August 3rd • 3h 28m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
COVID
Big Tech AI and the Socials
Coach de-platformed and slandered
In the morning! I am writing you after having just finished episode
1784 and wanted to write in and send a clip about experiences the Meta
A.i. "sweep" that was clipped and discussed on the show. While yes,
on the surface the intention by META to clean up instagram from child
predators is a positive one, like with everything a.i. (which Adam has
continually convinced and opened listeners eyes to) the execution was
absolute crap, causing me, a 34-year old varsity football coach in
Michigan to have my account disabled for no reason; and i'm not the
only one.
I am a high school football coach at the fifth largest school in
Michigan, so naturally of my 80-ish players, numerous follow me on my
Instagram account which i've had since its creation in 2010, with no
issues. I use this to interact with my players, ages 15-18 (always on
their phone Gen Z) and they love to send funny memes and also football
related content back and forth. Further, the main use now is to
promote our team and players through reposting local news stories on
them to help with recruiting for the next level, exposure and even in
many cases sponsorships with local businesses we work with to my few
thousand followers! With this A.i. sweep by meta my account was
flagged for breach of "community guildelines on child abuse" whic i
theorize was because I am interacting and promoting my team and
players. I had reposted a feature on our team done by a large local
media company (state champs) here in Michigan and the next morning my
account is gone. After doing some further digging it seems I am not
the only one and this issue has impacted numerous businesses and
churches for example.
On the surface I understood the positivity from you two on the
messaging META is putting out by doing this, but like with everything
a.i. it is complete junk and has not had the effect they were
intending and is creating much larger issues. Just another example of
Adam is right, A.i., especially META, is CRAP!
If anyone in the No Agenda audience works for META and can help that
would be greatly appreciated, as connection is protection.
Thanks for everything,
(Future Sir) Coach Alex of the 'ville
AI Curious
900 numbers History
Hiiii Guys! , Anonymous producer here.
Just getting caught up on back episodes and I realized that I can assist with John's (and your) understanding of the adult phone line industry and its demise as for I built a number of adult call centers in Europe, South America and Asia during the 1990’s. Boots, that were on the ground one might say. Please keep my name confidential
The sex line industry began in the U.S. in the 1970s where callers “**_punters"_** dialed 976 numbers found in adult magazine ads to speak with live persons called “**_enhancers"_** available 24/7. These conversations were billed by the minute as long-distance calls typically lasting 3–5 minutes. The goal was to keep callers on the line as long as possible to maximize charges. At month’s end users paid their itemized phone bills and the **_TELCO_** (telephone company) shared a portion of the revenue with the service providers creating a repeatable and profitable business model.
The industry quickly became widely popular due to its anonymity and ease of access from any phone. However misuse—such as unauthorized calls by children, roommates and coworkers—led to growing consumer complaints. Office workers quickly figured out that it was pretty easy to hide calls within lengthy phone bills prompting tighter FCC regulations & allowing TELCOS the ability to charge for “**VAS"** (value added services). As a result the TELCOS separated 900 numbers from others and prices surged from just a few cents per minute to between $3.99 to USD$9.99 per minute.
By the mid 90s,"**IPs”** (information providers) also know as advertisers, **r**amped up marketing with slick full-color ads in adult magazines, launched trade shows in Vegas, and aired semi-nude TV vids after regular programming went off the air to attract callers. These services continued to charge +/- USD$9 per minute with enhancers in call center "boiler rooms" entertaining multiple callers at once through erotic storytelling and sound effects. The model proved highly profitable with numerous call centers reporting earnings of + $200,000 per night.
As consumers started blocking 900 numbers through their landline providers, IP's began to search for new ways to bill the users. Credit cards were tried but frequent fraud claims led to chargebacks leaving TELCOs unpaid. Consumer advocacy groups & the Better Business Bureau criticized the industry as unethical siding with users. The business faced a decline—until a new approach to keep it alive.
With hundreds of millions of phone minutes exchanged daily between TELCOs globally—& pricing agreed upon privately with very little regulation—it made sense to hide a few million of premium-rate minutes in those settlements. Here is where I came into the biz. I searched out a country which had a high price per minute to call from the US, where labor was cheap and English was not difficult to find. Since the Foreign TELCO had very little traffic from the US, I told them I would bring them millions of minutes but my partners want a share of each minute they sent. They agreed. Packed a brief case with money from the TELCO; set up a very comfortable call center “boiler room” & trained local women & men paying them triple the local wage. IPs switched from blocked 900 numbers to unblocked international numbers bypassing the block. Even when fraud complaints arose, the courts sided with TELCOs since the calls were international and out of their jurisdiction. This revived the industry and the model was soon expanded across South America, Europe and Asia offering multilingual services and breathing new life into the business.
Its Demise:
After years of massive no tax profits TELCOs began distancing themselves from the adult phone industry preferring to act only as "**BOBOs”** (billing on behalf of) rather than active partners due to image concerns. This opened the door for greedy IPs to launch their own call centers triggering a global explosion of players. The surge created a shortage of skilled multilingual enhancers driving up labor costs and shrinking profit margins for the IP’s as payments to call centers dropped advertising declined and call volume fell. TELCOS began to claim fraud against the IP’s and Call centers. Lowered the price per minute paid under a “take it or leave it” attidue and begun to stop making onetime payments choking out call centers who employed hombres of people around the clock .
By the late 1990s the industry collapsed further due to the rise of free internet-based adult content—porn webcams sexting and chat—making paid phone services outdated. More, tighter credit card regulations social stigma. Porn began free and in 3D causing the once-booming phone sex business to faded into a relic of the pre-digital age.
People became millionaires in months not years, secretaries were give high end Volvos for birthday gifts, people who could not afford to pay rent became home owners. Everyone made money, no one got hurt and we all got old. It was a golden time in the 90’s. I'm sure you understand Adam!
All the best
BTC USD Stablecoins
NYC
Tariffs
Did Ursula von der Leyen Sell Trump an Empty Deal
Diplomacy or Deception: Did Ursula von der Leyen Sell Trump an Empty Deal?
By Alexander van Koningsbruggen
When Donald Trump walked out of a high-profile meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, he was visibly pleased. He even jotted down what appeared to be a triumphant list: a 15% tariff reduction on nearly everything, $600 billion in EU investments in the U.S., and $750 billion worth of American gas and oil exports to Europe.
For Trump, it was a PR jackpot. For Brussels, it was a diplomatic minefield.
Promises Without Power
The European Union is not a monolith. That’s the first point any serious observer of transatlantic relations will tell you. While von der Leyen may sit atop the EU Commission, she doesn’t control the purse strings of European companies or the procurement plans of sovereign member states. When she makes sweeping commitments about energy purchases, weapons acquisitions, or corporate investments, it raises a key question: Can she actually deliver?
The answer, increasingly, appears to be no.
Echoes of the Soybean Bluff
This episode is not unprecedented. In 2018, then-Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker made a similar play. To prevent a tariff escalation with Trump, he pledged that the EU would buy large quantities of U.S. soybeans. What he omitted was the inconvenient truth: the EU Commission doesn’t control agricultural imports—those decisions are made by individual companies and member states. In reality, Juncker couldn’t purchase a single soybean on behalf of the EU.
Von der Leyen’s “commitments” to Trump may well fall into the same category—diplomatic theater disguised as economic policy.
Trump Asks for Guarantees
Reports indicate that Trump, now more skeptical and media-savvy than in his first term, was not so easily convinced. After the meeting, he demanded assurance that EU firms wouldn’t back out of their supposed investment plans. His reaction? A blunt challenge: “Prove it.”
But proof may be hard to come by. Even high-ranking officials within EU governments expressed confusion over the origin of these alleged investments. German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche publicly admitted she had no idea which firms were involved or how much they were supposedly contributing.
The Illusion of a Unified Buyer
Then there’s the question of gas and oil. Trump seemed to believe the EU had agreed to buy $750 billion worth of American fossil fuels. That would be an enormous commitment—if it were real.
But again, the EU doesn’t function like a single buyer. Brussels can’t force Poland to purchase American LNG, nor can it dictate that French firms invest in Ohio manufacturing plants. Energy markets and corporate investment decisions remain decentralized. The “commitment” was more of an aspirational suggestion than a contractual obligation.
Strategic Bluff or Diplomatic Overreach?
Was von der Leyen bluffing? Possibly. Was she overpromising? Almost certainly.
Michael Jäger, a prominent EU fiscal watchdog, has criticized the pledges as irresponsible. His point is simple but critical: von der Leyen is offering up other people’s money—European taxpayers and private corporations—for political deals that she may not be able to enforce.
Meanwhile, skepticism grows within the European Parliament and national governments. There’s concern that von der Leyen’s diplomatic style—confident, ambitious, and sometimes improvisational—may ultimately undermine EU credibility abroad.
A Calculated Gamble That Will Backfire
Von der Leyen may have calculated that a promise-heavy approach could diffuse trade tensions or curry favor with an unpredictable Trump. But if those promises unravel—as they seem to be doing—the result could be diminished EU influence and increased transatlantic distrust.
Moreover, Trump himself may be less patient than before. While he once accepted vague pledges, his insistence on guarantees this time suggests a more hardened negotiating posture. This could spell trouble if the EU can’t—or won’t—follow through.
Final Thought
So, did Ursula von der Leyen fool Trump?
Perhaps briefly. But not for long.
What we’re witnessing isn’t just a clash of political styles or economic visions—it’s a test of institutional limits. Trump, for all his unpredictability, expects results. Von der Leyen, for all her ambition, can only offer suggestions.
And in geopolitics, especially with someone like Trump, suggestions aren’t worth much without enforcement.
