We're we're clearly not at AGI. We clearly were not at AGI then.”
Challenging listeners to find instances of people walking back their AGI predictions, claiming it 'never happens'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:58
He says 'never happens' like it's a universal law, then immediately asks for examples. That's not a claim, that's a dare. 💀
Why this score: The speaker makes an absolute statement ('never happens') about people not walking back AGI predictions, then immediately asks the audience to prove him wrong. This is a rhetorical device that uses strong, confident language to make a point while simultaneously shifting the burden of proof to the audience. It's a confident assertion that lacks definitive evidence from the speaker's side.
Original quote: “Where is any of these people that have said these statements walking back these statements ever? Never happens, right? Can you can you point that out? Please point that out in the comments below.”
Demands AGI proof, then pivots to economic stakes without linking them. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
He's demanding proof of AGI, then suddenly the US and China economies are 'riding on the line.' What the hell does one have to do with the other? 💀
Why this score: The speaker challenges anyone to 'show us AGI right now,' implying its non-existence. Immediately after, he claims 'a lot of money' and 'economies riding on the line' without establishing how the current lack of AGI (or its existence) directly impacts these economies in the way he suggests. It's a leap from a technical challenge to a dire economic warning, missing the connective tissue.
Original quote: “And yet, we're clearly not at AGI today, right now, this moment. Show me it. Challenge to you, anybody, I any CEO out there, show us AGI right now, today. Put your model where your mouth is. We have AGI. Show us AGI. You don't have to give us AGI. Show us AGI right now. A lot of money riding on the…”
Frames his perspective as 'pragmatic realist' to lend unearned weight to his coming argument. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:01
Calling himself a 'pragmatic realist' before making his point. That's not a description, it's a pre-emptive defense. 😈
Why this score: The speaker labels himself a 'pragmatic realist' right before introducing his main argument. This is a classic rhetorical move to imbue his upcoming statements with an aura of grounded, sensible truth, rather than letting the argument stand on its own merits. It's an attempt to control perception before the facts are even laid out.
Original quote: “If you start thinking about this, it starts to make a lot of sense just from a pragmatic realist viewpoint. I'm kind of a little bit of a pragmatic realist myself. And what's there on the other side of it? Not, hey, by the way, we don't have AGI. Not that. Instead,”
Cites 'Rune on X' as an authority for the 'incident' claim, then dismisses it as not making sense. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 3:15
He cites 'Rune on X' as proof of an impending 'incident,' then immediately says it 'doesn't make sense.' Pick a lane, mortal. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker references 'Rune on X' as a source for the idea that 'there's going to be an incident' if AI isn't 'paced.' This is a vague, low-authority citation for a significant claim. He then immediately undermines it by saying 'this just doesn't make sense,' creating a confusing narrative where he presents a claim, attributes it to a weak source, and then questions its logic, leaving the audience to wonder what he actually believes.
Original quote: “we have to pace the frontier. So, Open AI anthropic talking about pacing the frontier. We have to pace the frontier because it's becoming clear there's going to be an incident. And boy, you're going to look back at it and think, "Hey, we should have paced the frontier earlier." I mean, you've got…”
States a personal 'feeling' about LLM limits as if it's an established fact. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:57
He says 'I have a feeling' about the limits of LLMs, then presents it like a scientific conclusion. Your feelings aren't data. 💀
Why this score: The speaker prefaces his statement about the limitations of LLMs with 'I have a feeling,' which is a subjective, personal opinion. However, he then presents the idea that 'there's only so far we're ever going to get with just straight up LLMs' and that current advancements 'yet it's still not AGI' as if these are objective, widely accepted truths rather than his personal conjecture. This is a mismatch between the confidence of the delivery and the basis of the claim.
Original quote: “I have a I have a feeling that there's only so far we're ever going to get with just straight up LLMs. And we've gotten a lot of additional mileage with aentic harnesses being really capable, really helping push things, but yet it's still not AGI. Certainly not super intelligence.”
Accuses OpenAI of holding back advanced AI from customers, implying deception. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:43
He's certain OpenAI is hiding advanced tech, but offers zero proof. Just a gut feeling dressed as fact. 💀
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that OpenAI is 'working on stuff that's ahead of what you're giving your customers' without providing any evidence or specific examples. This is a common tactic to sow distrust by implying a hidden agenda, relying on the audience's existing skepticism rather than actual data.
Original quote: “Like, okay, we know you guys are working on stuff that's ahead of what you're giving your customers. You're saying you need to paste the frontier. So like describe for your customers. I'm not a customer. I use this local models, local rig.”
Dismisses 'Garage AGI' as a joke, then pivots to customer impact without connecting the two. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:18
He admits his 'Garage AGI' was a joke, then immediately pivots to 'what does this mean for your customers?' — a classic rhetorical swerve. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes a self-deprecating joke about 'Garage AGI' not happening, which is a personal admission. However, he immediately shifts to a serious question about the impact on customers without any clear logical bridge. It's a conversational pivot, not a claim, but it highlights a common way to transition from a lighthearted moment to a more serious, speculative point.
Original quote: “But, you know, at the end of the day, that was a joke. And I can humbly admit Garage AGI is probably not happening. But, but like, what does this mean for your customers?”
References 'Sabine' claiming people pay for influence, then immediately denies being sponsored. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 5:43
He brings up 'Sabine' talking about paid influence, then immediately jumps to 'not sponsored.' That's not a coincidence, it's a preemptive defense. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker introduces a vague reference to 'Sabine' discussing people paying for influence, which is a loaded topic designed to raise suspicion. Immediately after, he explicitly states 'not sponsored. Nobody pays me.' This creates a subtle but clear implication that he is different from those who take money for influence, positioning himself as an unbiased voice without directly stating it. It's a classic 'virtue signaling' move.
Original quote: “I mean, I'm not even going to get into the fact that just like this last week, we had Sabine talking about, "Hey, by the way, people are trying to essentially pay for influence. By the way,”
Claims 'they' want control through AI pacing, implying global reach without evidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:18
He declares 'they' want control and it won't stop at the US border. Bold claim, zero evidence for that global reach. 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts with absolute certainty that 'them pacing is something that they want to have basically control' and that 'control stops in the United States? No.' This is a confident, sweeping statement about a global conspiracy for control, but it's presented without any supporting evidence or specific examples of this control extending beyond the US. It's an appeal to fear and a common tactic to amplify the perceived threat.
Original quote: “because them pacing is something that they want to have basically control. You think that control stops in the United States? No.”
Claims 'they' want to slow AI because China is catching up, not because of competition. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:31
He's presenting a specific reason for 'them' wanting to slow AI, but 'they' are undefined and the motivations are speculative. — It's a convenient narrative.
Why this score: The speaker attributes a specific, self-serving motive to an unnamed 'they' regarding AI development and China. This frames the situation as a deliberate, almost conspiratorial move, rather than a complex issue with multiple potential drivers like ethical concerns, safety, or economic shifts. Without identifying 'they' or providing evidence for their specific motivations, it's just a story.
Original quote: “It's really good competition. They're facing the capabilities of Quinn 3.827B at FB16. It is something that anybody can do and it's great. It gives you a lot of additional capabilities. A real competitor don't have to have a subscription. Are they are they are they threatened by the Chinese? No,…”
Claims US chip export bans 'backfired huge' and China built 'very good technologies' rapidly. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 7:27
He's certain the chip bans 'backfired huge' and China's tech is 'very good' without showing any actual data. — That's not a fact, that's a feeling. 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts with high confidence that US chip export bans 'backfired huge' and that China has developed 'very good technologies' in 'rapid time' as a direct result. While China is indeed investing heavily in domestic chip production, the extent of the 'backfire' and the current competitive quality of their self-sufficient tech are complex, ongoing debates with mixed evidence. Presenting it as a definitive, negative outcome for the US without specific metrics or comparisons is a leap.
Original quote: “There's a necessity that the Chinese have being chip constrained that we now are already see seeing like manifest. I mean Nvidia wasn't able to sell to them. Chip exports backfired huge and they've learned to build in rapid time very good technologies to compete with it.”
Suggests China's robotics are 'possibly even ahead' and will be in homes first, with 'huge ramifications'. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 7:50
He's using 'possibly ahead' and 'huge ramifications' to stir up fear about China's robotics. — It's all about the 'what if' to push a narrative. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses speculative language ('possibly even ahead,' 'might be the first') combined with a strong warning about 'huge ramifications' to create a sense of urgency and potential threat regarding China's advancements in robotics. This taps into anxieties about technological dominance and national security, framing the situation as a critical misstep by 'us' without providing concrete evidence of China's current lead or the specific negative outcomes.
Original quote: “the robotics is possibly even ahead of where we're at right now. Robotics might be the first application that your average normal person gets in their household. Possibly more important than most other things. Picking bad battles, listening to bad advice, and doing the wrong thing at the wrong time…”
Claims 'they' want policies that would jail you for 20 years for having AGI in your garage. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:15
He's exaggerating a hypothetical scenario to make 'their' supposed policies sound absurdly draconian. — Nobody's actually proposing that. 😈
Why this score: The speaker creates an extreme, almost cartoonish scenario ('AGI in your garage, buddy. 20 years in the clink') to represent the 'policies they want.' This is a classic straw man: he's inventing an easily attackable, exaggerated version of potential AI regulation to discredit any efforts to control open-source models. No credible policy proposals suggest jailing individuals for simply possessing AGI in their homes, especially given the current definition and accessibility of AGI.
Original quote: “Just like if pausing the frontier, by the way, we also need to pause any open source models. You get AGI in your garage, buddy. 20 years in the clink. That's the policies they want. That's”
Speaker claims 'they' want policies for control and dangerous thoughts. Loaded language to create fear. 😈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
He's using 'dangerous thought' and 'control' to paint a picture without saying who 'they' are or what specific policies. Classic fear-mongering. 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged terms like 'dangerous thought' and 'control' without specifying the actors ('they') or the actual policies. This creates an atmosphere of vague threat, pushing an emotional button rather than presenting concrete facts or arguments. It's designed to evoke a strong negative reaction without providing verifiable details.
Original quote: “That's the policies they want. That's the control they want. That's exactly the kind of dangerous thought to you that they want to have happen. Yeah. Because that works out for them very well. That maintains control for a little bit longer.”
Claims attempts to regulate AI every 1-3 months to centralize control in the US. Confidence without specific evidence. 🚩 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:33
He's stating a precise frequency for regulation attempts, but offers no source for this 'every 1-3 months' claim. That's not a pattern, that's a guess. 😈
Why this score: The speaker asserts a specific, recurring timeline ('every month, two months, 3 months, 3 months max') for attempts to regulate and centralize AI in the United States. While there are ongoing discussions about AI regulation, the claim of such a precise, frequent, and consistent pattern of attempts lacks specific evidence or cited sources. It's presented with certainty that isn't backed by public information, making it a confidence mismatch.
Original quote: “Every every month, two months, 3 months, 3 months max, we're going to try again to regulate local AI and all AI so we control it and centralize it in the United States.”
Implies Sam Altman and Dario Amodei are unilaterally deciding AI access. Missing context on their actual roles. 💀 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:52
He's painting them as the sole gatekeepers of AI access. They're influential, sure, but not absolute dictators of the entire field. That's a bit much. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker frames Sam Altman (OpenAI) and Dario Amodei (Anthropic) as 'the leaders of the frontier making decisions for you' regarding AI access. While both are highly influential figures in leading AI companies, this statement oversimplifies the complex landscape of AI development and regulation. It omits the roles of governments, other companies, open-source communities, and research institutions, implying a level of centralized control that doesn't fully reflect reality. They are not the sole arbiters of who 'can have access' or 'can't have access' to all AI.
Original quote: “Sam Alman Dario, the leaders of the frontier making decisions for you. You can have access, you can't have access and a lot of people would say you don't have to worry about it.”
AI won't spontaneously threaten you — a confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
He says AI won't turn itself on and threaten you, like that's the only concern. It's a straw man of the actual fear. 💀
Why this score: The speaker dismisses the idea of AI spontaneously threatening humans, framing it as an absurd, simplistic fear. This ignores the more nuanced concerns about AI autonomy, unintended consequences, or malicious programming, which are the actual points of contention. It's a misdirection from the real debate.
Original quote: “machine isn't going to turn itself on and be like, "Hey, by the way, coming for you tomorrow." It's just not going to do it. Turn this machine on, sat down at the terminal.”
Claims AI has 'zero' autonomy, then pivots to 'free AI' for normal people — a volume game. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 10:41
He says AI has 'zero' initiative, then immediately pivots to 'free AI' for 'normal people.' One claim is about capability, the other about cost. He's just throwing words out there. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive, unproven claim about AI's lack of autonomy ('zero' initiative), then quickly shifts to promoting 'free AI' for 'normal people.' This is a classic volume game: make a bold, unverified statement, then immediately move to a different, more palatable topic before anyone can question the first. It's a distraction, not a coherent argument.
Original quote: “number of times that it's done something without a cron job or me asking it to just on its own. It took the initiative and decided I'm going to actually send the human a message without a cron job telling me to do it without him prompting me somehow to do it zero because that's the reality. Show us…”
20 years for local AI, then asks if China would agree — a false dilemma. 💀 — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 12:30
He throws out '20 years' for local AI, then immediately asks if China would ever 'pace the frontier.' Like those are the only two options. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker presents a hypothetical extreme (20 years for local AI) and then immediately contrasts it with a rhetorical question about China's actions, implying a false choice between extreme regulation and unfettered progress. This ignores any middle ground or nuanced policy approaches.
Original quote: “Instead, you could be looking at 20 years for having your own local AI if it crosses some arbitrary threshold yet to be named. Do They pace the frontier here. Like, do you think the Chinese are going to say, "Yes, of course. Let's pace the frontier."”
Suggests 20 years for local AI, then questions if other nations would follow arbitrary rules. It's a hypothetical scare tactic. 💀 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 12:30
He's throwing out '20 years' and 'arbitrary thresholds' like they're facts, then using China as a rhetorical shield. Pure fear-mongering. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses a hypothetical, extreme penalty ('20 years for local AI') and then immediately questions its feasibility by invoking China's competitive stance. This creates an emotional appeal (fear of harsh regulation, fear of falling behind competitors) without presenting any concrete evidence of such a law or its specific parameters. It's a classic 'what if' scenario designed to provoke a reaction.
Original quote: “Instead, you could be looking at 20 years for having your own local AI if it crosses some arbitrary threshold yet to be named. Do They pace the frontier here. Like, do you think the Chinese are going to say, "Yes, of course. Let's pace the frontier."”
Declares private AI progression as 'real reality' without evidence. That's just confidence, not proof. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 13:02
He's stating 'real reality' like he's got a crystal ball for Anthropic and OpenAI's private plans. Bold. Stupid, but bold. 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts with absolute certainty ('The real reality is that's not going to happen') that major AI companies will continue to progress privately, implying they will circumvent any public pacing efforts. This is presented as an undeniable fact, yet it's a speculative claim about future corporate behavior and regulatory evasion, lacking any specific evidence or insider information to back up such a definitive statement.
Original quote: “No. The real reality is that's not going to happen in the United States either. That's not going to happen in anthropic and open AI. They're going to continue progressing privately.”
Declares private AI progress is 'real reality' without evidence. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 13:02
He says 'real reality' like he's got the inside scoop on Anthropic and OpenAI's private plans. Pure vibes, zero receipts. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker asserts with absolute certainty that major AI companies will 'continue progressing privately,' presenting this as 'the real reality' without offering any specific evidence, internal knowledge, or publicly available information to back this claim. It's a confident declaration without substantiation.
Original quote: “No. The real reality is that's not going to happen in the United States either. That's not going to happen in anthropic and open AI. They're going to continue progressing privately.”
Connects data center builds and money changing hands to AGI's arrival. It's a leap of faith, not a logical step. 🚩 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 13:32
He's linking data center construction and 'big bucks' directly to AGI's imminent arrival. That's not a prediction, it's a wish. 😈
Why this score: The speaker confidently predicts that by 2027, data centers will be built, 'big bucks' will change hands, and this will somehow directly lead to the arrival of AGI. While data centers are crucial infrastructure for AI development, the leap from infrastructure and investment to the guaranteed, imminent arrival of AGI is a significant speculative jump, presented with unearned certainty. It conflates necessary conditions with sufficient conditions for a complex technological breakthrough.
Original quote: “there there's a point in time coming here where data centers get built. This is like 2027. Data centers are built. They have to move into data centers. Big bucks got to change hands soon right? Like seriously, where's the AGI? Because boy, people will be people will be there for that.”
Predicts 2027 data center build-out and 'big bucks' changing hands. 💰 — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:32
He's just talking about the inevitable infrastructure build-out for AI. That's not a trick, just a prediction. 🤷
Why this score: The speaker is making a forward-looking statement about the expected development of data centers by 2027 and the financial transactions involved. This is a reasonable projection given the current trajectory of AI development and infrastructure needs, and it's presented without manipulative framing.
Original quote: “there there's a point in time coming here where data centers get built. This is like 2027. Data centers are built. They have to move into data centers. Big bucks got to change hands soon right?”
Asks 'where's the AGI?' using public anticipation as a lever. 🙄 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 13:46
He's tapping into the public's hype for AGI, like that's proof of anything. It's just a collective wish. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses the widespread anticipation and excitement for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) as a rhetorical device. By asking 'where's the AGI?' and emphasizing that 'people will be there for that,' he's leveraging a collective desire to add weight to his underlying critique of current AI progress or policy, rather than presenting a factual claim.
Original quote: “Like seriously, where's the AGI? Because boy, people will be people will be there for that. People will be there for that.”
Urging viewers to contact representatives — a call to political action. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:32
He's just telling people to call their reps. Standard political advice, nothing tricky here. 😈
Why this score: This is a direct call to action, encouraging viewers to engage with their political representatives. It's a straightforward suggestion, not a deceptive framing technique.
Original quote: “talk to your friends, talk to those that will listen. Not a bad time to make calls.”
Claiming 'regulatory capture' will lead to local AI being 'outlawed.' — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:48
He's declaring 'regulatory capture' as a done deal and 'outlawed' as the inevitable outcome. That's a leap from speculation to certainty. 💀
Why this score: The speaker presents 'regulatory capture' and the subsequent outlawing of local AI as a foregone conclusion. While regulatory capture is a known concept, predicting its specific outcome with such certainty, especially 'outlawed,' without presenting any concrete evidence or legislative proposals, is a significant confidence mismatch. It's presented as fact, not a potential scenario.
Original quote: “And there is bigger push. always bigger push because regulatory capture paching at least for a little while and then it's going to have to be outlawed.”
Suggesting open-source AI will move outside the US due to potential enforcement. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:02
He's saying 'the best' open source 'wouldn't be' in the US, then hedging with 'potentially could be.' Pick a lane, mortal. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive statement about the future location of open-source AI ('the best open source wouldn't be inside the United States') based on a speculative enforcement action ('potentially could be something they try to enforce'). This shifts from a strong prediction to a softer possibility, creating a confidence mismatch. The initial strong claim isn't supported by the subsequent hedging.
Original quote: “So the best open source wouldn't be inside the United States. It's going to be hard to enforce, but it potentially could be something they try to enforce.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →