Hey everyone, Nathan DeRovell Janss here. If you liked this video, be sure to drop a like, subscribe for more content. Be sure to enter our Nintendo Switch Super Smash Bros Ultimate giveaway as well through the glean that I linked down in the description now. First off, I want to apologize to anyone that I might be about to offend. I want to apologize in general to just my fans because I usually don't cover topics like this, but I got to be completely honest. I'm getting really really tired of seeing some of this stuff and I'm gonna be talking about outrage culture. Now, I am well aware that there is a lot of wrong going on in the world and maybe I'm the person who should least talk about it. I am a straight white privileged male.  I had a nice family. I had a nice life growing up. I have a nice life right now. I'm literally a YouTuber trying to live his dream here. I have my own house. I have my own studio built. I have children who I would argue are probably also privileged to live the life they're living and I understand that my perspective on life is not going to be the same as someone who has been demoralized their whole life who has been told they're not good enough because of the color of their skin, who's been told they're not good enough because of the religion or the race or have been demoralized because of whatever gender they happen to be or whatever gender they're choosing to be.  I can't relate directly to anyone who is obviously a different color skin than I am. I'm a different ethnic background than me. And likewise, I would argue a lot of them also can't relate to me. So I go into this with the understanding that everyone is different and it's impossible for me to relate to people that go through different struggles and deal with different things in life than I do. Likewise, I don't expect them to understand any of my own struggles or any of the things I go through. This isn't to say that woe is me and that I'm living a worse life than other people. This is just me pointing out that they can't understand my life and I can't understand theirs and we'll never completely see eye-to-eye on things because we grew up differently. That's just the way the world works. But I can agree in many ways that there's a lot wrong in this world, that there is a lot of racism. There is a lot of bigotry. There is a lot of sexism. There is a lot of people not being very accepting of those that, you know, are transgender or something like that. I understand that this is a problem. I don't feel it's a problem personally with me, but it is a problem in general in society and definitely in the video game sphere. But I also think that there is a lack of understanding of how other people grew up, a lack of understanding of why people might feel the way they feel. And I think that it's leading to a lot of outrage. And I am getting kind of sick of the outrage culture because what it is showing to me isn't that there is not messed up things said and done by different people. I'm sure I've said messed up things in the past that people didn't do it. It's that people feel like no one can grow from their mistakes. No one's able to learn, right? There's no more learning, forgiving, allowing a person to potentially get better from their mistakes. No, all of it is. No, you made a mistake. Oh, you've made some repeated mistakes. It's impossible for you to mean anything you say about being sorry about it or any of this. We just have to be angry. It's all your fault.  Like that's that's totally PewDiePie's fault, right? Like it it's it's frustrating to see the outrage culture that exists in the video game sphere. And there's two reasons I'm talking about this. And one of them actually has at least some relation to Nintendo because Ronda Rousey is one of the voice actors in Mortal Kombat 11 for a semi-popular character. And Kotaku put up an article on it here that we're going to just briefly skim through. And I'm going to explain why I have a problem with articles like this and why I have a problem with another particular situation that takes place at a place that is far worse than I realized. And I probably am burning every single bridge I had at that outlet that I'm about to talk about.  And it's going to keep popping up. It's not going anywhere. We're in 2019 and this stuff's getting worse and worse and worse. And no, folks, I'm not some like staunch Republican over here or staunch liberal. I wouldn't call myself a centrist. I probably mean a lean more left than I do right. But it still doesn't matter. There's a reason we haven't talked about this stuff because it is controversial. But I don't care. I need to say something. It's been long enough. So let's get into this Kotaku article about Ronda Rousey being in Mortal Kombat 11. Right off the bat, you could tell there's obviously a strong hatred towards Ronda Rousey just in the title.  And I'm going to warn right now we're going to be going over some topics that some people might find uncomfortable and I understand if that makes you want to unsubscribe. But this needs to be talked about because this is this is happening. This is a Kotaku and it's happening at another outlet too. But so it says Ronda Rousey trail. UFC Hall of Famer and WWE star forgot a couple of her accomplishments. She shared an inflammatory conspiracy video about the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre to her millions of Twitter followers. She did. She did share a conspiracy video and she, you know, did have issues with the transgender MMA fighter, Fallon Fox, not an issue with her being transgender. That wasn't what Ronda Rousey had a problem with. Ronda Rousey's problem was trying to have a fair and competitive balance in the women's division and questioning whether or not someone who is transgender really equals a fair and balanced. You know, it's, it's, we'll get into it. It's explained a little bit further here. So it says, you know, so that the Sandy Hook massacre thing will go over that as well.  I can't even say it and outright. Ask the nine comments about transgender MMA fighter, Fallon Fox. Again, I'll get into that in a bit. And as a Mortal Kombat 11, she's the voice of an iconic character, Sonya Blade. Let's take a moment to consider how messed up that is. First off, I mean, we all know why she's the voice of Sonya Blade. It's marketing, right? Even though Ronda Rousey isn't as relevant as she once was. At the time that she was picked for the part, she was probably still undefeated in the UFC and one of the biggest stars in the UFC and all that jazz. So like she was picked for marketing purposes. But whatever, let's let's continue because we are living in a different world today than I grew up in a lot of things I said, a lot of dumb things I said in the past, a lot of dumb things I believed in the past. Aren't on the internet for everyone to consume. I basically grew up right before social media started like Facebook. Like the Myspace was a thing, but it wasn't really like this thing. You update all the time. A lot of people just use it to listen to music questionably if it was legal or not. And then Facebook came around for me in about 2005. So I didn't grow up as a younger person with social media. And that's why even to this day, I don't feel the need to have to constantly use social media and share every aspect about my life. And that's important to know because today kids are more likely to anything they believe at the time to spout it off on the internet. And it can come back to bite them a decade or two later, even if they no longer believe in those stupid remarks.  Because as you gain more knowledge, you obviously gain more sense of the world and sense of your place in it. Anyway, so it goes in 2013. Rousey shared a conspiracy video regarding the 20th Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that claimed 26 lives, including 20 children. She did. She actually did share that conspiracy video.  I have watched conspiracy videos on the Sandy Hook shooting as well. In fact, I've watched conspiracy videos on a lot of different things. The reason that I watched conspiracy videos seems to be the same reason that Ronda Rousey did. Now, whether or not she should have been more responsible in sharing that, especially to be sensitive to the families at the time, that is a debate. But I do think that she didn't mean anything bad by it, per se. And the reason I say that is because the same reason I watch it is you want to try to gather as much information as you can. News stations have been caught lying to you. Fox News, CNN and the rest have been caught lying in the past.  But what is interesting when you watch some of these conspiracy videos is they might bring up some facts of the situation that are being ignored by the news. And that is why I watch the videos, because I feel like you can glean some information from those videos. Obviously, people are going to believe the theories at times. I don't I don't necessarily believe them all the time. But I still think it's important to just kind of broaden your mind and gather as much facts about a situation you really care about instead of just getting all your information from one outlet. As an example, regardless of what I report on about Nintendo from this channel, you should be fact checking me. You should be checking my sources. You should be checking other YouTubers out. Don't just get your information from me. Get it from other people. I encourage you to do it. Expand your knowledge because I don't know everything and I do get things wrong. So I always encourage people to to do that. I got things wrong about the master system and the mega drive in a recent video. So like do your research like it's OK to get information from multiple places. And it's OK for Ronda Rousey to watch a conspiracy video to try to glean more information about a given situation. A situation, by the way, she never actually stated that that was what happened. She decided kind of makes you think, which it does conspiracy videos do make you think. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But because of how many followers you have, there is something that, you know, maybe subconsciously should be like, should I put this out there? The family is going to be hurt by this. That is something that maybe should have crossed her mind, but whatever. So again, I'm not saying that it was wasn't a mistake to post that video to her Twitter, but I also don't think it makes her a piece of crap for doing it. Right. It'd be different if she came out and said, I fully believe this to check it out. Like she that's how she acted. So as it goes on, people called her out about it and she said, I just figured asking questions and doing research is more patriotic than blindly accepting what you're told. Again, I agree with that stance. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking asking questions and trying to get more information. That's a lot different than saying, oh, Sandy Hook was by the government. Like, no, it's a hey, look, I'm just trying to get more information on this topic. We shouldn't just believe everything we're told. How many times have you been told not to believe everything you see on the Internet? You should believe everything you see on cable TV, either. Let me tell you, moving on. And then it says the following day she made another sweet saying she never meant to insult or hurt anyone, which she probably didn't. And that's where the hindsight comes in. Hindsight is 2020. Maybe I should put that out there because it could have hurt some of the families. So, yeah, like, but again, she says that she's sorry. She's a sorry, sorry for anyone who's offended.  Sure, but it's also possible she posted it, not thinking it was going to be a big deal in her ignorance, thinking that it wasn't going to be a big deal. It's not a big deal that she watched it, but it is kind of a big deal that she spread it on her Twitter, not to draw attention to the theory, per se, but to possibly have some people from the Sandy Hook situation who might be your fans come across that video from one of their favorite role models and then kind of be like, are you serious? Like, we're having a hard time with this as is, blah, blah, blah. So like, I get it, she shouldn't have posted it. But I don't think she should be crucified over that, right? I don't think that incident is that big a deal. How many of us make mistakes like that all the time and retweet a fake rumor for crying out loud that can be damaging to people?  It should have been called out. It was called out. And you notice how she hasn't posted anything like that since. Hmm. Is it possible she learned from her mistake? I'm just throwing that out there. It seems to me round her out as he learned a lesson, but we can't forgive her for it, right? It's impossible for us to move beyond that and let her move on with her career. We have to keep calling her out for Mortal Kombat 11.  What is anyone supposed to say?  So then it takes her comments regarding Fallen Fox. Now, this one is interesting because her comments didn't seem like she was against transgender, but she worries about competition. OK, which, again, she isn't she was in a competitive sport. And I think worries about this are legit, just like people who worry about people taking steroids and do they have an advantage? Right. So she said. So it goes on to say, you know, Fox is the first openly transgender MMA fighter in the sports history. She did undergo a sex change reassignment surgery in 2006, but received pushback against the idea that she could fight against other women. USC President Dana White stated that he didn't believe Fox should be allowed to fight other women. So again, the president of the UFC that she was part of basically said that, you know, that it's probably not fair because she grew up with male hormones. And because of that, she has a better bone structure, better muscle structure because factually, men generally have better structure than women. When it comes to that kind of stuff, because testosterone helps build muscle mass way better than estrogen does. It's just a fact. So again, I can understand Dana White's stance on that. It's a it's a it's a very tricky thing to dance around because, yes, she's a woman now, but but she wasn't always a woman.  That is, I think, a legit question.  So again, I think it's a legit question. But again, this isn't about Dana White. It's just brought up as kind of background into the fact that, you know what, this is actually good by this author that, hey, you know what? Her stance isn't unique. Dana White, the president of the UFC agrees that, like, yeah, it might not be fair. So it says former NFL defensive back and MMA fighter, Matt Matrone called Fox a lying six.  Now, I don't know why this is brought up. Again, trying to create outrage culture, like MMA fighter, Matt Mitreone has nothing to do with Ronda Rousey. I want it again, outrage, bringing up something completely irrelevant to what you're talking about. As if that's what Ronda Rousey is saying.  Ronda Rousey didn't say any of that. Here's what Ronda Rousey says. Ronda Rousey declined to fight Fox, insisting that her fellow fighter would have a physical advantage in the ring. She can try hormones. She could chop her pecker off, but it still doesn't same. But it's still the same bone structure a man has. That's like literally scientifically true. She's stating scientific facts. But that's the same as calling him sick, sociopathic, and a disgusting freak, the words that Ronda Rousey never said. It's an advantage and I don't think it's fair. She also commented that she was glad that USC didn't straight cut Mitreone for his comments. So again, that's the part where you can maybe get on Rousey because she's like, look, you know, that they didn't straight cut Mitreone for his comments. I don't think that someone having bigoted sexist comments like that means that they should no longer have a career, especially if it doesn't have anything to do necessarily with their career. They should be reprimanded. They should be maybe fined. They should maybe sideline for a while. They should be maybe made to take a class or a course. But I don't necessarily think that, you know, someone saying that when I hear someone like Matt Mitreone saying lying sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak, I think that's someone who needs to be educated. And a lot of people look at that, especially the people who are transphobic or are not trans, who are who are trans, basically, are going to say, hey, look, this is we deal with this crap all the time. And that's not right. But the only way to combat that is education.  You got to remember, even even the gay movement, like it's it's new for a lot of people. I didn't grow up in a town that had a lot of trans people, a lot of gay people. So like, even for me, when I'm around it, sometimes it feels a little strange because I've not grown up around it. Someday I'm hoping it doesn't feel strange. But that's the thing. I didn't grow up around it. And so there's a lack of education on this stuff. And nobody seems to be understanding of that. People grow up a certain way and with certain beliefs. And there's no understanding of that method and how it might not even be their fault. That's just the way they were raised. They were raised that changing your sex is wrong. I don't I don't agree with that, but I still think it is something to be talked about and discussed. Not something we have to hate on somebody for saying, hey, I'm glad that the person wasn't straight cut from from MMA. Like, OK, anyways, getting back into the article, make the stars that Rhonda got the pronouns right, I guess. Again, insulting Rhonda Rousey for basically saying that, hey, she stated a bunch of medical facts that she doesn't think it's fair because the bone structure and everything is the same as it was when she was a man. It's a fair point to be made. I don't think there's anything wrong with that stance. You can disagree and I'm not going to fault you for disagreeing. But she stated a medical a medical fact. And that's why she's not comfortable fighting her. OK, cool. Why can't we just let people not be comfortable sometimes? It's OK to be uncomfortable. But we're telling people it's not OK to be uncomfortable. Really? So I didn't write anything sooner because I thought that maybe I would have to be the one writing this as this piece was in the middle of being edited. I've been writing this for over the course of two days. My peer, Daniel Redknoe, at Waypoint, published an article about Rousey's involvement, which is heartening. Still, I wish it didn't have to be queer folks speaking up. Where are our allies in this? You know what I want to do? Play Mortal Kombat 11, but I would have to be wild to consider it. I'm not obligated to let bygones be bygones. And I'm just not going to. Rousey's presence in Mortal Kombat 11 is unacceptable. Sonya could have been played by any number of capable actresses, but instead, another realm stunk casted someone whose very presence makes many of my friends feel completely uncomfortable playing Mortal Kombat 11. So I'm going to kind of end the article there. I just want to note that, again, I cannot relate to the queer community. I cannot relate to the trans community. I cannot relate to you at all. But what I can say, if you are part of that community and please try to hear me out. That when you don't grow up in that community, which Ronda Rousey did not, you don't understand what it's like to be us. And growing up in a largely straight. You know, where everyone stays the gender they were born with kind of community, which is what a majority of us grew up in. Well, at least a majority of people like me, the white privileged or whatever you want to call us.  You know, sex before marriage is wrong. This is wrong. The sin, it's this and it was beat into your head for 20 plus years. You need to start understanding why these stances exist and not always blame the people, but try to educate them. OK, Ronda Rousey has not said anything like these two things that were brought up since she said the original remarks. You want to know why she was educated on it after she said that stuff. People came and educated her. Why can we not forgive that? Why are we unable to forgive these transgressions? Why do we have to still be raging about this stuff years later? Ronda Rousey is not even an MMA fighter anymore. Heck, she's not even in the WWE. She's pregnant and having a kid and she might never fight again. Why do we need to be angry at her still? She didn't come over and kick your dog.  She didn't even say she hates people who are trans. She did. She said nothing that was sexist in any of her remarks. But we have to be mad about it because of her beliefs. Because she doesn't believe it's fair competition when scientifically it's not fair. We have to be mad at her belief that we should not just get all your information from one source and should consider all possibilities. We should be mad about that. Yes, she made mistakes. But I firmly believe she's learning and growing from them because she hasn't repeated those mistakes. This isn't a repeat offender, okay? This isn't someone like we're going to be talking about next who is a repeat offender. But still kind of goes into the whole rage culture thing. So let's dive into the next piece and we're talking about Andrea Renee and Greg Miller. Two of the people I respect most in this industry. Kind of funny games. Andrea Renee does a whole bunch of other stuff as well. Greg Miller is known for kind of funny games, kind of funny, you know, all that stuff. So I used to be a former employee at IGN. Let's look at what he has going on and what the rage culture is over those two people right now as they are at I think a Borderlands event or something right now. So here's the rage and it comes from not only the reset era, a place that I've been banned from from simply saying that I don't think we should just be angry at everyone all the time. Here you go. All right. So this is posted by Webguns. I don't know who it is, but they put up this kind of funny games thing, this Minecraft drama video. And it's an hour long podcast style video that they do, you know, they're kind of funny games daily video. And Andrea Renee and Greg Miller had a chat and they talked about two specific things. Notch, the person who created and founded Minecraft, who's a billionaire now, after he sold it to Microsoft. And then they talk about PewDiePie.  All right. And there's been a lot of controversy around PewDiePie, of course, and lots of controversy around Notch, specifically after he sold Minecraft. But let's just go over this post says on yesterday's episode of kind of funny games daily, Greg Miller and Andrea Renee discuss the Minecraft drama, which is centered on Microsoft announcing that they were not inviting Notch to the 10-year Minecraft anniversary because of his comments and opinions. That's what that is what Microsoft did publicly state. They also discussed PewDiePie shutting down his subscription campaign. He did. PewDiePie said he doesn't want people doing the sub to PewDiePie thing anymore, specifically because he was being associated with things like the Christchurch shooting. And he that's things have gone too far. So he shut that down. And he waited what I felt was a pretty appropriate time to not make it about him. He kind of just said a few things on Twitter and then let it be, which I think was best because if he had said something right away, everyone would be like, oh, you're making this about you when he's trying not to make it about him. Anyways, reading more into it, it says, they also discussed PewDiePie shutting down his subscription campaign. What proceeded from this conversation is thorough hand waving, downplaying and giving benefit of the doubt to two of the most well-known racist transomes and anti-Semites in the gaming industry. So basically opinions on these two people already made up. Now I'm not going to defend Notch too much. He has been pretty consistent in his thought process on things, at least on Twitter. And I definitely disagree with a lot of his stances. I don't know him personally, so I'm not going to call him transphobic.  But I will say that he has a lot of opinions and stances that paint him in that light. So I'm not going to defend him too much. But I am going to defend Greg Miller and Andrea Renee. Because again, this is who people are mad at. It's not just being mad at Notch and PewDiePie. They're mad at Andrea Renee and Greg Miller, two of the most respected people in this industry. So it says, Greg points out that Notch has ostracized himself with his Twitter comments that include transphobic statements, heterosexual pride day, and it's okay to be white.  It's also okay to be anything else. Again, this is why I state that not everything is necessarily racist and transphobic. But again, there's a pattern of behavior and I'm not going to defend Notch here. I can understand though Greg points out some of this stuff. Andrea suggests that Notch is willfully choosing not to partake. He doesn't want to be there because he doesn't do public events. Not because Microsoft axed him due to his comments, which there's probably both true. Notch doesn't like doing public events. That's well known. But I'm sure Microsoft axed him for the same reasons. Andrea Renee is probably just providing, like it says Andrea suggests. So basically it's if Notch even was invited, he probably wouldn't attend. That's basically what it comes across to me. Andrea is saying, hey, maybe Notch willfully chose not to go. Like, okay, it's possible. Greg points out that indeed in the press statement Microsoft announced they cut him and then rereads the statement. Andrea tells Greg that it's not a fair extrapolation to make from that statement. Andrea adds that to her it would be disappointing that Microsoft part of Notch expressed interest in wanting to be involved and Microsoft said no thanks. So what she's saying is that Notch hasn't publicly or said anything about wanting to be part of it. So if Notch said he wanted to be part of the 10 year anniversary, and then Microsoft said no, then she fully believes in Microsoft statement. What she's thinking is it's easy for Microsoft to say what they say because Notch isn't asking to be involved in the first place. I think she's saying if Notch did ask to be involved, she thinks Microsoft wouldn't say what they said. That seems to be, I don't think there's any, I think it's a fair assessment. I mean, you know, then they would just be outraged at Microsoft, of course, but I don't think there's any reason to be outraged at Andrea for daring to suggest that if Notch asked Microsoft to be part of the event, that they wouldn't let him be. Like, I don't know how that's something to be mad at Andrea about for offering an alternative opinion on the situation. Anyways, let me see here, she adds a Microsoft saying his comments and opinions do not reflect those of Microsoft is a disclaimer made for everyone that speaks on behalf of Microsoft, which is true. Anyone that speaks on behalf of Microsoft that isn't directly representing their brand or an interview, it is always stated that their opinions do not publicly reflect those of Microsoft. This has been a phrase that Microsoft has used over and over again with various employees.  I don't know why you should be mad about that. Again, this isn't saying you need to like Notch. Go ahead and hate him, but hating Andrea over that. Okay, let's go on. Andrea refers to the transphobic and racist things Notch mentions on the Twitter as wacky, because they are wacky. I mean, especially when you disagree with it, it's pretty wack. I think we can all agree it's a pretty wack statements Notch has said. It's really Notch putting a line in the sand saying he doesn't want to be involved in Minecraft, and it's just Microsoft making themselves look good by saying, yeah, we don't want to be involved with him anymore. And that's it, all drama. Okay, alternative opinion. Greg said he googled why do people hate Notch, and got the top bullet point in his OP, and then he went, what, I don't understand enough, can you give me more?  And Andrew, Andrea said Notch's tweets were taken completely out of context, and we don't need to analyze his tweets right now. Obviously, it's an hour long show, they're not going to take all day to analyze the tweets right now. But so far, that kind of seems, it seems like a fair assessment. I mean, if you dig into the tweets further, some of the tweets are definitely overblown. Some of them are, or spot on in terms of people's reaction to him. So again, I'm not someone who is a big fan of Notch. So I'm not going to sit here and defend him. But I will say that I don't think Greg and Andrea said anything bad there. Based on this summary, and I did watch the video, I did watch the whole hour. There's nothing in there that seems to be offensive to me anyways, just because they're offering some alternative options for the Notch situation. I don't really, why be mad at Andrew over that? Okay, let's get into the PewDiePie stuff now. Which by the way, I'm going to publicly state right now, and maybe I'll do subscribers over this. I don't think PewDiePie is racist. I don't think PewDiePie is sexist. I don't think he's homophobic. I don't agree with all these general opinions. I think he is a person who grew up in gaming culture. He's a person that has made a lot of mistakes. And because of the way he grew up, and because of being a YouTuber, and being this online gamer, and doing all these over-the-top reactions with horror games and all this stuff, I think what happens is you end up being more ingrained into that culture. And an unfortunate part of that culture, and I think all of us are living in denial. When we say, when we act like, you know, oh it doesn't need to be this way or it's not that way, go ahead and play games online, and tell me how much inappropriate stuff you hear in a given match. How many times the N-word is dropped?  And if you ingrain yourself in that culture for decades and decades and decades, part of it is bound to start to feel normalized to you, and make it feel like it's okay to say certain things.  It's normalized for him. And I think we have this lack of understanding of how people can make those mistakes when things become normalized. It doesn't make it okay. What PewDiePie said is not okay. What PewDiePie's extremist death to all Jews because he didn't think it would actually work is okay. It's not okay, but we need to understand the culture that PewDiePie grew up in. And when you don't consider the culture, and you're just saying it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how you grew up, it doesn't matter what you've been around, you should be better and be above all of that. You know what you're asking for is an individual person to basically be the solution to everything that's wrong in the gaming world, that everything is wrong in the world. And that's a lot to put on somebody, a lot of expectations to put on somebody who is just a person who grew up playing games on the internet. And he's privileged, and he's white, and blah blah blah. Like I don't know how many times, like he's made more stances and more and more charity acts and more things to help the people that are struggling than he has done bad things. But that all gets ignored because it's all just a publicity stunt. Well, if it's a publicity stunt, how come nobody realizes it or knows about it?  I need to state that before going into this. I don't think he's like the... I think he's someone who's made a lot of mistakes, and he still makes some mistakes like we all do. I said I am uncomfortable when I'm around people who are trans or people who are gay. Does that make me a transphobic person? Does that make me someone who hates gays? No, I just didn't grow up around it. So it takes me a little bit to kind of get used to that culture. And people don't seem to be understanding of that. Anyways, going on to this is on Topic PewDiePie. Greg also mentions that some of the things done, like PewDiePie saying paying two men to hold up a sign to talk about the death of old juicing and using the M word on stream, is beyond his comprehension. So Greg openly admits that he doesn't understand how PewDiePie thought that was okay. All right, so Greg is saying no, that was not okay. That was not cool. But he did note that PewDiePie apologized, which factually happened. This was followed up with a why does the internet got to be so complicated when people get successful? A fair question, because when people become so successful, mistakes are made, things are brought up from the past. I worry that the bigger and bigger my channel gets, one word said wrong on a stream and the world's gonna hate me. Probably this video, the world's gonna hate me, right?  But it's one of those things that there's a lack of understanding, a lack of forgiveness in this world. The internet hate machine just doesn't stop. And we expect people to get better by continually hating them. And it was Andrew response because everyone wants to be part of the zeitgeist. And she added she's glad PewDiePie apologized. I think that's a fair take. Is it not true that once the internet hate machine gets going, that people don't just join in to join in? You're telling me that's not a thing that happens? Are you telling me that people don't like the pile on? Because it happens all the time. We see it all the time. None of us know PewDiePie. None of us know Felix, right? We haven't met him. We're not friends of the internet one personally. So let's just pile on because he's made some mistakes. Imagine if everyone piled on you in your life for every mistake you made the public doesn't know about. And don't act like you're innocent and never made a mistake.  I'm sure it's happened. Because we grew up in a society that thinks that way. Anyways. So then it goes on to say, she then removes blame from PewDiePie for all of the racist, hateful, and anti-Semitic antics he encourages to place it on his community and followers in a future degenerates. To be fair, PewDiePie is community. A select part of that community is white supremacists. A select part of the community that follows PewDiePie is pretty bad. And that community does help give PewDiePie a worse reputation than he probably deserves. It's just a fact. And I think because PewDiePie's following is so huge, it's easy for him to not see it. Because if he's so focused on one part of his community, he might not notice everything going on around his community.  So I think it's entirely plausible that he wasn't really aware of how many of those people followed his channel. But I mean, the guy's got 90 plus million subscribers. What, 95 million? Yeah, of course there's going to be a significant group of bad apples in there. There's probably a group of bad apples in my following too. And I don't have 95 million. Does that mean I'm a white supremacist? Oh, maybe by the end of this video you think I am. But I completely disagree. Anyways, Greg says that because he doesn't know not your PewDiePie personally, which is a point I bring up to, he doesn't know what the real motivations are, but he says that PewDiePie should have closed the subscribe movement since his name is associated with it, which he did. And he's glad that he was silent on the shooting. I agree. So he didn't make the shooting about himself, absolving him of any blame. I agree. I agree with Greg. That was a good decision by PewDiePie. Andrew says PewDiePie gets crucified for his mistakes, his missteps, and an internet lynch mob forgetting we are all humans and make mistakes that PewDiePie has been a target. She said he does a lot of great work, like raising money for charity and does a lot of good things. Because he factually does. He is targeted. He isn't ever forgiven for any misstep he makes along the way. He's not allowed to be human and make mistakes. That's the problem with living our lives in the public eye. We're not allowed to be humans and make mistakes and learn from them. We have to be crucified for everything. Even though I think someone that thinks PewDiePie is done, his mistakes he's made are deplorable.  He's just a person like the rest of us, just living and growing and learning. But you're saying that because he's an adult now we can't?  Oh, but he's made similar mistakes of this. And I've made a bunch of mistakes in my life too. You know, I go ahead and dig through my past and crucify me then because you know what? I've made so many mistakes. And I probably will make many mistakes moving forward because I'm a human being. No understanding of any one situation. No getting to know someone personally.  Even though they never repeat that exact same mistake again. Anyways, Greg says he's leading with those two stories, but he doesn't know anything about the stories and the histories. Not that he's trying to be ignorant, but because it doesn't pertain to his normal everyday life, which is true for him, I'm sure. But he wants to have a convo about what is going on. Probably because it's just a big conversation because there's so much outrage. Outrage culture. Andrea said that she wants to support PDP because he's the heart of YouTube, which is basically true. He is the person that represents us, like just everyday people.  Kind of funny subscribers describe the N-word incident on stream when someone kills him on a stream of accident. Greg wonders if that means PewDiePie does use it. So Greg does question if PewDiePie does regularly use that term, just not when he's recording. Then Andrea said some people were adding context on why PewDiePie used it. It was because he was Swedish and doesn't understand the connotation of that word, which is that that is entirely possible because I don't under, you know, there are cultural differences that I am not going to be able to explain because I didn't grow up in Sweden. She added that she had heard from a lot of Europeans that they use that word, both her and Greg shout, that's bad, but that's not cool. That's not cool. You should stop that. She said PewDiePie apologized for it and he's not going to do it again. So it's okay now. I mean, again, no understanding of backgrounds and culture and where we grew up and I can't expect the internet to do that. Going on, you know, Yikes, the National Defense from Andrea, I expected better, blah, blah, blah, not surprising. Greg sure does use the, well, I don't know what's both this topic card. Nobody should be surprised. Another one bites the dust. Just a whole bunch of hate. This thread 27 pages in is a bunch of hate and this is even after Greg came in and kind of like said he's sorry and all this stuff.  And I'm here to tell you something internet. I'm here to explain something that should have been taught to you a long time ago or at least by now, after all the years of throwing hate on the internet.  Hate doesn't defeat hate.  In fact, attacking them with hate is going to sort of vilify their opinions.    But they're the ones being sexist. And you're the one writing them off because you're unwilling to educate them. You're unwilling to show them compassion. You're unwilling to give them chances and forgive mistakes and talk to them You're unwilling to have that conversation. And because you probably think they're unwilling to have it too, but you don't know until you try. I think that we live in a world where because of the internet, things are really dangerous right now. We are in a world where nothing we say is ever private anymore. Nothing we say or do or the mistakes we made are able to be kept under wraps. And because of that, everyone is judged for their mistakes and not for everything else. And when you only judge someone for one thing, whether it's their acts of charity, whether it's their mistakes, whether it's what they do on daily videos, when you only judge someone on one aspect of their life, you aren't seeing the whole person. You aren't getting a complete picture of who that person is. You are just seeing one side and you're unable to see the rest. And what ends up happening is it leads to you being completely jaded. It leads to you having no forgiveness. Is that a world you want to live in?  Whatever the thing, your race.  So why are you responding with hate? How is responding with hate going to defeat it?  So stop it. Try to be friendly. Try to understand that maybe they grew up in a society that was built that way. You're not going to change the narrative by fighting back with hate. So yes, Roundo Rousey is in Mortal Kombat 11. Yes, PewDiePie is still the largest video maker on YouTube in terms of just being an average person making a YouTube video. Yes, Greg Miller and Andrew Renee might have opinions and stuff you don't agree with.  What it makes them is human and we're supposed to apologize for being human? We're supposed to say sorry that we make mistakes? Sure, be sorry for your mistakes, but you make them too. It's kind of, I'm going to bring up a religious quote and this isn't that you need to be religious to understand what it means, but Jesus Christ said at one point, you know, let those of you who have not sin cast the first stone. I don't necessarily think you need to believe Jesus is real to understand that lesson, to understand that message. It's, look, the person made a horrible mistake, the person made many horrible mistakes, but have you not made mistakes too? Your mistakes just aren't known publicly. Your mistakes are kept under wraps.  We need to do better gamers. We need to do better as people. We need, this is the kind of stuff that honestly makes the gaming community look so bad.  When we show an unwillingness to forgive and only want to have outrage, we end up perpetuating the problem. Be part of the solution. Don't be just a part of the problem in a completely different way. I'm tired of outrage culture. I'm tired of it. I'm tired that I can't go anywhere. I can't go on YouTube. I literally can't go anywhere in the video game sphere and not see outrage culture. Be mad about the games, right? Think that it's crappy, Mortal Kombat has microtransactions or whatever, but really we got to pick on the round or Aussie stuff. Starting to not become a world video games anymore, and I'm really hating it. Anyways, I'm Nathan Rovejess from Nathan R Prime. If you're still here at the end of this video, I appreciate you sticking out this extra long video. Kind of emotional for me too, but I'll catch you guys in the next one.


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is James Hilton. Tonight on our Hallmark Playhouse, we tell in dramatic form a story written by Octavus Roy Cohen called The Final Tribute. It's about doctors, and like many such stories, it gets pretty close to the mainsprings of human experience, which I suppose is the reason why stories about doctors are often so moving and popular. The final tribute indeed offers us in its way a sort of comment on life. For both the doctors in it were good, but they were good in different ways, and how often this kind of difference places us in life. Anyhow, for our start tonight, we have one of the finest and most beloved actors of the screen in the theatre, Edmund Gwynne. And now a word about Hallmark cards from Frank Goss before we begin the first act of The Final Tribute. Hallmark cards have a magic carpet quality about them. They take you visiting however great the distance to help celebrate a birthday, an anniversary, or just any day when you're thinking of someone. There is a quality about Hallmark cards that whispers good taste, and you'll send them with pride for that identifying Hallmark on the back adds meaning. It says you cared enough to send the very best. And now Hallmark Playhouse presenting Octavus Roy Cohen's The Final Tribute starring Edmund Gwynne. This is a letter I should never write and can never mail, and writing it at all is only a piece of sentiment on the part of an old man. And yet some things have happened in the past few days that have brought you very close. Some of the things happened to you and to me in what seems now to be another lifetime. Some of them should have happened. A few hours ago Cynthia came into the room. The clock was striking and I was sitting here alone pondering the problems one ponders during the watches of night. Uncle Joe, do you realize what time it is? Cynthia spoke of the time and then she came over and sat for my desk and the past came in with her. I found myself thinking your mother might have spoken to me in just that manner. She might have come in too in a in a blue wrapper and in a voice that comforted and pushed the shadows back pointed the way to rest and dreams. And something inside me wept as I looked Cynthia wept because I was old and the moments that slipped away were past redeeming. She was puzzled that she looked at me and I realized I still hadn't spoken. Uncle Joe. I pulled myself back to reality and unanswered her. I said I'm sorry Cynthia I'm afraid I was just sitting here gathering dust. Is something wrong? A great many things are wrong. Some of them are many years beyond changing. Some may not be but it's the ones that may not be that I've been thinking about tonight. What's wrong between you and Donald? Uncle Joe I've told you nothing is wrong between Donald and me. Nothing is right. There's nothing there at all. No I find that very hard to believe. I've seen you together. I've seen the way he looks at you and yes I've seen the way you looked at him when you forgot to be on guard. I haven't the slightest personal interest in the world in Dr. Donald Kent. Cynthia I'm going to tell you a story. I think now I should have told it to you a long time ago but time for a doctor it's difficult sometimes to uncover old scars to let wounds gape open. Perhaps especially for a doctor who knows so well the depth of the wounds. What are you trying to tell me Uncle Joe?  I've never talked to you about your mother. Uncle Joe you don't have to tell me. Yes yes I do have to tell you I I always knew that someday I would. Cynthia let me let me think how to begin. How can I make it? Oh I sat there searching for the word sea of life and breath to a memory. Thought of you and I thought of youth delight dreams I thought of you and I thought of laughter and I thought of tears and of music rising to a great crescendo and then I looked at Cynthia and I saw your face looking back at me the way you had looked the first time I met you I closed my eyes I could hear your voice and and I was able to tell her the first word you ever spoke to me. You know my father's told me so much about you Joe I feel as though I know you already. I'm glad we've met at last. You smiled up at me and your words kept pounding inside me at last at last at last and the moment cast a spell upon me and my heart had found its own and to remember those days is to remember excitement and life going by at a dizzying pace. Oh Joe surely you can walk faster than that. Remember those days as to remember sleigh bells and a shenom exhilarating wind pulling our faces as we rode through Central Park and right next to me into enchantment. Oh Joe isn't it exciting. Dreams of through all one youth and finally enters. So long for you to ask me darling of course I'll marry you of course I'll marry you. Suddenly reality under voice of your father. I'm talking to the board about you and I've arranged for you to be appointed to the staff of this hospital. Yes somebody well I tried to tell your father that while I appreciated his offer I'd studied medicine because my own father stinted and gone without saved the money to send me to New York to study. I tried to tell him that the dream of my father's life was to have me return to Watertown and help him with his practice there and I I'm afraid I wasn't able to explain it very well in the name of heaven boy think intelligently not emotionally you can't bury yourself and and in some hick town you come home with me and talk this over with her and so I went to your house that splendid park heaven you mentioned to talk to you about a cottage in Watertown. Joe this is where you belong now not Watertown you can grow here you can help medicine grow this is one of the greatest hospitals in the world I asked you point blank whether you would or would not go to Watertown with me Joe I think it'd be wrong to let you turn your back on an opportunity like this I think it'd be wrong to go with you Joe where you go Joe wait don't go like that I love you don't you believe it Joe I was young I was in love and in the brief moment that I had turned from you while glimpse the future unseen only darkness without you I told you I'd go to Watertown and talk to my father I'd try to make him understand I caught the train that same night I was less than 24 hours too late your father's dead Joey your father's dead the services were simple I sat in the church listening it's the quiet words of the minister whose life my father had once saved I sat looking at the faces of the people he once served now quiet and sad as they bet him farewell and after the services I saw their faces and they turned towards me I'm glad to see you here Joey your father said you'd be back to take over for him I walked home through the silent streets to a silent house he had stood between death and them as long as they had known him who would stand between them now oh I walked the floor the little night back and forth back and forth love or duty someone else could do it but he had asked me he hadn't realized how much he was asking or perhaps he had love or duty New York or Watertown morning came to Watertown I sat down spent and wary from the night of indecision and wrote to New York I told you that I loved you and would always love you I sealed the envelope there was a knock at the door and I'm sorry to bother you at this hour dark and at a time like this but our little granddaughter has a stomach ache we don't know if it's anything serious but we'll come at once God bless you that's what your father always said it was nothing serious just too many green apples the Carter children never have been able to eat green apples and on the way home from the house mail I mailed a letter to you and then I walked back to my father's house and I hung out my single Joseph H. Walton Watertown turned to the second act of the final tribute starring Edmund Gwynne the importance of words is a subject I've often talked to you about and the other night while I was reading one of the essays of Joseph Addison I found a statement by that great English scholar which I'd like to quote to you a statement as true today as it was in the 18th century when Addison said words when well chosen have so great a force no one appreciates the power of well chosen words more than the makers of hallmark cards that's why the words in a hallmark card accurately reflect your own feeling whatever the occasion heartfelt congratulations warm birthday or anniversary wishes or just a thoughtful hello to distant friends there's a hallmark card that says just what you want to say the way you want to say it and what is true of the right words in the hallmark card is equally true of everything else about it it's artful design quality materials superb craftsmanship in fact when you ask any group of friends what name they think of in greeting cards when they want to send the very best they quickly answer hallmark cards yes you choose hallmark cards with the pleasant knowledge that they are correct their social preference has become a tradition through the years that's why it's so easy to remember it would be difficult to forget to look for the hallmark on the back it says you cared enough to send the very best now back to James Hilton in the second act of the final tribute starring Edmond Gwen sat in the small office his father had used before him writing a letter to a girl he had once loved and writing in a mood of tender reminiscence this letter is only a piece of sentiment on the part of an old man but you seem so close tonight while I was telling Cynthia your story I told her that about a year after I came back to Watertown I read of your marriage in a New York paper and and then I knew there was no longer anything to dream or hope for but there was work for me to do yes yes I spent the years bringing other people's children into the world and then bandaging their knees removing splinters taking out tonsils and every one of them was mine from the moment I slapped their first cry out to them I told Cynthia all these things and then I told her at the motor trip you had taken with your husband and of the accident he was killed instantly and they called me over to the hospital at the county seat to perform an emergency operation on you oh I knew there wasn't much hope but I did what I could and then I sat by your bedside until dawn came and and you regained consciousness Joe what are you doing here you put in an accident we take turns doing emergency night calls here at the county hospital this was my night Joe you have all people oh Joe I'm sorry so sorry for such a lot of things if only I'd gone to you Joe where's my baby she won't have anyone now my father's gone and now Joe if anything happens would you take her raise her here where you were raised teachers with all its fundamental things your father taught you and when she finds love tell her it only comes once and Cynthia became the child of my heart she brought warmth into my house she brought life and most of all she she brought happiness I'd look over each young man that came to town and think is this the one but he never quite was and then Dr. Donald can enhance him young fellow who was right up to the minute on all the new things in medicine he didn't take him long to build up a practice he'd drop in now and then and asked to ask to ask Cynthia to go out but she resented Donald and went to no pains to hide it uncle Joe has some calls to make and I'm going with him I understand you've been turning down night calls Dr. Kent yes I have don't believe in babying patients of course it was a genuine emergency that's that's one thing but 99% of the 3 a.m. calls aren't emergencies at all and I'm not going to make myself a slave of my patience look here son you're building up quite a practice already and you've got a fairly heavy operative schedule and you need your sleep at night so why don't you let me handle night calls for you uncle Joe no I couldn't do that sir after all you're the senior doctor I ought to be taking work off your shoulders not you off mine I kind of felt you take it that way but don't you see I practice medicine differently I've been doing night calls for years I'd really like to do it I'd really like to do it son as patients started calling me up at night he was right most of the calls they weren't emergency calls really but I felt better for having gone I never didn't think it was enough just to cure people's ailments no you had to keep their minds at ease and their hearts at rest too since they had it in their mind that Donald wasn't a good doctor but we learned differently this spring yes there was an accident 15 youngsters injured in the school bus collision just down the block Donald was right there where he was needed that night he turned his house into a hospital all right wheel this boy into the bedroom will you it's gonna be all right anesthesia Dr. Walton when you get the next boy ready I've got to work as fast as possible yeah I just want to say that I've never seen any man do a job like this in my life before there's at least eight kids that are going to live thanks to your work tonight I'm proud to know you son really proud commerce decided to present him with a silver cup for being the year's outstanding citizen Cynthia was very silent as we wrote downtown to attend the ceremony and I was troubled I wanted to help Donald and Cynthia find one another understand one another but I didn't know how no no I watched Donald as the mayor presented him with a cup and for one fleeting moment I wish that I had been able to serve my town as he had and earn a moment like this he looked at the cup in silence for a long time before he spoke yes first of all I want to thank you for this tribute but I also want to tell you that I've I've come to realize that I've had the wrong attitude in a lot of ways about my work a patient needs more than just a physical patching up he needs a personal reassurance as well I've come to realize that from watching another doctor that doctor has gone out night after night summer and winter year in year out to give you a feeling of safety and security whenever you needed it from here I've learned the true meaning of medical practice and so I ask your permission to give this cup to a man who has devoted his entire life to you I wish to present it to dr. Joseph H. Walton with the humble wish that someday I may be half the doctor he is what I could do about Donald and Cynthia and then the clock struck three and she came in the room and I started to tell her the story just as I written it down and when I had finished she was very quiet seems like such a waste doesn't it you and my mother or if she'd only come to you if you'd only gone to her and made her come back with you she asked me to tell you that love only came once and a hold on to it those were almost her last words in there my child don't tell me he asked you to marry him and that you turned him down I didn't have any respect for him until he he said what he said tonight tonight when he made that speech I I sort of changed now who on earth is that it's past five in the morning doesn't anyone ever go to bed in this house I saw your lights from the street and on what are you doing up at this hour I was having a case oh something serious no Betsy Carter had another stomach ache green apples I bet you anything in the world did you know that none of the castles have ever been able to eat green apples done you went on a night case I'm going on a lot of night cases from now on well I think it's just about my bedtime oh no uncle Joe wait a moment done a few weeks ago you asked me to marry you do you remember yes I remember very well well then if you still mean it I'd be very happy to marry you Cynthia well now I really am going to bed Don thank you again for putting it a word something of this old doctor had felt in his heart about his patience but never knew how to say thank you for last night not for the silver cup alone although I'm most grateful for it but thank you for giving me peace and the knowledge that at last I'd chosen correctly that this was where I belong after Don left I came down to write this letter to you and a letter I can never mail a piece of sentiment that can only be filed away with the other memories of a love goodbye and yet it warms the heart and helps the pain of those memories to know that your daughter my Cynthia will find and keep the happiness that we found well then we'll return in a moment I'd like to again remind you that even though it may seem a long way off October and November will quickly disappear and Christmas will be here before we know it remember last year you resolved that next year you'd get your cards early well next year is here and right now is the time to make out your list and start thinking of your Christmas cards if you're really going to get them early sending Christmas cards will mean so much more to you if you have time to choose them with care and thoughtfulness and hallmark cards will help you to be most thoughtful because you'll find there is always a hallmark card to say just what you want to say the way you want to say it I know you'll find pleasure in choosing hallmark Christmas cards because they are so extraordinarily beautiful the kind your friends will single out to show to others display proudly during the holidays and treasure long afterwards like other distinguished products that have one social preference hallmark cards can be obtained only at fine stores and you have that comfortable knowledge they are correct you have added pleasure to and sending hallmark cards because that hallmark on the back is so instantly recognized like the sterling on silver it carries its own high tradition it says you cared enough to send the very best here again is james hilton edmund grand now a deep thanks for your performance we've been honored to have you star in the hallmark playhouse on a number of occasions and it's always a pleasure we look forward to always a pleasure to be here mr hilton and when i'm not here i always try to listen well good i i hope you enjoy listening as much as we enjoy having you on the show oh thank you but the way knowing that cancer city is the home of hallmark cards i was most interested in reading the article on cancer city and the current issue of look magazine yes indeed it's a fine article you know we dramatize the cancer city story last season direct from cancer city itself we found it a great place yes oh and uh and talking of look magazine did you catch the cbs ad about our hallmark playhouse in the same issue sure i did and tell me now what have you chosen for next week mr hilton next week we're dramatizing a novel by jessie lynch williams entitled not wanted this is a charming story about a boy and his father and the problems they had to face in separation and for our star we will have invited that delightful young actor dean stockwell our hallmark playhouses every thursday our director producer is bill gay our music is composed and conducted by lin marie and our script tonight was adapted by dean holloway until next thursday then this is james hilton saying good night for hallmark cards that are so lonely in stores that have been carefully selected to give you expert and friendly service remember hallmark cards when you carry it out to send them very best edmund wendt can currently be seen co-starring in the 20th century fox production mr 818 this is frank goss saying good night to you all until next week at the same time when james hilton returns to present dean stockwell in jessie lynch williams novel titled not wanted and the week following washi denerving the legend of sleepy hollow starring lionel barry more on the hallmark playhouse this is k mbc canza city missouri


You have trouble sleeping because you're exposing yourself to too much light at night Like right here in Times Square in New York City If you have trouble falling asleep if you toss and turn in the night or if you wake up feeling tired Chances are it's because you're exposing yourself to too much light If you watch TV at nighttime if you're watching this on your cell phone right now and it's nighttime If you're brushing your teeth in the bathroom light at night Then that artificial blue light that's used to light up these displays here and your light bulbs and your television screen and your Cell phone screen and your computer screen all of that artificial blue light is stimulating your pituitary and pineal gland and Preventing your body from creating melatonin and melatonin is what we need to sleep well in just a second I'm going to put these blue light blocking glasses to the test these glasses are called swannies The orange lens blocks out the artificial blue light Which means your body is able to naturally create melatonin you're able to fall asleep quicker You don't toss and turn in the night and you wake up feeling nice and refreshed. So let's take a look Oh, that's nasty.  Look at the blue There we go.  Do you have trouble with your sleep? Maybe it's because you're exposing yourself to too much light. So let's put these blue light blocking glasses swannies to the test Here's the view Okay now The orange lens, let's see there we go Whoops, I've got to get the camera work working here a little bit better. There we go. You can probably see let me move this a Little bit more. There we go So that orange lens there is blocking the artificial blue light which is the cause of your sleep problems So what you'll do is you'll wear these glasses About an hour before you want to go to sleep each night. You put them on you can continue using your cell phone You can continue watching television. You can continue sitting in the light But the orange lens is blocking that artificial blue light, which means you're able to fall asleep quicker You're able to wake up in the morning feeling nice and refreshed and not tossing and turning in the night now To be clear, you don't wear these to sleep.  Just click on that button to learn more Protect yourself from the light. There's too much light at night and it's destroying your sleep Click the button below or up here now to learn more


I am Shai Alevi and I will talk about random index private information retrieval and application. This is joined to work with Craig Gentry, Bernardo Magri, Jesper Milsen, and Sofia Jakubov. Let's go ahead and remind ourselves what private information retrieval is here. Here we have a client that wants to fetch an entry from some public database, but the server that's holding the database shouldn't learn what entry the client is interested in. So, of course, one way to do that is for the client to just download the entire database, and the whole point of peer is to do better than this trivial solution, meaning to have the server send less to the client than the entire database. This was introduced by a show called Achkoshilevitz and Sudan in the 90s, and the first solutions that they gave relied on multiple non-colluding servers, but later on Achkoshilevitz and Ostolsky show that you can do that also when there is a single server, and there has been a very large body of research on peer, and it's useful for many different things. In this work, we look at peer with a twist, and that twist is the client is not interested in any one particular index. You just want to get one index, a random index, from the database, and the point is without the server knowing which one it got. So, you should think of a lottery, for example, where people sign up with the server and give their personal details, then the client chooses a random person to get the jackpot, but the server should know who was chosen before he announced the winner, because then the server can, I don't know, extort them or do some other nasty thing. We call this primitive a random index peer, or an RPR for short. Why looking at it? So, one thing that should be obvious is that RPR is a weaker primitive than peer, because if you could do peer, then you can definitely do RPR just by the client choosing a random index, and then you run your peer protocol, and we can hope, therefore, that RPR is easier to build than a peer. For example, maybe you can make it more efficient, maybe you can use weaker assumptions, maybe you can run it in more settings, or peer is impossible, etc. So, that's on one hand. On the other hand, RPR is sufficient for some applications. So, I already gave you the example of the lottery from before. The thing that motivated us to look at it is an application to the secrets and block on the blockchain architecture of Manchamuda et al from TCC of last year, and I will spend the end of this talk talking about that application. And also during this course of this work, we find a nice little application of it to peer with preprocessing, and I'll spend one slide talking about that as well later on. This work has two mostly orthogonal threads of work. One of them is just looking at RPR as a primitive, so defining it, looking at the variations, how it relates to peer, how to construct it, and then the application that I talked about to peer with preprocessing. And the second line of work is the application to the secrets of blockchain that was our motivation for this work with some optimization specific in the context of that application. So, let's start from the RPR as a primitive, and we'll begin with trying to define it. Now, in this work, we only looked at the semi-honest case, so the server is honest but wants to learn the index of the client. And this particular definition is for the single server protocol, so it's a two-party protocol. There is a client with no input, and there is a server that has the database, which is more than just as an MB string. The server will have no output. The client output is an index and the corresponding database bit. If both of them are honest, then the index that the client gets is uniform or close to it. In terms of what we need, when we need correctness, that is, the bit that the client learns is indeed the bit of the database, we need non-triviality, which means that the server sends less than n bits, and we need privacy for the client, which means that even with the server's view, the index that the client got is indistinguishable from another index that was chosen uniformly at random in irrespective of the protocol. Some variations that would be used for one of them is just batch. Instead of a single index, you want multiple one. The definition is identical, except instead of a single index, there is a vector of indexes that the client gets. And then in the context of batch RP, you can even look at weaker security. So instead of the indexes, the vector of indexes that the client gets being indistinguishable from uniform, it's indistinguishable from some other distribution D, which is random enough. What random enough is might depend on your application, but a reasonable general purpose definition of what it means to be random enough is that for every subset of vectors of n to the k, if that subset has a negligible probability mass according to the uniform distribution, then it also has a negligible probability means according to the distribution D that we want here. And that definition says that any bad event that happens with negligible probability in the strong sense, if you had random indexes, will also happen with negligible probability in this protocol. So that's a useful definition to have. As I said here, we only treat honest but curious. It actually is an open problem even to just define what RPR means in the Mauritius setting. It's not trivial and we did not try to do it. The first result that I want to tell you about is a theorem that says that RPR as a primitive is equivalent to peer, up to a small increase in the communication and around. On one hand that means that you cannot hope for too much in terms of RPR being easier to build than peer because they're equivalent, but we will still show that there are gains that can be made and it's still interesting enough to look at. But let's for now prove that RPR as a primitive is equivalent to peer. One direction is trivial. One direction we already show if you had peer, you can definitely implement RPR trivially. So let's try the other direction. Let's say that you have an implementation of a non-trivial RPR and let's try to build out of it an implementation of peer. So I'm going to start with a very simple peer protocol. It's a full blown peer. So the client has a particular index i that it wants to get. The server has a database and what they do is the formula. First they will run an RPR protocol where the client will get from the server just a random index j, not necessarily the index that it wants to get. Then the client sends to the server delta, which is an exclusive of the index that it wants and the index that it got. We think of all these two are log n big strings and you just send in the xor of the two. The server will partition the set of indexes n into n over 2 pairs k and kx or delta. And notice that one of these pairs will be i comma j. And then for every pair it computes just the xor of the two database bits in these two indexes. And it sends these two n over 2 bits to the client. Now the client already knows database at point j and now it knows the exclusive or of it with the database at point i. So now it can compute the database bit at position i. Now if the RPR takes r rounds and has certain communications c sub c for the client and c sub s for the server, then the simple peer protocol that I just described take r plus two rounds because you first run up here and then two more rounds. And the communication there was additional log n bits that the client sends and n over 2 bits that the server sends. n over 2 being less than n, this is a non-trivial protocol. But it's not great, n over 2 is still a lot, so we want to do better. And can we do better? So it turns out yes. And the observation here is look at the last two steps in this protocol. The last two steps is just the trivial peer protocol for a database of size n over 2. The server sends the n over 2 bits, the client look up one of them. So instead of that how about we replace this trivial peer with a recursive call for the same protocol itself. So that gives us recursive peer. Every level what happens is you run a peer protocol on a database of size n over 2 to d i, then the client sends log n minus i bits, which is the delta at that level. And then you make the recursive call all the way down until you get to a database of size one. And then the server just sends that one bit to the client. So if the r peer protocol takes r rounds and has communication c sub c and c sub s, then the recursive protocol here takes at most r plus one times log n rounds of communication. And the communication is at most log n times the r peer protocol, plus the client sends log n choose two bits and the server sends one more bit. So that's nice. But there is still a question of the number of rounds. I mean we multiply the number of rounds by log n, which is not great. Can we do something better than that? Can we have a protocol that has fewer rounds? And it turns out that in some sense we can. And that's just a generalization of the simple peer protocol. But instead of just a single r peer run, the client and server will now run t minus one of them. So the client will get t minus one indexes, random indexes that the server doesn't know. Then the client will partition this index set instead of into pairs into t tuples. One of these tuples includes the index i that it wants and all the j sub ks that it got and all the other sets there are just random. And then for every t tuple, the server sends the xor of all these t bits in the database and the client again knows all the bits at position j sub k and it knows the xor of everything, so now it can compute the bit at position i. This is r plus round two rounds. The server communication is n over two. The client communication is long because sending a random partition takes many bits and maybe you can improve it, but we didn't quite find a way to do that. An obvious open question is to find better reductions, so better tidal reductions from r peer to peer. The next thing that I want to show you is that you can actually use r peer in a setting where peer is not applicable and that setting is a non-interactive setting. You may have an initial setup phase that irrespective of both database and index of the client and after that every time the server wants to convey a random index to the client, it just sends to it a single message. The client never speaks again. Clearly you cannot do peer this way because the client has no chance of inputting the input index that it wants, so you cannot do kind of do peer this way, but you can do r peer. One very simple example is doing it with FHE. You have a setup phase where the client sends a public key and an encryption of a prf seed and then in the online phase every time the server wants to send a random bit to the client, it just chooses a nonce computed homomorphically. i which is a prf of the nonce with the seed and so you get an encryption of i and then continue to compute homomorphically the database at that position and send to the client, so this is a very easy protocol. In the paper we also have a more complicated non-interactive schemes which is based on just pseudo random permutation and this is essentially the protocol of Koshilevitz and Ostrovsky from 2000, but adapted to be non-interactive. Let me also take a small detour and talk about the multiserver r peer case and it turns out that in multiserver you also can do this non-interactive and in fact you can do slightly better in some sense because we have two construction. One construction is an information theoretic construction where it doesn't even have a setup phase. When just two servers both of them have the database and every time they want the client to get a random index then each of them send the message to the client, the client gets a random index and they both send less than n beats. So that's nice. The thing that's not so nice about it is one of them has to send half the beats of the database and we actually don't know how to do better than that. Then we have another approach sort of generic for converting m-server peer to an m-server non-interactive r-peer using sort of non-functions. I'll put generic in quotations because really we only have one example where we know how to make this transformation work, but it's plausible that there are others. Let's start with the information theoretic construction. This is very similar to the simple peer reduction that I described before. Server one will choose just a random index j and send j and the database at position j to the client. Server two will choose a random delta in zero one to the log n and will partition n into n over two pairs k and kx or delta. So again in the particular one of these pairs is j comma jx or delta and then it computes for each pair the exclusive o of the two database beats. It sends delta and the n over two beats to the client and the client recover i as jx or delta and recover the database at position i as the beat that it knows x or sigma for the pair ij. And just I didn't say it before, but you need to handle the case of delta equals zero. Then in that case servers to just send delta. There's no point in partitioning anything there and the client just output the database position beta position j and you can check that the probability distribution is the one it should be. It would be really nice to be able to extend it in some way and get construction where the server can send less than n over two beats. We were not able to find one. You cannot do the recursive things because it's interactive. You cannot do the partition one because describing the partition takes too many beats. So it is an open problem. Moving on to the transformation. Let me try to describe how to transform a multi-server private information retrieval into a non-interactive R peer. So look at a typical multi-server peer protocol where it has only two rounds of communication. In this case the client will send to the server's queries that are individually random but correlated and the servers will, each of them, have the database answer its own queries and they answer back to the client and the client will reconstruct the bit that it wants, the random bit that it wants, also the bit that it wants. So the question is, is there a way where the servers can generate the random correlated queries themselves without any interaction with the client? And actually we can hope that there is, because there's a lot of work in recent years about pseudo-random correlated randomness generation. So maybe some of this technology can be used here. And indeed there is one example where we know where that thing works and that example uses the Reed Solomon peer protocol that was from the original CG KS paper. In that protocol the database is encoded by a multivariate polynomial with V variables, degree D and a polynomial over some ZQ. And the way it's encoded is that inside of some cube of size D plus 1 to the V, every entry, the evaluation of the polynomial at every entry contains some bits of the database. So the evaluation at every point is an element of ZQ, so it contains log Q of bits from the database. And this game uses D plus 1 server and each server is holding the database and therefore knows the polynomial F sub DB. The client has a particular part of the database that it wants to recover. In particular it wants to get the evaluation of F sub DB at a particular point A inside of that cube. So it's going to choose a random line in ZQ to the V that passes via the point that it's interested in. So L sub X is A plus X times B where A is the point that it wants, B is a random point and X is a variable that ranges over ZQ. It's a scalar. It sends to the J server, the J's point on the line, L sub J. And the server replies with the evaluation of the database polynomial at that point. So YJ is F at C sub J. And note that the Ys are just computed by a polynomial which is the composition of the database polynomial and the linear line polynomial. So the YJs are just evaluation of some degree D polynomial G on X. And since there are D plus 1 server, then the client now knows D plus 1 evaluation point of this degree D polynomial. So it can recover the entire degree D polynomial. And then it finds the point that it's interested in as just G at the evaluated at zero. So this is how the client recovers the point that it's interested in. Converting this to a non-interactive RP we're going to use a pseudorandom secret sharing techniques. This is a techniques that date back to Bilboa Ishae and then Kramer-Darmgård Ishae later on. I'm not going to tell you how those works exactly, but the main thing is you in a pre-computation in a setup phase you will distribute PRF seeds among the servers and different subsets of server will get different PRF seeds. And then the servers can generate pseudorandom degree T Shamir sharing locally without any interaction. Every server just uses the PRF seeds that they know. So the first Shamir sharing they all evaluate the PRF seed, the PRFs at one, the second one they all evaluated at two etc. So they can generate an unlimited number of pseudorandom seeds without talking to each other at all. So sorry, Shamir sharing without talking to each other at all. Here we're going to use PRSS for random lines. So this is degree one polynomials. And the servers just generate the query, the thing that they would have received from the client by themselves, right? They just compute CJ equals LJ for a random line L that they generate themselves using their pseudorandom seeds. And then the lines are therefore pseudorandom lines. Now there is a point here that what the client needs to get eventually is the evaluation of F and a random point, but a random point inside of the cube. It's not guaranteed that the line which is just a random line will intersect that cube. If it does then the client learns a random database entry just chooses maybe a random if it intersects in more than one point it chooses a random one or none. But if the line doesn't intersect the cube then we're stuck. So you actually the servers actually need to send multiple lines so that we get that with high probability at least one of them will intersect the cube. What kind of parameters do you get? So you have a database of size n you need to find the parameters d, q and v and the constraints are first of all you need to be able to encode the entire database. So if you look at all the evaluation inside of the cube there are d plus 1 to the v of them each one of them can hold log q bits. So the total number of bits that you can encode this way has to be at least 10. q has to be bigger than d plus 1 because you need to interpolate a degree d polynomial. And the last thing is that d plus 1 to the power v the size of this cube has to be a large enough fraction of the entire space so that random lines will intersect the cube with noticeable probability and in fact you can see that the number of lines that the servers need to send is something like q over d to the power of v in order to get intersection with high probability. And for each line we have communication which is essentially d points, d plus 1 point or 2d plus 1 point whatever so roughly d log q bits. So the total communication of this protocol is d log q times q over d to the power of v. Now we can set the parameters to get various tradeoffs so we will always set q equals d plus 2 because it's the smallest possible. Now if you want the minimum amount of communication you will set both d and v to be log n and then you get a poly log communication and if you add the constant number of servers then you get n to the epsilon communication the more servers the less communication obviously. An obvious open problem here is find other instances where this transformation works. I mean this one was very very simple using PRSS maybe there are other ways to get the correlation that you need for peer protocols. Okay the next thing that I want to tell you a little bit is how to just one slide of how to apply the ideas that we had so far for to peer with preprocessing and here we notice that the simple peer and partition peer protocols that I described below how the following structure will first the client and server run some rpeer protocol on the original database and the client learns some bits then once the client knows what index it's interested in then it sends a single message to server and then the client and the server will run a peer protocol on the smaller database of size n over 2 or n over t if it's the partition one. That means that step one you can do the preprocessing so step two and three are done online but the work here is reduced by a factor of two or a factor of t so this is a very very lightweight of doing preprocessing and with that I told you all I wanted to tell you about rpeer as a primitive so let's spend a few minutes talking about application of rpeer to the secret on the blockchain architecture and in this context when I say blockchain what I really mean as a system with many nodes most of them are student owners there is nothing blockchainy about it the motivation slides that I'm going to go through now are the courtesy of Sophia so think of secure mpc as a service we have clients they want to compute some function and they want to send it to the cloud that will compute it for them but for privacy reasons for resilience reasons you want the cloud to be implemented as a secure mpc so that it will give you both guarantee that you get the correct output with guaranteed output delivery and privacy now of course that only happens as long as some less than some team of the servers that make up this cloud are corrupt so that's nice I mean you get additional benefits to the clients but now think of doing the same thing with millions of parties you have a blockchain and you want the blockchain to compute that thing for you so the entire system consists of god only knows how many nodes now need to compute them you can do the exact same thing right I mean they could in principle run a secure mpc protocol and give you correct output and privacy as long as not too many are corrupted but there is an efficiency issue here right a run of the mill mpc protocol typically have every server every node talked to every other node and that's very very expensive when there are many nodes so in addition to security goals that we had from before now we have an efficiency goal and the goal that we want to focus here is sub-linear communication in the number of parties we do not want every party to talk to every other part an obvious way to try to do that is use a small committee so choose a random committee to represent the entire thing if a majority of parties in the overall population are honest then hopefully with some high probability the majority of parties also in the committee will be honest and then you can start as a regular secure mpc protocol here the problem with that is what happens if the adversary is adaptive as soon as these nodes start talking the adversary know who the committee is and then it just goes and corrupt them or maybe not corrupt them maybe the other say it's not all that powerful but it can at least detoss them it just knocks them off and your entire computation all the state that you built so far is dead so what do we do one thing that we'll do is we'll switch to a yoso style secure computation protocol this is a style of protocol that was studied in crypto this year by gentry et al in the type of protocol that we're talking about we have evolving committee each active for just one step as soon as you say something your role is over so after the first step the adversary corrupt maybe the first committee but now there's a whole new committee that needs to talk and after the adversary maybe corrupt them there's the new committee every time by the time that the adversary learns who the committee is this committee is no longer active and there's nothing to be gained by killing it either seeing it or corrupting it so this is the style of protocols that we would like to use here and gentry et al showed that essentially every function you can compute in this style of protocols even if you want things like a delivery etc as long as you have a majority among the entire population but there is a problem and the problem is how to forward state between committees so in this setting we want the committees to be hidden from the adversary so that they will not be corrupted or d-dost but then if nobody knows who the committee is how do you send them the messages that they need to see in order to participate in the computation and this thing was actually considered by ben hamoud et al and they talked about the notion of target anonymous channels to send messages so everybody would be able to send message to party i in the next committee without knowing who that party is how to implement those was left explicitly out of scope in the yosopaper of gentry et al but it was addressed by ben hamoud et al and they gave some solution i'll talk about it a bit in the next slide but that solution is a little effective i mean it can only withstand corruptions of up to about roughly a quarter of the overall population and not more than that so the goal here is to construct target anonymous channels so first of all we're going to assume pki in authenticated broadcast the reason i'm don't have a problem assuming that is we're thinking of blockchains and blockchain pv that sort of for free as long as the blockchain works you have that and if you have pki in authenticated broadcast the really all you need is some way to re-randomize the public keys of party so if by some chance a re-randomized version of my public key appears on the on the broadcast channel then everybody can send me now messages and they don't need to know who i am all they need to know is well this is the public key of party number five in the next committee let's encrypt it and i know that this is my public key and i can decrypt it so it sort of boils down to the question is how do you choose and re-randomize the key without the adversary learning who that key belongs to and i'll actually did offer a solution in their case there was another auxiliary committee that chose the committee that is going to get here and going to participate in the computation uh and then each member of this auxiliary committee chose one member of the secret sharing committee and re-randomize its key but that has a problem of a double dipping attack because now the adversary knows who is in the committee if either that person itself wasn't corrupted or the person that nominated them to the committee was corrupted so there is a double dipping which is why we cannot get better than resilience against a quarter of corruptions by the adversary uh the idea that we want to explore here is we already have committees they are already running secure mpc protocol how about these previous committees will also do the work that's needed in order to uh establish the target anonymous channel we will bootstrap these things off of the previous committees and that works so think of the target anonymous channel function it takes n public keys this is a public input and it takes randomness this is a private input for the n parties or for the k parties whatever and it outputs k re-randomized keys out and that works i mean this from security point of view this is exactly what you want but it does have a problem uh in that it's not scalable our point was to use less than n bits of communications here and this definitely doesn't do that i mean if you think of the circuit that computes that function that circuit has long input in particular the n public keys so if you want to just apply as uh one of the mill mpc protocols uh you'll get at least n bits of communication so we want to do better and we're going to here is where we're going to use our peer how do we use our peer we can break the computation of the target anonymous channel function into first do batch rp to fetch k random public keys from the pki and then re-randomize this k run now for the batch rp the previous committees will just simulate the rp client and since the database is public then each member can individually play the server in its head the communication here is a little of n because rp is not driven but notice that this is a really weird use of of p or rp because you don't need to broadcast the thing that the server says everybody plays the server in their head and they can imagine what the server would say without needing to still broadcast it the thing that you really care about is to have uh very short communication for the client so it is a weird use of peer the other thing to notice is that uh since we have a committee that implements the secure computation the output of it that is the k public keys are shared among this committee at the end of this step so the others still doesn't know them and then you run the re-randomized part this is a function that doesn't depend on n so it's scalable and then you reconstruct the re-randomized public keys and broadcast them to the broadcast channel and this is how you establish the target anonymous channel so if this is what we want to do what do we need from the output code so we need it to be very efficient small communication simple processing and because we're simulating the client with a secure computation and you also secure computation at that these are typically heavier npc then it better be the case that what the client computes in this output protocol is very very very simple um and from security we want to make sure that the other side doesn't learn who's on the next committee which means that the next committee should be at least unpredictable in the in the sense that the adversary cannot guess more than half of the members of it to corrupt so we can use the batch rp with weaker security because all we want here is unpredictability and not super randomness and that helps a little bit let me just show you one very very simple thing that we can do just because we can use the unpredictability version of this instead of the super randomness so instead of choosing a random k entries from the entire database we just partitioned the database into m beans m is a parameter and we choose a random k over m for each bin so now you know clearly there are many subsets that cannot be chosen this way because many subsets don't have exactly k over m from each bin many k subsets but you can see that um at least it saves an m factor in server work because uh now you fetch the same number of points you said you fetch k points but you fetch them from databases of size k over m instead of size n over m instead of databases of size n uh so definitely you save at least the factor of m in the server work and whether or not to how much you send in client work depends really on what peer protocol you're using underlying it and in terms of probability so yeah as I said many subsets can no longer appear but the subsets that can appear are distributed uniformly and in fact the fraction of subsets that can appear is not too tiny it's a fraction that's exponentially in m and polynomially in n small so if you set m to be log then you know the you still have a polynomial fraction of the subsets that can appear and therefore the probability mass of each one of them grows by at most a polynomial factor and therefore you have this definition that anything that was uh any bad event that happened with negligible probability when you just use the completely random peer will still happen with negligible probability even in this case so that's all I wanted to tell you today uh we introduced random peer it's a weaker variant of peer it can be somewhat more efficient than peer but not too much because they're equivalent as primitives still there are gains to be had and it's motivated by our application to very large scale mpc which we call secrets on the blockchain and it allows us in particular to construct target anonymous channels which are resilient to compromise of up to half minus epsilon of the party as opposed to the solution of the model that can only tolerate about a quarter of the parties corrupt and that's all I wanted to tell you thank you very much