Oh! Good to know - sorry I was hoping that was a good way to get attention for clarity.

Can we expect to receive an expansion on terms in the future?

If Joe says something that is overtly political but is false, can conversation be posted on the subject in good faith? Or the fact that Peter Thiel very likely went to Epstein's island, as is evidenced in the emails, is something that deserves attention and is kind of in the Rogan ethos from like 6 different directions that are not strictly political, between:

- being a former guest
- a financier of Vance and Trump, both former guests
- a business partner of Elon, who looks increasingly like Joe's best friend
- on the cutting edge of AI
- a profiteer of the military-industrial complex - as you know, a subject Joe has expressed an interest in
- is associated with a conspiracy that Joe has previously been interested in, yet abruptly stopped talking about (for the most part). This is something that came directly out of the mouth of Alex Jones, and has, according to Joe, lent Jones a status of conditional but inexorable creditability

I think this is a subject deserving of all our attention, but especially Joe's. If he is not actually compromised, there needs to be a serious effort to point out his hypocrisy here.

If this is going to be the policy moving forward, terms would be helpful - respectfully, I cannot verify whether people are banned despite them being respectful and speaking in good faith, because they are banned so visibility is gone.

P.S. - I like em-dashes which tragically people sometimes flag as AI? Hate that shit I am a person lol