Freezenet’s Official Podcast: May 2022: That’s Musked Up

In the 43rd episode of the Freezenet official podcast, “That’s Musked Up”, we take a look at the news and reviews we covered in May 2022.

Welcome to the public version of the Freezenet official podcast for May, 2022. This month’s episode is entitled “That’s Musked Up” because of Elon Musk attempting to buy Twitter and having that deal start to collapse shortly after.

In addition to this, we cover the Canadian stories surrounding the social media censorship bill (Bill C-11) and developments with the Canadian link tax law (Bill C-18). We also cover the explosive story from the US of the leaked draft decision to overturn Roe V Wade.

We also cover all the usual music and video game reviews. We even cover the story about how one lawyer says that frivolous lawsuits don’t exist. All this and more on this month’s podcast.

You can check out our official podcast on Soundcloud or Anchor. Alternatively, you can take a listen below:

What follows is a transcript of this month’s episode:


That’s Musked Up

Hi, I’m your host, Drew Wilson.  Welcome to episode 43 of the Freezenet official podcast for May, 2022.  Here are your top 3 headlines:

The Top 3

CRTC Chair, Ian Scott, finally admits Bill C-11 regulates user generated content.  This as Facebook considers blocking Canada in the face of impending link tax legislation

US digital rights organizations prepare for a post free speech world.  This in the wake of the Supreme Court leak saying that Roe v Wade is going to be overturned

… and right wing billionaire, Elon Musk, potentially torpedoes his own bid to buy Twitter after a dispute over bots

Top Stories

Canada’s war on the open Internet continues to dominate headlines this month.  Things kicked off with a supporter making laughably easy to debunk claims about Bill C-11.  The author in question said that he has found 5 arguments made by Bill C-11 opponents that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The first argument he cites is that Bill C-11 regulates user generated content.  He cites Section 2.1 as proof that people won’t get regulated and, therefore, says that the argument is false.  Of course, this argument doesn’t follow given that this is about people’s content being regulated, not the people themselves.  Section 4.1 (2) and 4.2 makes that clear that the legislation will regulate people’s content.  So, the counterargument failed and the argument still stands.

The second argument he cites is, weirdly, that large platforms could boycott the country if the regulations grow too severe.  He then says that he can’t refute that, but his gut instinct says that they wouldn’t actually do that.  Yeah, facepalm indeed.  Since nothing was disproven, the argument still stands.

The third argument he cites is that the discoverability requirements could interfere with freedom of expression.  His counterargument is that it, uh, does, but it’s a good thing because it promotes Canadian content.  He then argues that for those worried about losing impressions from recommendations, he argues that platforms have unlimited recommendation spots for that, so it’s no big deal.  So, in making that argument, he basically admits he has no idea how platforms work because, no, they don’t have unlimited recommendation spaces at any given time.  Therefore, there is still the high probability that people’s content would get suppressed, ergo, censorship.  So, the argument wasn’t really disputed, so the argument still stands.

The fourth argument that he cites is that smaller digital first creators stand to gain nothing from Bill C-11 and would be negatively harmed by the legislation.  He refutes that by saying that creators are automatically eligible and encouraged to apply for grants under the CMF.  All they have to do is meet the CAVCO rules, so this is no big deal.  First of all, that doesn’t address the concern.  Second of all, the CAVCO rules explicitly state that creators have to register their corporation as well as information about their staff.  This before proceeding to the next steps.  Obviously, this guy doesn’t even know what it’s like to be a smaller digital first creator because, no, they aren’t typically running large corporations with massive teams.  So, the argument still stands.

The final argument he cites is that current cancon rules are easily gamed by foreign production efforts not talking about Canadian stories.  This as obviously Canadian productions are unable to get the same kind of certification that designates them as Canadian.  He counter argues this by… agreeing with that?  He then says that he hopes that an amendment is added to Bill C-11 that addresses these concerns.  So, in other words, the argument stands because he doesn’t disagree with it.

Somehow, through all of that, he’s supposed to be saying that Bill C-11 critics have it all wrong and that Bill C-11 is totally perfect and needs to be passed quickly.  How that effort was supposed to convince me that Bill C-11 is so great and wonderful is… a complete mystery to me.  I guess you really can’t expect much from a former Unifor director.

On the back of that amusing flop came a story that really shook the link tax debate.  During a committee meeting, Facebook was asked about their reaction to Bill C-18.  They did respond that they had some serious concerns about the bill.  When asked whether or not they would consider leaving Canada over it, they basically responded by saying that they hadn’t ruled that possibility out.  The revelation took me by surprise given that they were all for the Australian link tax.  The platform was also already inking deals with major publishers in Canada as well.  So, it seemed like the debate was pretty much over on that front.  The idea that they still have enough reservations to warrant considering leaving the country was quite a surprise to me.

In response, the Canadian government went absolutely ballistic, throwing a temper tantrum at Facebook over their comments.  Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodriguez told journalists that Facebook wouldn’t dare leave the country.  He contends that because they didn’t ultimately leave Australia, that they would never leave Canada.  He further cemented his comments by saying that it would be really really unpopular if they chose to leave.  Somehow, this guy thinks that Facebook bases there business decisions on what is “popular”.  How?  I really don’t know.

He also responded to Facebook’s comments that they weren’t really consulted on the link tax bill.  He accused them of lying and said that staff made a phone call at one point to them.  Somehow, possibly leaving a voice mail counts as “consultation” these days.  How?  I’m not really sure.

So, with all this negativity going around in the coverage these days, we decided to add something positive and hopeful.  We counted down six positive things the Canadian government could be doing instead of declaring war on the Internet.  Those 6 things are:

1) Restart the privacy reform legislative process

2) Actually do something about the twice promised “digital charter”

3) Open up Internet infrastructure to smaller ISP players that want in, thereby increasing competition in this non-competitive space

4) Actually follow through on the promise to build up internet infrastructure and increase reliable high speed Internet to rural and indigenous communities

5) Implement the expert recommended system of an application process for copyright term extensions.  This as opposed to the blanket term of life plus 70 years as seen in Budget 2022, annex 3

6) Figure out ways of helping smaller Internet entrepreneurs get their business ideas off the ground.  This would include digital first creators, app developers, and others

We obviously go into great detail in our article about these points.  Still, if the government is hoping to generate good will among those in the Internet and tech sector, those would be fantastic ways of doing so.  Sadly, that is not what the government is doing at the moment and, instead, basically moved forward with policies that actively harm the digital environment and the people using it.

After that, YouTube came out and stated the obvious: Bill C-11 regulates user generated content.  It’s pretty much what everyone in the debate knows by now, but it was nice to see YouTube acknowledge this fact – however obvious it may be at this point.  There is, indeed, comfort in knowing that others are on the same page as you.

After that, digital rights organization, Open Media, released an FAQ on Bill C-18.  We’ve been reporting on the dangers of Canada’s link taxes for quite some time, but if you want a third party to confirm pretty much everything we’ve been saying, you can check out Open Media’s FAQ.

Some of the highlights include that it is a myth to say that social media is stealing journalists content, the fact that the link tax is a shakedown rather than normal legislation, that it will lead to less visibility of journalism content on social media after, and how it will undermine smaller local news outlets by forcing them to be part of a makeshift cartel being asked to fend for themselves in the process.

If you listen to our podcast or read our news site, none of this is really new to you.  Still, if you are wanting a third party to pretty much confirm what we are saying all along, you have it in that FAQ.

Sensing that they are losing control of the situation, the Liberal government launched a desperate attack against the massive opposition to Bill C-11.  MP, Patrick Weiler, seemingly donning his conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat, accused opponents of Bill C-11 of pushing a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign.  To that, we replied by asking that, what, in their minds, do we gain from pushing a “misinformation” campaign?  We see risks, pitfalls, and potential consequences of the legislation and are pushing back against that.  People, like digital first creators, have been very open and very vocal as to why everyone is opposed to the bill.  Obviously, to the MP, that is all a wall of lies, so, what exactly do we all gain from all of this if this was some kind of massive “misinformation campaign”?  We really don’t even have a direction to find an answer to that, let alone even a hint of an answer to this kind of thinking.

So, with so many having a very poor understanding of what it’s like to be an online digital first creator today, what is a more accurate depiction of said creator in the first place?  In our view, many are people who have day jobs or are going to school.  They have either a camera, recording software, or both.  They have a small following.  What’s more is that many are either solo efforts or are a partnership creating content largely for fun.  Sure, there are those at the top that have become massive production companies with millions following them, but as a general rule, those are very rare exceptions, not the expected norm.  Some of you listening right now are probably nodding in general agreement that this assessment sounds about right.  Of course, evidence to point to showing that this is a fairly accurate depiction is pretty hard to come by.

This month, there was actually a very vivid snapshot of what it’s like to be a digital first creator today.  This was provided by Linktree.  The findings are quite detailed.  While the study wasn’t specifically directed at Bill C-11 or the debate itself, it wound up being very relevant to the discussion.

Some of the findings in the study include the following:

– There’s 4.2 billion social media users out there.

– There’s roughly 200 million creators on platforms today

– Of those creators, 23 million creators have less than 1,000 subscribers or followers

– 139 million creators have anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 followers

– 59% of creators today have not been able to monetize their content.

– 35% of creators have monetized, but don’t make enough to be considered making a “livable” income

This really helps put into perspective what it’s like to be a content creator today.  What’s more is that it puts into context why it is absurd to expect online creators to all be corporations rolling in millions all day long.  The evidence illustrates that this is clearly not the case for a vast majority of creators today.  If you are planning on joining in on the Bill C-11 debate, that report is actually a pretty good one to start with outside of the text of the bill itself.

Later on, Google raised a really good point about Bill C-18.  Google contends that the legislation could be used to force platforms to pay troll farms money.  As a result, the law could force a platform like Google to fund misinformation campaigns.  So, we went back to Section 27 (1) of the bill and we can’t help but respond by saying that this is actually a really good point.  When we previously viewed Section 27 (1), we were looking at it through the lens of a smaller player being unable to get their foot in the door.  If you re-read this section through the lens of a foreign misinformation troll farm, you immediately see the glaring flaws of the bill in that light.

Breaking it down, it wouldn’t be that hard for a well funded (say, state sponsored) disinformation source to exploit the law to pull funding out of Google.  All they really need is a shell organization, two people acting as Canadian “journalists”, and feed the “stories” through them to be “made” in Canada.  After that, they can go running to Google and say, “OK, glorified ATM, cough up my millions!”  With the way the law is written, Google would be forced to legally oblige.  So, again, an excellent point being raised here.

After that, the CRTC Chair, Ian Scott, entered into the debate.  He continued to deny that Bill C-11 regulates user generated content.  He then said that, instead, the legislation would demand that certain kinds of content be promoted instead.  In other words, Scott basically said that Bill C-11 doesn’t regulate user generated content because… well… because it regulates user generated content.  There, feel better now?  I, myself, found myself asking, ‘do you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?’

Shortly after those remarks, Scott pretty much ended the debate over whether or not user generated content is regulated in Bill C-11.  In a committee exchange with Rachael Thomas, we ended up with this exchange:

“Thomas: Bill C-11 does in fact leave it open to user generated content being regulated by the CRTC. I recognize that there have been arguments against this, however, Dr. Michael Geist has said “the indisputable reality is that the net result of those provisions is that user generated content is in the bill.” Jeanette Patel from Youtube Canada said “the draft law’s wording gives the broadcast regulator” – in other words you – “scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch.” Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada has also said that “while the government says the legislation will not capture digital first creators, the bill clearly does capture them.”

So all these individuals are individual users creating content. It would appear that the bill does, or could in fact, capture them, correct?

Scott: As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required.”

… and that pretty much sealed the deal.  As heard by Scott himself, Bill C-11 regulates user generated content.  You can almost visualize all the Liberal MP’s in the room wincing in pain, knowing that the thin cover is fully blown about the bill.  Thank you Scott for finally admitting to it… in your rather roundabout way.

After that explosive admission was made, it seemed as though the Liberals went into full panic mode.  With no real defence left to be made, they began to do everything to limit debate of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.  The Heritage Committee managed to offer a tiny 20 hours of debate to discuss the details of the legislation.  What’s more, in an effort to limit discussion further, there was also a “pre-study” that was pushed.  Experts describe the “pre-study” as “unusual” and worry that it is designed to undermine the committee work.  Previously, when the legislation was known as Bill C-10, many described the previous “pre-study” as inadequate as well.

What’s more is that the government is also trying to ram through Bill C-18.  They are trying to limit debate to the barest of minimum despite the implications it would have on linking in the world wide web.

We pointed out that these are not new tactics.  Previously, during the Bill C-10 debates, the government, backed by the Bloc, pushed “gag orders” to silence debate on the legislation.  This happened both in committee and in the House of Commons.  It got so bad that the Speaker of the House had to intervene and throw out numerous amendments because the Committee, in his ruling, exceeded its authority when the government pulled that stunt.  While it ultimately served as a minor speed bump in the end, the wider implications further damaged the Liberal parties reputation – with the Bloc receiving splash damage in the process given their role in acting as an accomplice in all of this.

We also noted the fact that the NDP has, once again, flip-flopped on the legislation.  In so doing, it became difficult to really understand what the NDP even stands for these days.  First, the NDP was opposed to Bill C-10.  Then, with the looming election, they thought they could gain seats in Quebec by supporting the bill.  When the bill died on the order-paper, the political fortunes also died along with it.  When it became politically risky to even think about supporting the legislation, MP, Charlie Angus called Bill C-10 a “dumpster fire”.  The move saw the NDP flip-flop again and actually correctly opposed the legislation.  After that, with the Supply and Confidence deal, the NDP, along with Angus, voted to move the now-called Bill C-11 legislation forward despite it being a “dumpster fire”.

With the party flip-flopping so many times, they are showing that they can’t be relied on when critical votes matter.  They have ultimately sold out their principles and are now voting based on what they seem to see as short term political opportunities.  It’s losing them support and gaining them nothing, but, sadly, this is what the party has now devolved into today.

Despite the government trying to ram through these bills with the least amount of debate possible, digital first creators are still finding ways of having their voices heard.  Canadian creator, Morghan Fortier, warned that Bill C-11 is a bad bill.

“Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation,” she said. “It has been written by those who don’t understand the industry.”

While what Canadian creators actually have to say about the bill seems to matter little to the Liberal party, it’s good to see more creators speaking out against this bill.  In fact, if anything, Canadian creators are taking this threat to their collective livelihoods seriously.  So, they aren’t exactly taking this sitting down.  It’s unlikely that their voices, however reasoned and diplomatic they are, will have an impact of the legislation’s trajectory.  In fact, it is looking increasingly likely that the big fight might still be what we predicted way back in the beginning to take place – in the courts.  Still, we should emphasize that these pleas for sanity aren’t for nothing and it is still encouraging to see creators stand up to defend themselves.

Turning to the US, this month saw a story that completely shook the entire country to the core.  For month’s now, the Republican controlled US Supreme court has been working tirelessly to crack down and roll back human rights.  The top priority is destroying women’s rights by greenlighting various abortion ban bills passed by right wing controlled states.  While the Texas abortion ban laws have been a focal point for months, it now seems to be overshadowed by an even more diabolical decision.

A bombshell report shows a leaked US Supreme Court draft.  It’s a branch of the government that almost every expert says never has anything leak.  This time, it did, and what was leaked rocked the country to the core.  The leak suggests that the conservative activist judges are getting set to completely overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision.

The leak has shaken virtually every corner of the United States.  Women’s rights advocates were horrified that this was really happening.  Human rights organizations were angered and disgusted.  Digital rights organizations found their faces turning white at the prospect.  The legal community was stunned by the development.

Indeed, the destruction of women’s rights granted by the decision would have wide ranging implications.  Many states already have in place so-called “trigger” laws.  Those laws would automatically become the law of the land should the court make the ideological decision to overturn Roe v Wade – a decision rooted in basic civil rights.

Obviously, the forthcoming decision would have extremely destructive consequences for rights that go far beyond a woman’s right to choose.  Examples of this include the ramifications of free speech (including online free speech), privacy rights, and a whole lot more.

The Supreme Court said that they would launch an investigation to determine who had the audacity to warn American’s that this shoe was going to drop ahead of time.  One Justice defended themselves, saying that the decision isn’t final.  Still, the impending doom that this warning represented was felt across the country.

In response to this massive attack on civil rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a guide.  This in an effort to get ahead of this decision and help people protect their right to freedom of expression and privacy before the laws kick in.  The guide offers numerous suggestions on how to maintain your privacy in a post Roe V Wade world.  The caveat they have is that not all state laws will work the same, so one would still need to find out if some of the ideas are applicable to those individual users or not.  Still, the hope is that the advice is helpful for when Republican state governments start bringing the hammer down – something that seems inevitable at this stage.  Ever feel like you are living in a dystopian society?

In another story that came out of the blue, Elon Musk is attempting to buy Twitter.  In the days leading up to the official push, right wing extremists, bolstered by botnets, were cheering the move on for the simple reason that this felt, to them, like an opportunity to “own the libs”.  While it didn’t seem like something that would actually happen, the official buyout offer made the deal all too real.

Musk offered to buy the company for an estimated $44 billion.  On the outset, Musk said that he plans on taking the company private.  Details for his vision of Twitter then started spilling out bit by bit.  One of the early promises was to “unlock” the free speech potential of the platform.  That didn’t sit well with a lot of users who took that as a dog whistle for right wingers more than anything else.  Essentially, this was taken as an early sign that the intention is to turn Twitter into another right wing echo chamber.  This just like other failed platforms like Gab, Parler, and Truth Social.

That speculation would turn out to be justified as Musk would later say that he intends on keeping all the “good” content and banning all the “bad” content.

While right wingers were portraying this as a way of “making the libs cry” – as if to say that Twitter is the be all and end all, for users – many Twitter users had a much different and more realistic take on the situation.  For many, Twitter was always a cesspool of the worst in humanity.  If Musk pushes it over the edge, they are more than happy to move to an alternative with actual sane policies.  As a result, it is more of a case that Twitters future is what was actually at risk.

Some users responded to the developments by actively seeking alternatives.  Two of the most often talked about alternatives were Mastodon and Countersocial.  Some users were saying that they were going to leave immediately while others were taking a somewhat more pragmatic approach.  Those other users were signing up for accounts in the event that Twitter becomes overly toxic and cannot be dealt with any more.  Right wing extremists responded by calling on Twitter to ban those thinking of leaving or looking at alternatives.  You know, because that’s how free speech works apparently: promote everything you agree with and censor and ban everything  that you don’t.

In response, Mastodon reported a massive influx in user sign ups.  CounterSocial, meanwhile, wound up going down because of the massive influx.  Many conclude that the reason Mastodon withstood the influx was because they have a decentralized nature about their server structure.  This as opposed to CounterSocial which apparently has a more centralized approach to their infrastructure.

Either way, it pointed to how many users were less than satisfied with the prospect of Musk taking over Twitter.

While all the signs pointed to this deal being all but a sure thing, the formalities stage proved to be a much bigger hurdle than expected.  Musk wound up disputing data offered by Twitter.  Twitter said that less than 5% of traffic on Twitter is bot activity.  Musk, seemingly using his own gut feeling, decided that this was false.  The dispute wound up putting the seemingly all but certain deal on hold.  What’s more is that this represented what looks like a growing rift between Musk and the platform.  That rift is seemingly threatening to derail the whole deal entirely.  This isn’t even getting in to the Twitter and Tesla stock prices cratering throughout the process.

You know what?  Forget about just calling this yet another busy month.  Let’s just call this the usual chaos.  Hopefully, you are enjoying knowing about the usual chaos happening these days.  So, let’s keep this going by mentioning some of the other stories happening this month.

Other Stories Making News

European officials are seemingly getting set to launch another anti-trust lawsuit against Apple.  At issue is the Apple Pay system.  Regulators say that Apple has made it impossible for competitors to make alternatives to the Apple Pay system through mobile payments.  All this was made public in a statement of objections by the Brussels regulators.

A Toronto Committee has blocked efforts to bring affordable high speed Internet to low income residents.  The municipal broadband initiative, known as ConnectTO, was set to finally bring in some level of competition for Internet providers.  The decision marks yet another blow dealt by governments at all levels to the movement trying to increase competition in the ISP industry.  Digital rights advocates have expressed disappointment in the decision.

It seemed as though the Rogers Shaw merger would sail through the regulatory process over the objections of experts and citizens alike.  The CRTC has already rubberstamped the decision in their typical anti-competitive behaviour.  This month, however, we learned that the deal has, mercifully, hit it’s first major road block.  The Competition Bureau has recommended blocking the deal for obvious competition reasons.  While this recommendation isn’t a final decision, it breathed new hope into an otherwise seemingly hopeless process.  Digital rights advocates are hoping to build on this decision and increase momentum to put a stop to this deal.

Florida made the news this month in its typical weird Florida way.  Florida state Republican’s have been pushing their “Don’t Say Gay” law for some time – a controversial bill that would allow parents to sue schools for daring to mention the existence of non-straight relationships.  Disney, however, has said that they plan on fighting against this bill given that it is basically the moral thing to do.  Republican’s responded by trying to remove as many tax incentives as possible from Disney.  What’s more is that Republican’s at the state level are seemingly working with Federal level Republican’s to further punish Disney.

Legislation is now in the process of being introduced to roll back copyright terms to 56 years as well.  This as opposed to the current term of life plus 70 years.  The push isn’t expected to go very far, no doubt in part because of obvious impending objections by organizations like the MPAA and RIAA.  Still, it was weird to see a so-called “leftist” push being made by Republican’s.  I guess they went so far right, they started pushing “leftist” ideas.  “What the heck am I hearing?” indeed.

The 5th Circuit court of Appeal has revived the Texas Moderation ban bill.  The court refused to give a reason why they overturned the lower courts decision.  Still, the legal decision pretty much guaranteed that the lawsuit to fight the law is going to move forward in the legal process.  Lawyers representing organizations and platforms said that they were going to obviously appeal the decision.

Finally, it’s no secret that television programming is bad these days.  Unless you are watching the hockey playoffs or are still kidding yourself into thinking that the next season of Survivor is the most epic season yet, it’s downright painful to try and find anything even remotely worth watching once the news is over (and the news isn’t exactly pleasant to watch to begin with).  In the last number of years, prime time television has devolved into a space where quality entertainment goes to die.  Chances are, you can count on one hand the number of people you know who watches three or more TV programs at one time.  So, it really is no surprise that reports are indicating how ratings are continuing to fall.  Consider it a sort of “garbage programming in, garbage ratings out” kind of system.

So, you might be thinking, have television executives simply given up on trying to put something worth watching on TV?  A new report might lend more credibility to that thinking.  This month, television executives on major American networks have given up on television so much, that they didn’t even bother releasing their fall schedules this year.  If you want a sign that television really is a sunset industry, that was probably one of the bigger signs yet that this is the case.  Reports also suggest that executives don’t even care about trying to save it, either.  Some suggest that television executives are more interested in focusing on their streaming apps instead.

On the plus side, if you were itching for that 6,000th rerun of the Big Bang Theory or Mom, boy are you in luck!  Otherwise, uh, yeah, it’s not looking good if you are an avid TV fan.  I’m beginning to think that things are only going to get worse from here.

Video Game Reviews

Since we are on the topic of entertainment, let’s talk about something that actually has promise to be entertaining: video games.

Before we get into the video game reviews, I wanted to point out the first impression video’s we’ve posted this month.

For the first Steam game we played this month, we tried Baldur’s Gate: Enhanced Edition.  You can check out what we first encountered on our site or on YouTube.

For this month’s Playstation 3 game, we tried Midnight Club: Los Angeles – Complete Edition.  That video can be seen on our site or on YouTube.

After that, we tried the XBox 360 backwards compatibility mode by playing Halo 2.  That video can be seen directly on our site or on YouTube.

Finally, we tried the Steam game Spectraball.  That video can be seen directly on our site or on YouTube.

As always, you can subscribe to our YouTube channel and turn on notifications to get realtime updates on what video’s we’ve posted.

Now, here are video games we’ve reviewed this month:

First up is Aaahh!!! Real Monsters for the Sega Genesis.  Clunky controls and steep learning curve made this one feel like a quick cash grab.  This one got a barely passable 58%.

Next up is Road Rash 3: Tour de Force for the Sega Genesis.  Great graphics and an overall enjoyable game, though the earlier stages might be a bit more on the difficult side.  Still, this one gets a great 80%.

After that, we tried Gargoyles for the Sega Genesis.  A high degree of difficulty and bugs wound up ruining the experience.  This one flopped with a 48%.

Finally, we tried Super Off Road for the Super Nintendo.  Great gameplay with additional features not found on the Sega Genesis version.  The addition of some very nice music also helped things along.  This one got a great 86%.

Music Reviews

As for music we’ve listened to this month, we’ve got…

Spacehog – In the Meantime

White Zombie – Grease Paint and Monkey Brains

Blink 182 – Wasting Time

Filter – Hey Man Nice Shot

Airbase – Roots (Andy Blueman Remix)

The Chemical Brothers – Life Is Sweet

Social Distortion – Under My Thumb

CIV – Set Your Goals

… and finally: Garbage – Stupid Girl

Picks of the Month

So, that leads us to our pick of the month.  This month, our pick of the month belongs to Super Off Road for the Super Nintendo.  Also, be sure to check out Road Rash 3: Tour de Force for the Sega Genesis and Airbase – Roots (Andy Blueman Remix).


And in other news

In Ohio, a man pulled into a gas station to fill up on gas.  Apparently, the passenger had other idea’s.  That passenger slid over into the drivers seat and drove off, leaving the man behind.  Naturally, the man who was left behind called police to report that his truck had been stolen.  Police were eventually able to locate the stolen truck and arrest the car thief.  Standard crime story so far, right?  Well, the police then ran the plates after recovering the vehicle and found something rather interesting.  The man that reported the truck stolen apparently also stole the truck from someone else.  So, the police returned to the supposed victim and arrested him as well for stealing the truck.  Maybe it was a bad idea to report the truck you stole as stolen to police?  I dunno, just sayin’!

It’s pretty obvious that if you want to stay on the right side of the law, you probably shouldn’t use and sell meth.  I’m sure that an overwhelming majority of police would agree with that sentiment, possibly citing a few local laws in the process.  Well, apparently, one individual working in law enforcement somehow didn’t get the message.  Don’t worry, this isn’t a story about a low level police officer getting busted.  No, it’s even more ridiculous then that.  It was the chief of police that got busted.  Calvin Police Chief Joe Don Chitwood was arrested on suspicion of distributing and  using methamphetamine.  A court affidavit says that a senior agent “utilized an Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics confidential informant to purchase methamphetamine from Calvin Police Chief Joe Chitwood.”  Something tells me things got a tad bit more awkward in that police station after.

Sooner or later, most people have heard of a lawsuit they consider ridiculous.  In fact, there is no shortage of people who consider some lawsuits frivolous.  Well, someone published an article saying frivolous lawsuits don’t exist!  That someone just so happens to be Daylin Leach.  The best part is is that he calls himself a lawyer in the article.  You know what they say, if a lawyer said it, then it MUST be true!  I mean, this is such fantastic news, I had to spread the word.  So, I told Mike Masnick of Techdirt of the excellent news that frivolous lawsuits don’t exist.  Masnick was clearly overjoyed with the news because he responded to me on Twitter, saying, “Someone actually published this nonsense under their own name?!?”  Man, what I would give to see just how much he rolled his eyes when he saw that article!


Before we close out this month’s podcast, we got one quick announcement to make.  This month, we released the April Wiki content patch.  In that content patch, we added a nice sizable chunk of the back archive for the Future Sound of Egypt.  We managed to make it all the way up to episode 550.  Episode 550 was another one of those super large episodes, so it’s not a surprise our progress stopped at that particular episode.  Still, we actually got a huge chunk of that particular episode done as well, so that increased the chances of adding another chunk of episodes for the next patch.  The good news is that, after that special, there really is only two large specials left: episode 600 and episode 650.  So, we’re finally starting to get down there in terms of remaining episodes left in the back archive at this point.

Also, we updated the ongoing shows to have the latest episodes.  Those ongoing shows are: The Future Sound of Egypt, Fables, Resonation, the V Recordings Podcast, and the Random Movement Podcast.

If you’d like to get your hands on some behind the scenes stuff, exclusive content, and early access material, you can check out our Patreon page at  Through this, you can help make Freezenet just that much better all the while getting some pretty cool stuff in the process.  That’s!

Alternatively, you can simply buy us a coffee via!

…and that’s this months episode for May, 2022.  I’m Drew Wilson for Freezenet.  Be sure to check out our website at for all the latest in news and reviews.  You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.  Thank you for listening and see you next month.

Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: