E17: Big Tech bans Trump, ramifications for the First Amendment & the open Internet

hey everyone hey everyone welcome your illustrious moderator jason 
calcandis has been purged cancelled   he's been canceled we canceled him for his 
constant interruptions and low iq comments   we decided that the minimum iq 
required to be on this part of this   you know 150 he did not make the cut and 
so now it is just me chamoth and freeburg he is uh jason is away he is actively 
implementing our jerk off to win   strategy to solve the pandemic and free speech hey everybody hey everybody it is an emergency 
podcast episode 16 hit number two in the   uh rankings on the apple itunes podcasting store   clearly we hit a nerve it's been an insane 
week and the dictator dictated that he was   not satisfied with doing our podcast once 
every two weeks and so here we are on a sunday   the queen of quinoa rain man himself david sacks 
and the dictator chopping it up for you the loyal   confused angry infuriated audience of all 
in it's the craziest week of our lives   jason plea please don't describe to the audience 
the characteristics that describe yourself   okay this has been a crazy 72 hours can anybody 
remember us a week that has been more crazy in   their life with the exception i guess 911 
the financial crisis i'm trying to think of   this level of crazy i think i think we should 
start with what happened after the last all-in   podcast between you and saks over text we should 
get it all out there we should share it publicly   and i think no no no no i think yeah i 
think no we should i think it's worth doing   we we talked about this before you joined us and 
uh chamoth and i are having an intervention and uh   you know i i'm going to say something 
real quick i think it's worth highlighting   that one of the things that i think we have the 
opportunity to do as a group is to kind of elevate   the conversation a bit and not frame things 
as being black and white and not frame them as   being one or zero or partisan or left or right and 
everyone on this in this conversation has nuanced   opinions about a lot of different topics and when 
you sum up all those opinions it doesn't define   a left or right person or democrat or republican 
i think that's what makes us you know a compelling   and interesting group to talk to sax has been 
characterized as the trump guy he took offense to   that um and in particular the heated conversation 
you guys had last time and i do think it's worth   kind of sharing that with everyone and letting you 
guys reconcile publicly yeah have a group hug yeah   and and reframe kind of how we talk about each 
other and how so that we can kind of set a bit of   an example on on how to do this well i can sorry 
you can start david i'll i'll i'll start because   objection you're the aggrieved yeah i mean so 
look i i think that that j cow does an amazing   job moderating the pod and it's a difficult job 
um and you know the the the so i so i don't want   to um you know this is not something i'm trying to 
blame him for but i do have an objection to being   labeled in a certain way i think anybody would 
you know we we don't want to be misconstrued and   and we want to be able to characterize our own 
views we don't want to be labeled a certain way   now i think jason has sort of branded me as a 
trump guy because frankly it's amusing to him   um i think he's mainly trolling me and but the 
audience doesn't necessarily understand that i   mean if you go back and look at my twitter feed or 
my blogs i haven't written about trump for years   i mean i haven't said anything really about it 
that's not my agenda um you know and i think it   i don't have a pro-trump agenda but i also don't 
have a pro-resistance agenda i've described my   position as anti-hysteria sometimes that means 
criticizing trump like it did in the last pod   sometimes it means criticizing the resistance so i 
just don't like being labeled a certain way and i   think jason and i sort of you know kind of resolve 
this um you know if i label my politics just you   know jason calls me the conservative i think 
that's more accurate but the question is you know   what am i conserving exactly and i would describe 
myself more as like a 1960s style liberal you   know i'm a believer in free speech you know aclu 
style um believer in king's dream of a colorblind   society you know if you know i'm against all 
these you know foreign wars and interventions   if i had been around the 1960s i would have 
been protesting vietnam that's kind of more   where i'm coming from and i guess the reason i'm 
a conservative now is because the political debate   has moved so far away from that but if i'm 
trying to conserve anything it's really the   liberal victories of the 1960s so in any event i 
i don't think that qualifies me in any way as a as   a trumper per se and um i just don't want you know 
jason making jokes to somehow um have the audience   get the wrong idea because i want to be heard 
and i know trump's an extremely polarizing figure   and the second you tell somebody you're frankly 
pro or con trump the other half just doesn't   even stop doesn't even want to listen to you um 
and so my views are more complicated than that okay well thanks for everybody 
for tuning in to the all-in   amazing episode 17.

Thanks to our sponsors um 
listen uh i think what makes this podcast great   is the diversity of opinion and the respect that 
we show for each other if my breaking chops uh   which is as everybody knows here uh my superpower 
in life and talk along with talking has pigeon   holed you into being something you're not or if 
you felt i've taken a cheap shot at you in any way   uh i apologize and it was not my intent my intent 
is to keep the conversation flowing to entertain   the audience certainly but not at anybody's 
expense david and certainly not yours because   i do consider you one of the best friends i've had 
in my life and one of the most supportive people   in my life and anything we all feel that way about 
each other that we go to bad for each other and   support each other i do think that this highlights 
and dovetails with what we and i've given it a lot   of thought actually i've really spent since 
the last podcast a lot of time thinking about   your position david and where you're coming 
from and then also where the people who maybe   you know you maybe agreed with some of uh trump's 
victories and certainly you're a conservative   i don't know if you voted for him or not or if 
you're willing to say if you did i'll put that   aside for a moment but i do think that we're all 
seeing in our families in our lives and now as a   nation what is the off-ramp here to the people 
who supported trump up until this coup attempt   uh and this ugliness and then how do we reconcile 
it right that is the grand reconciliation here is   the thing that has me very concerned because 
we're a microcosm david you and i are you know   unbelievably close friends uh for a very long 
period of time and we struggle with uh i think uh   trump trump is as i was saying in our group chat 
earlier it's like the trolley car problem like   people will be pulling up how do you deal with 
trump as the example of you know what do you   do if the trolley car you know it's going to kill 
one person or five and do you you know the breaks   broken kind of situation it's and i think jack 
and the platforms also have a difficult task   do you leave this person up after what we saw on 
wednesday and a lot has changed since wednesday   can you say something i'll leave it at that and 
then i'll throw it to your mouth i don't want to   no jason here's the thing i think that um we all 
have views i think the thing that i respect the   most about saks is that his views are independent 
of the candidate du jour and i think his views   quite honestly are in many cases the most well 
reasoned and well thought out because he's frankly   you know one of the smartest people in our 
friend group if not probably the smartest   so i think what it speaks to is the fact that you 
can have these momentary sort of pauses where you   have these people that are so polarizing 
that you forget that there are legitimate   views on both sides i mean i would characterize 
my political views as in some cases like deeply   conservative meaning get the government out of the 
way they're a bunch of incompetent [ __ ] buffoons   and on the other side on some issues i think 
that they should be extremely interventional   like in healthcare or in climate change because 
it's just so dire and there needs to be a public   mandate in order to drive change i don't know 
where i fit anymore especially because it's harder   to be nuanced as friedrich said at the beginning 
without sounding like a complete crazy person   because one word triggers the other side against 
you so i think the thing that i just want all   the listeners to appreciate not just amongst the 
four of us but also amongst their own friends is   having a little patience and tolerance 
here is really important because   we cannot become the worst of ourselves especially 
because of a single person who will be rendered   with an enormous asterisk beside his name and by 
him i mean trump for the rest of our natural lives   and so let's just not allow what one person 
has been able to do to malign all of our like   natural ability to just not be completely stupid 
quite honestly so um i just think it's important   to realize that we all have completely completely 
nuanced perspectives they're all worth listening   to and i would just tell people don't fall for 
the simple easy out to assume that you know being   a conservative means you're a trump supporter or 
being a liberal means you're not a trump supporter   because i think that there's issues in which you 
know frankly look let's be honest the the wall   street journal opinion by uh was it lisa lasser 
what was her name lisa uh amy lassell somebody um   sky posted into the group chat nick can you find 
it i can't remember it sassel or lasso is her last   name anyways oh kim strassel kim strausel journal 
yeah she she had a paragraph intro where and again   i wasn't a trump supporter have never been a 
trump supporter i do have those some sympathy   to some of the things he did and the way 
that she described his four years although   you know she was selective it was impressive 
actually you know meaning getting the rhetoric   right on china getting the rhetoric on trade right 
um the deregulation that he's created in some ways   so there there is very much a reasonable 
narrative up until the capital storming where   the glass was definitely half full and it could 
have legitimately been viewed half full and it   was just a matter of opinion because he was just 
such a crazy person and his style was so shitty   i think the thing is david said this on the last 
part after storming the capital it is very clear   100 categorically this guy is just a complete 
piece of [ __ ] and so now the people that stand   with him are extremely isolated and so i just 
want us to remember that there there is probably   something to learn from everybody he actually 
did some reasonable things intelligently well   until he [ __ ] self-immolated himself um and so 
let's just not give in to our basic instincts here   and i think there's a lot to learn from uh 
i think the frustration of a lot of people   is some people saw this coming and some people 
you know when peter thiel said things like hey   you know don't take trump literally and all this 
kind of stuff some of us were taking him literally   and some of us were very concerned and people were 
saying oh you're being hyperbolic he's not hitler   he's he's not dangerous you know what uh [ __ ] he 
is dangerous and you should take him literally and   i think a lot of the folks who enabled him and 
who thought it was funny um who weren't on the   other side of his vindictiveness his dog whistling 
uh and the anger and the violence he put out into   the world and he consistently did this you know he 
he he started by saying you know get that person   the hell out of here like i would in the old 
days the cops would have thrown him down the   stairs kind of thing he he is like tony soprano 
or any other mob boss who knows how to incite   people to do dangerous things without having the 
culpability himself as you pointed out chamath he   he might be the one who gets off scot-free while 
they're rounding up all these people and you got   this prediction right like yeah these people are 
going to go to jail there's multiple felonies   he's not going to get off scot-free he's not 
well i mean do you think he's going to jail   and do you think the people who broke into this 
you think you think trump's going to jail yes   oh my lord i'm i'm not i'm not sure about that but 
i i i do think that you know like i said last time   uh trump is now the first uh sitting president 
to cost his party the presidency the house and   the senate since herbert hoover uh jason if you're 
right about trump i mean the voters have certainly   been able to see that and they've punished him and 
his party at the polls i do think that whatever   you do to trump individually at this point is sort 
of redundant with that um you know he has now cost   his party uh any share of power everything any 
share of the power in washington so can i ask   you a question david when i made that point about 
peter thiel and the people who supported him early   do you have any regrets in your own thinking 
about being supportive of trump in his early years   you're coming at this from a place i've never even 
come at it from which is i'm not like a partisan   person uh when trump won the election in 2016 
my first reaction was not is this you know har   right or wrong i don't it's you know what side am 
i on my my first reaction was why did this happen   you know i tried to understand it you know i 
read you know the the hillbilly elegy author um   you know i was you know my my surprise at that 
happening caused me to ask questions and you know   what i think became really clear is that trump won 
despite his manifest you know flaws because of a   uh because of the failure of the elites i mean he 
he was you know he's a sort of outsider populist   and the country was trying to send the a 
bipartisan i should say bipartisan elites   and what was that message that to chamas point 
for the last 20 years uh the bipartisan consensus   in washington has been to feed this chinese tiger 
into the wagon is now potentially on the cusp   of supplanting us as the sort of richest economy 
in the world we have admired ourselves in these   forever wars in the middle east i mean again 
these were things that both democrats and   republicans got us into so my reaction you know 
was first and foremost to try and understand it   and then once he was in the presidency you 
know i didn't see my job as being to be part   of some crazy resistance i mean there needed to 
be a rational opposition to trump and there was   never a rational opposition um people would 
basically object to anything he said just because   he said it which ben made your side and i'm going 
to say your side the conservative side i wouldn't   say your side the conservative side dug in because 
they were like well the left's being hysterical   not not really i mean if you've been reading 
national review for the last few years and   especially the last two months there's been plenty 
of criticism of trump well i was thinking more ted   cruz lindsey graham all these people who said they 
would be never trumpers became right in line trump   supporters and they're in their partisan they're 
they're politicians they're part of the the party   for people who care about ideas what i would 
say is i didn't change my ideas one way or   another because trump might happen to agree 
with one of them freeberry what's your take i don't like talking about trump well that is 
kind of i think where we where we're getting to   this is that look what's the off ramp 
here friedberg um what's the end game   you guys remember how the emperor came 
to power in star wars it was palpatine   turned the republic against itself and then he 
emergency powers emergency powers um look i i what   i to sax's point like i care um more deeply um i 
care very little about trump the person um and i   care more deeply about the motivations of people 
that that want a person like that um in power and   i care more deeply about the way the dialogue 
is happening um to resolve ideas and to resolve   to decisions in this country right now um that is 
why i think that you know my vote last year in our   last two podcasts ago which seems like 10 years 
ago was that um the biggest political failure   of 2020 is the institute of american democracy 
and it's only gotten worse in the last two weeks and i think that the mechanism 
by which we have debate   is lost it's from everyone from the 
republican to the democratic leadership   uh it is attacking and finger-pointing and there 
is no um resolve for forgiveness um there is no   everything is all about justice and winning 
and there is no resolve for objectivity and   discovering the truth and doing the best thing for 
people not the best thing for party and doing the   best thing for country and that's really easy 
to say and really really hard to do as i think   everyone is realizing because as soon as you say 
let's bring the country together half the country   raises their hand and says but i want justice 
and we can't come together until we have justice   and so at what point do you break the cycle you 
know revenge never ends until someone steps down   first and says you know what i give up i'm not 
gonna i'm gonna end up in the losing position   but at that point maybe reconciliation can begin 
um and i'm more concerned about the the heat the   temperature and everyone says turn it down but no 
one's actually turning it down um and so you know   the legacy of trump i i i honestly care less 
about i care much more about going forward how   do we resolve to decisions that aren't all about 
the democrats overrunning and i you know i was   i was actually upset about georgia because i do 
think it's a problem if you have a one-party state   and we don't have balance and we don't have a 
forum for conversation we don't have a forum   uh you know for for coming to uh to kind 
of you know objective sentiment that that's   best for the people um and so i you know 
i'm much more interested in flipping the   conversation away from trump and trying 
to think about you know going forward   what are the things what are the forums what 
are the mechanisms that we can have to to create   equity in the country to create reconciliation 
to create balance in decision making and to   turn down the temperature so that chancellor 
palpatine doesn't become the evil emperor   and that we don't lose to china and you know all 
the things that are kind of emerging as being the   unfortunate outcomes yeah we have three or four 
major wars we need to solve the pandemic china   wealth inequality global warming chamoth uh do 
you think at this point in the podcast we should   walk through what's happened since wednesday 
vis-a-vis you know trump being de-platformed or   do you think we should uh talk a little bit about 
and skip to reconciliation i think we have a fork   in the road here as the moderator i'll just ask 
chamoth maybe you could pick which direction we   go well i think it's important to talk about 
what happened um and i'll frame this in the   in the context of peter thiel he has a philosopher 
that he's talked a lot about renee gerard and   um you know basically the the girardian philosophy 
is essentially that you know people come into   conflict because they're extremely similar and 
you know they effectively want the same things and   they're competing for the same sort of essentially 
scarce resources and the way that you resolve that   is through some sort of cathartic sacrifice 
right meaning like there needs to be a grand   crime a grand act and i think that we're at this 
point to friedberg's sort of earlier statement   where you got a choice which is you either throw 
democracy under the bus or you actually throw   djt under the bus and you don't have a choice 
and that and that and and sort of like it's not   just even the united states it's almost like sort 
of democracy as an institution's hand was forced   um this past week and so it is probably important 
to look at what's happened in the last few   days through that lens which is you know it's 
it's almost like people first were shocked   and then now we're in the midst of that reflexive 
reaction to what is a simple choice which is you   can basically forgive the guy or you can re-affirm 
the institution which means to sacrifice the guy   and i think that's the thing that's happening in 
real time and it's going to be i think over the   next few weeks a super messy conversation because 
you're going to have a bunch of dumb decisions   you're going to have a bunch of overreaching 
you know you're going to have a bunch of um   dramatic sort of bellyaching on both sides 
you know there was this thing today where   devin nunes was like screaming about how he had 
lost his 3 000 followers on par or three million   followers on parlor but he was saying it on fox 
news which is distribution to millions of people   and so can i ask a question about this reality 
now we're all facing do because the event that   occurred on wednesday we are all still trying 
to process and new information is coming in   as we you know as people get the videos and and 
as we let the dust settle the dust is settling i'm   curious sax do how do you look at what happened on 
wednesday do you view it as a coup do you because   some of the information that's come out about they 
were trying to get to pence and that they wanted   to kidnap people and then you that dovetails 
with the kidnapping schemes that were going on   uh and there were pipe bombs and a police officer 
was beaten to death with a pipe and his skull   was crushed or something we don't have all the 
details yet fire yeah a first thing where she   was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher some 
of the videos i've seen of police being dragged   um you know that counteract the selfie police 
you know so many different things occurred on   wednesday i think we all have to just think about 
what happened on wednesday how do we each feel   about what happened on wednesday i'll go to 
you first sex and not because i'm framing you   as anything just because you haven't yeah no i 
mean i already said i i already gave my thoughts   in the last part that it was outrageous it was 
a travesty um it was a rally that turned into   a riot that turned into you know some sort of 
insurrection i guess you could call it it was it   was a rebellion against authority um i think coup 
is potentially a strong word uh because it wasn't   nobody ever had their hands on the levers of 
power i mean the fate of the republic was never   in question i know there were even you know 
people tweeting about how the uh the these   marauders whatever you want to call them 
almost got their hands on the elector's ballots   i mean yeah but we all know how they're 
voting even if they had gotten them   uh we would just have gotten new ones i 
mean that was sort of a ceremonial thing   but look it was it was an absolute outrage but i 
do think that there is um a thing happening now   uh called threat inflation where you know using 
language like you know going from riot to uh   insurrection to now coup it there is a a type of 
inflation happening that is then used to justify   the reaction by the other side to it which is now 
you know the basically the ending of freedom of   speech um which is really i think the big thing 
that's happened since the last pod is really   the reason why we are having this emergency pod i 
think is because of what's happened there i think   the emergency power was just to make sure that the 
pod wasn't ending because of you not getting in a   big fight i think that was people's concern the 
beatles were breaking up yeah well that's true   look uh just keeping the pot together you know 
with with four big egos on it you're right it's   hard it is like the beatles you know one day it's 
gonna break up but but not but not yet not yet   uh but but i wanna i wanna tie in this issue with 
you said what you said about the off-ramp okay   which is you know what is the off-ramp from this 
look everybody understands i think regardless of   what side political spectrum you're on that we 
are caught in a cycle of insane hyper-partisan   warfare and tit-for-tat retaliation and that is 
the thing that we need to uh that is the ledge   we need to walk back from okay 
but the problem that everybody has   is that they can only see the other side doing it 
you know they can't see themselves doing it this   is a two-way street both sides are doing it and 
that's how de-escalation works is both of us have   to concede something yes and unless you can see 
when your side is doing it we're never gonna break   the cycle now the thing that is happening right 
now now what trump did was absolutely outrageous   and i think it it brought him to an ignominious 
end in american politics he will pay for it in   the history books if not in a court of law 
okay but now what has happened is the next   step in the tit-for-tat retaliation what the 
the stormy of the capital has now been used   to implement a sweeping attack on free speech 
you know the the twitter employees who sent   that letter to jack who've been demanding this for 
years have finally gotten their way and there is   a widespread purge going on and not just of trump 
not just a permanent ban on trump and then a whole   bunch of other people you know conservatives 
there are now liberal accounts there's an   account that i wasn't even aware of called red 
scare they're basically you know pretty pretty   much on the left no one can say exactly what it 
was that got them banned i guess they had steve   bannon on their podcast they are suddenly banned 
from twitter nobody knows why oh i subscribe to   the red scare podcast it's actually uh it's called 
the dirt bag left they're kind of like socialists   um intel trying to be public intellectuals and 
it's it's oddly compelling i'll leave it at   that um but they are now banned from from twitter 
they somehow got let's pause for a second on djt   getting banned from twitter this is close to 100 
million followers it's a billion dollars in value   he just had the pga say they'll never you do a 
trump golf course again so the ram the real world   ramifications for trump are he's his businesses 
are going to be devastated his platform is gone   but and i was very pro trump staying on 
twitter i thought it was insane to think that   the president of the united states would 
have their twitter handle removed that   seemed crazy to me however crazy it's 
a crazy concept that being said trump   knows how to dance right up to the line on 
the terms of service and i think here's the   thing here's the thing i think there's imminent 
danger and i think what we don't know is what   is concerning to me the fact that all of 
these services have turned him off i believe   is indicative of wednesday was under hyped 
and that they really did intend to kidnap uh   folks and blow off bombs and the proud boys 
uh founder was arrested days before with   you know selling large magazine weapons i i 
think that they wanted to kill and kidnap people   um and perhaps even like hang the vice president 
honestly crazy but honestly honestly jason that's   what i think is going on with twitter i think they 
told i think they showed them the receipts jason   stop i honestly like let's not [ __ ] fear monger 
like we're we're no better than anybody else   without [ __ ] we don't know any of that crap and 
the reality is that if they were doing that they   they are not stupid enough to do it on a platform 
where you basically follow anybody you want   okay like i mean if that were the case then 
[ __ ] uh isis would be using twitter they   don't use twitter they use telegram live streamed 
storming of the capital these people are not smart   we've established that i i i anyways i look can 
we just let's just like let's not do the left   version of q anon okay let's not have now the 
last version of the crazy conspiracy theories   here's here's i think what is worth talking about 
we really reflexively all of a sudden um started   to push back on free speech in a way that doesn't 
make any sense meaning i really was surprised like   why are these silicon valley companies reacting 
now like if you had a reason to do it uh it had   been building for years and years and years and in 
many ways it was kind of like this random moment   and and i mean random because i just don't think 
that you know everything up until that point was   not equally sort of violent disgusting under the 
same lens that that moment was and so had you   had a reason to ban him you would have banned him 
already but then doing it in the way you did and   then having this cascading effect on folks on the 
left and the right just getting basically pushed   out the door to me was just completely reactive 
and not rooted in anything it didn't to me it   didn't make any sense it it it's it's i don't know 
i was i was very frustrated and and a little taken   aback well can i can i jump in you like jump in 
on that because yeah and tweeting a lot about this   and then the last thing is like they let donald 
trump hit a one-outer like he was painted in a   quarter to be a complete demagogue and instead now 
it has been wrapped in a free speech issue where   now more people are talking about free speech than 
what a scumbag he is how did we let that happen   big big big tech blundered into it again i 
mean we had a unanimity across the political   spectrum that what happened at the capitol was 
wrong and donald trump was responsible for it   and chamath exactly like you said the topic 
has now changed to censorship by big tech   which is a real issue i mean look our freedom 
of speech is a shrine in the constitution   in the first amendment of the bill of rights it's 
the first [ __ ] one okay it's the one the framers   the constitution cared about the most because free 
speech is not just uh necessary and important for   democracy it's the reason why we have our freedom 
is so that we can think and speak and worship   as we please and that is legitimately under threat 
um you know what what big to end and by the way   it's not just the permanent ban on trump you had 
simultaneous to that it was it wasn't just the   banning of all these accounts you also had the d 
platforming of parlor which is sort of the twitter   alternative by google and apple at the same time 
and in amazon and so you're talking about really   de-platforming not just trump but millions of 
people and so the the amazing thing is that   we've had this sweeping appropriation of power by 
you know half a dozen oligarchs who now have the   right to determine what we see and read and people 
are cheering because they hate trump so much   they can't see that the biggest power grab in 
history has happened has happened okay i want   to say something on this because i'm not sure 
i really fully agree i i think that the point   that saks is making um about freedom of speech 
applies to what you're legally allowed to say   saks we're talking about private services 
that um you know a user chooses to   use and the service provider chooses to make 
available to that user in a market um space   and in that context it feels to me like everyone 
has a choice of where to go and what services to   use and frankly if there aren't good services to 
use so and there's a lot of people that want to   use one the free market will resolve to create one 
and we're already seeing that with signal being   the number one app on the app store today that 
emerging new platforms will win in a marketplace   where old service providers are no longer catering 
to the market demands for a service um i'll also   say that can i respond to that one yeah and 
then i'll make one more point but go ahead yeah   so i understand the first amendment only applies 
to to government okay it doesn't apply to private   companies but but here's here's the thing 
is that when the framers of the constitution   wrote that freedom of speech was something that 
took place in the in the town square right you   would go to the courthouse steps and put down your 
soap box you could speak to people gather or crowd   that is why the right to assemble is part of 
the first amendment is because assembling is   tantamount to free speech where do people assemble 
today online on these monopoly network services   like a facebook like twitter and again it's not 
and and to your point couldn't they go to some   other site well they did they went to parlor 
guess what happened the operating systems just   banned parlor and so you know i hear this there's 
an open there's an open web sax you know you don't   need to go to apple's app store or google's google 
play you can put an app on android you just don't   need to do it through google play and if you 
don't want to use apple's you know os you can   use another phone and by the way and everyone 
can access the internet the internet is free   and open and anyone can create a new network node 
on the internet and anyone can put any information   they want on that node provided it's within the 
the the boundaries and constraints of the law   and they can make it available to anyone 
else maybe for now but you can't use aws   and google might not make you show up in search 
results you could turn your imac you could turn   your imac at home into a into a web server and 
you could make it available on the internet   if google and amazon and apple have censored 
you at the operating system level and removed   you from google search results how in the world 
is anybody supposed to find you yeah people have   been removed from search results let me just i 
think it's important so so i do think that there's   still an open market and there's an open internet 
that people can access information freely and use   the internet freely without being dependent on a 
handful of you're right highly scaled services and   highly scaled platforms but there's certainly a 
marketplace and an opportunity for for innovation   there i'll also say that the um the platforms 
that made these decisions to ban these accounts   and kick people off um are not doing so uh uh 
under the demand of law and i think that that   is a really and so i think to some extent uh you 
know i'm probably on your side in this context   but um the standard is not a legal standard the 
standard is a judgment it isn't it is a it is a   moral or some principled standard that is sitting 
above and beyond the legal standard that they're   required to comply with this is the point and 
this is really scary right because at that point   it becomes a subjective decision about who you 
kick off based on your interpretation of what they   said and what they intended when they said it and 
that leads to the infinite slippery slope and it's   you nailed it one [ __ ] thousand percent that is 
the exact issue it's not necessarily about free   speech it is that when you have accumulated power 
and you effectively have a quasi-governmental   organization that gets to operate in the free 
market when it wants to but then operate like   a quasi-governmental monopoly when it wants to 
all of a sudden the power becomes in the shadows   right there is a random vp someplace who actually 
controls this decision and the problem is today if   a politician does something or a political body or 
a government body does something you have redress   right you can sue that entity you know who it 
is there's a pathway through the courts through   the law through the constitution the problem with 
this is all of a sudden it becomes murky and look   you flip a coin 50 of the time guys you're going 
to get your way the other 50 of the time who the   [ __ ] knows what will happen and you may be 
completely on the wrong side of it and this   is i think the problem let me i just want to read 
you guys something there was a there was this   manifesto or memo this woman who was a former 
facebook data scientist sophie zhang she wrote   i'm just i'm just going to read this because 
i think it's uh it's really interesting here   the 6600 word memo written by former facebook data 
scientist sophie zhang is filled with concrete   examples of heads of government and political 
parties in azerbaijan and under honduras using   fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to 
sway public opinion in countries including india   ukraine spain brazil bolivia and ecuador she found 
evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes   to boost or hinder political candidates or 
outcomes though she did not always conclude   who was behind them she said in the three years 
i've spent at facebook i found multiple blatant   attempts by foreign national governments to 
abuse our platform on vast scales to mislead   their own citizenry and cause international news 
on multiple occasions now let me just stop there   replace your united states with all those 
countries and we care but there are people   in all of those countries where you know those 
countries mean more to them than what's happening   in the united states that's right and that 
represents the problem that's the social the   the social suasion that is influencing the 
leaders of the tech companies are largely their   democrat employees that live in the bay area 
and um that's a big part of why the decisions   are being made in the way that they're being 
made and the priorities are being set is because   as you pointed out i think it was saka put it 
on twitter and jason you've talked about this   but talent is everything in silicon valley 
and if your employees tell you they're going   to quit working for you or they're not going 
to do their jobs you're going to take that   to heart and there's not a lot of influence 
or suasion that you know citizens of bolivia   and you know uruguay can have with executives at 
facebook and twitter but people in the bay area   have a [ __ ] clue about the politics in 
azerbaijan or bolivia does any one of us   have a point of view and and i think that's that's 
that's the point is like it's like as soon as you   add judgment to the equation um you know you're 
going to be wrong with some people and you're   going to be right with some people versus using an 
absolute standard and if the issue is that the law   if the law doesn't define the absolute 
standard then you need to go and change the law   i think there's going to be a couple of free 
market solutions that come here because you even   as difficult as this decision can be you layer it 
onto it somebody who is completely insincere and   manipulating the system um on purpose and to your 
point david in the last podcast is sitting in   the present united states seat you know it 
carries different weight and if you look at   the words that trump used or rudy used you know 
we want to have uh combat trial by combat you know   is that somebody's got to make a judgment call 
is that an incitement to violence or do you just   look at what occurred after they said the words 
it's a very difficult thing to do there are free   market solutions that will emerge bitcoin is 
something we've talked about it's an incredible   run nobody's controlling that there is master 
don and plenty of other peer-to-peer software   that will be deployed i predict and that will put 
up uh competition now for these services and it   will be impossible to ban those peer-to-peer uh uh 
platforms and so we'll have some products emerging   one universal truth this information wants to 
be free so if there is an opinion if there is a   voice if there is information so there'll be a 
free market response to parlor being shut down   i i sincerely believe that a lot of these 
decisions are being made not just at the behest   of the employees i do agree they have tremendous 
power and i've said that obviously many times   i think what's going on here is people believe 
that trump and we and you said it yourself david   there's gonna be a white knuckle 10 days 
uh and i don't know if you still believe   that there's a chance on the 17th or 19th 
or whatever that there could be more unrest   i actually think a lot of people woke up and 
said i don't know if i want to give this guy   the ability to say the next three or four 
crazy things that make people show up   um at a person's home or you know the 
dog whistling and you know if if trump's   comments on wednesday at that rally and rudy 
giuliani's and donald trump juniors the people who   really incited this uh and they're gonna face some 
amount of civil and and criminal charges i believe   um if they did that on twitter or facebook or 
youtube or periscope or whatever it happens to be   and then this happened would those platforms have 
some liability especially after you know what's   happened i think that they're just in part of this 
is covering their asses i think they should have   just done a 30-day ban not a permanent ban so at 
least they would have the cover of saying listen   this is too heated we're going to pause for 
30 days and then we'll reassess it february   1st or february 15th right well so part of 
the problem here is that there is no policy   right the policy is public outcry and if there's 
enough public outcry and there's enough pressure   or letter writing from the employees or there's 
enough saber-rattling by the people who are   going to run the senate judiciary committee 
next year or the language was so clear it's   but there is so so three months ago i wrote a blog 
post um about the so the policy that i thought the   social media companies should take i said for 
moderation and what i said is there actually   is a moderation policy consistent with the first 
amendment that could be implemented because the   first amendment does not protect many categories 
of basically dangerous speech uh there's like   nine major categories it includes incitement 
of violence it includes you know trying to uh   you know uh uh trying to provoke a crime it uh it 
includes fraud it includes defamation there are   many categories of speech that aren't protected 
by the first amendment and social media companies   could have said listen this is our policy is 
we're going to try and be broadly consistent   with the first amendment but if somebody goes 
outside of those lines then we'll remove it   so there was a way to to your point jason i think 
there was a way to remove some of trump's treat uh   tweets for incitement consistent with the first 
amendment but that's not what they did you know   that and maybe that would it said what they did 
is a lifetime ban combined with rounding up you   know twice the usual number of suspects combined 
with a de-platforming not at the account level but   at now at the application level by google apple 
and amazon and none of this has been explained   there is no policy what it is is a no i mean 
there's a hold on what it is is an appropriation   by oligarchs no no there is a policy 
the problem is as we've just discussed   it's an interpretation that must occur and the 
interpretation of wednesday's comments on a tweet   might be okay yeah they're borderline 
but not enough to shut us a countdown   and and these folks know how to do it when when 
rudy giuliani says i want a trial by combat or   you know if trump says you're not gonna have a 
country unless you fight and you have to fight and   we're never going to accept these results is that 
inciting or not so well the policy that that that   i want is something broadly consistent with the 
first amendment uh because but in those years and   those phrases i just told you is that are those 
inciting or are those on the border line if you   were making the decision right so you know putting 
my lawyer hat on for a second there's questions of   law and questions of fact okay and we can debate 
what you're describing are questions of fact   what i'm trying to say is well what what is the 
law what is the policy that we're talking about   would say those were not direct incitement no 
there is no policy these social media companies   don't have any policy they're making it up 
as they go along based on what would you do   what would you do with trump's comments from 
wednesday if they were in tweets yeah i'll tell   you so first of all i would have implemented 
a a moderation policy broadly consistent with   the first amendment and then certain tweets 
that were inciting violence while there was   rioting on the capitol i would have been okay 
taking those down i would have taken those down   where i think and and i think even 
doing something until the inauguration   if you think that trump poses a threat think i 
think that's okay i think that's okay so you would   have been fine with the 30-day ban or something 
well like a 10-day ban or whatever but a lifetime   ban that like on what basis on what constitutional 
grounds do you justify that and look i know it's   a private company but my point is this idea 
our free speech rights got privatized okay   the town square got digitized and centralized 
we used to have thousands we used to have   town squares where people could convene all over 
this country we had a multiplicity of newspapers   all that got replaced by a handful of tech 
monopolists our free speech rights got digitized   if they take away our ability to speak we don't 
have free speech rights who do we appeal to   when we get cancelled by a google or apple what 
court can we go to there is right you have to   create a computing process by the way i think this 
is the best argument for having an internet court   and um if you think about the standards that are 
being applied they're being applied haphazardly   randomly um by by these companies in response to 
to near-term market forces you know what what is   everyone saying they have to do um or what 
are their employees rallying securities law   well there's there's a there's privacy laws that 
say what you you know that companies the digital   companies cannot take certain types of data 
and you know why not have um laws there are   hate speech laws out there as well and why not 
be more specific and then let an internet court   adjudicate and make the decision about what to 
take down and what not to take down they are as   they are very responsive to warrants when there 
is a criminal act underway and so why not let an   internet court be responsive to take down requests 
or to where do you think chamoth good idea   no it's it's mandatory and again it centralizes it 
centralizes the standards right so you don't have   to have ad hoc random decisions and let if what 
sacs is saying is true it creates a standard that   everyone has to abide by and that every consumer 
can trust them to abide by first first we need a   bill of rights right first we need to say that we 
as citizens have rights that the court can defend   can defend that is the problem we don't have any 
rights these companies are acting willy-nilly   canceling people depriving them of their 
speech rights and don't tell me that you   can still speak you know somewhere if you 
get if you get cancelled here's the thought   exercise and i want everybody listening who's 
on the left to think about this exact issue   your favorite social media company is trying 
to get a really really big deal closed and they   you know are trying to curry favor with a 
bunch of brands and a bunch of governments   and those governments and brands let's just say 
it's in india right huge market 1.2 billion people   they say you know what we're um a little tepid on 
abortion and so the deal is you need to dial down   any ad from planned parenthood you need to 
prevent planned parenthood groups from amplifying   from being able to fundraise think about that 
exact issue now and ask yourself is it okay   because there's a lot of people that are 
you know pro-choice that listen to this   and the and you i'm sure right now your 
blood is [ __ ] boiling but there is no   distinction between that decision and what 
happened over the last few days there's none   it's arbitrary it's random it doesn't necessarily 
make any sense there is no way to readdress it   then that's the biggest problem with all of 
this thing it's just there's a concept that   uh newspapers have an obsman and the new 
york times had went up until i think 2017   and then they got rid of it because i think 
it was causing too much headaches but it's a   person who sits who works for the organization but 
has complete independence and sits outside of it   to comment on these kind of situations and i think 
that's what these companies no these jason they   have these things but those are fig leaves and 
those are just meant to basically no they don't   they don't have it it's a distraction politician 
because it's not it's not uh jason they have   a [ __ ] council facebook has a council which is 
not transparent they don't say here's our decision   making and talk to the public directly about it i 
think yet you can look to securities law there are   some examples in securities law which i think are 
really interesting which is that um a cfo and a   ceo has to certify quarterly results right meaning 
for people who have issues with a company and with   the statement of their earnings which is the sort 
of atomic unit of value creation and financial   reporting they have a mechanism to redress it 
because you're certifying that something is true   right you're certifying a set of decisions have 
been made an audit has been done you know the   software works you know the blah blah blah what 
is the version of that for all of this other stuff   which is that you know where where are the people 
who are they actually that make the decisions you   can't point to jack and zuck and say those guys 
are the decision makers i think in these examples   what you have to point to is there was a petition 
of potentially several hundred or a few thousand   engineers and depending on how important they 
were they may have gotten their way that's crazy   guys well and trump served it up to him i mean if 
you if you know and then the worst part is no but   the worst part is these people who are probably 
very left of center completely [ __ ] the left   and then they basically let donald trump off the 
hook because now we're gonna completely be talking   about free speech whereas the odds that donald 
trump would have gone to jail and been prosecuted   was basically in my opinion a [ __ ] stone cold 
lock and then now after this happened there's a   bunch of those people who are going to basically 
like him and ha and now they're not going to   necessarily go along with it exactly 100 100 
percent and and jason so good [ __ ] job guys   you got the exact opposite of what you wanted 
exactly and here's the thing jason you're right   trump's outrage gave the censors the excuse to 
impose this that's the way that censorship always   works if you are censoring somebody popular it 
would never happen censorship always starts by   censoring some outrage that everybody agrees 
should be censored and no one even notices   that what's happening is you're handing power to 
a group of people that they can now use against   you in the future censorship always starts as 
something you like and it ends as something   you don't like when it finally gets turned 
against you what is the policy of the people   who are now canceling willy-nilly it's cancel 
culture by the way it's not the first amendment   well i think you got to not say willy-nilly after 
trump incited riots if there's enough public it   might have been an overreaction but i think it's 
the proper reaction you agree it's the problem 60 000 followers is like i mean like   it doesn't like what's going on it makes no 
sense jason i mean you used to be a member   of the press no one believed in the first 
amendment more than you and you're listening no cause you to pull your punches on these on 
censorship no no i i'll be totally clear i think   they should have an obudsman i think they should 
lean towards allowing speech i was anti-kicking   trump off the platform when the entire left 
was asking for it to be and you can look at   the receipts i've been saying for four years 
it's insane to take potus off i actually in my   heart of hearts believe that there is imminent 
risk in keeping him able to communicate with   this group of people and there should have been 
a 30-day timeout for him and i don't think it   should have been indefinite it should have been a 
30-day timeout and i think we should do what folks   said i don't know who said it on the last part 
or i heard it somewhere else like actually if   we actually were to audit some of these 
claims and create an independent council   to audit the election that might be a way to 
heal things and i think giving trump said that   who's that free brexit yeah so i think that's 
like a power move as well um but i i'm still pro   freedom of speech i think there's imminent danger 
and i don't think it's willy-nilly this is where   i think sometimes you get you you miss and you 
uh misrepresent yourself david um and we started   this off with me misrepresenting you but when you 
say it's nilly it's not willy-nilly we just had   this act of you know treason and this violence uh 
at the capitol it is not just willy-nilly jason   jason you have an over-reaction i agree but it's 
not willy-nilly jason you have to admit though the   entire world had donald trump in a corner debt 
to rights and he hated energy and he hit him   it's a bad strategy to de-platform to this 
level i agree and then to include the reason   they're going after parlor by the way is 
that this guy lynn wood threatened he said   that they should take vice president pence 
out and shoot him and i think that actually but they literally didn't take it down 
without that that was incitement to violence   and un under the first amendment you 
can clearly prohibit that i would have   and parlor didn't take it 
down they dragged their feet   and he said it's a metaphor to go take pence out 
and shoot him and this is donald trump's lawyer   or one of his lawyers previous lawyers that in 
my view that doesn't just that doesn't justify   what's happened what i mean by willy nilly is 
why has red scare been taken down so left wing   i don't know why why is dan bongino been taken 
down he's like a fox commentator i've heard him   i mean he's sort of you know i don't know he's 
kind of a pretty middle-of-the-road fox type guy   i don't really know what he did we have no 
transparency into why people are being taken down   i can't go evaluate for myself what they said 
to see if it you know if it warranted censorship   and then cynic might say that this overreaction 
was playing into the hands of the chase jason   what happened controlled senate congress jason 
what happens if it's like a a big pharma company   who wants to do a big ad buy on facebook 
says hey guys you got to really dial down   uh anti-vaxx content now i'm not an anti-vaxxer 
but do i at some level believe in their right to   talk about being an anti-vaxxer absolutely i think 
it's insane but should they have a right to do it   absolutely absolutely i'm a fan of the labeling i 
thought the labeling was the right direction to go   in where if but but saks you did talk about how 
for the last 60 days trump fermented this insane   conspiracy theory so i guess the question is do 
you think that insane conspiracy theory or the   question we have to ask all of ourselves i'm not 
pinning it on you and you know i'm i'm sensitive   to you being pinned as a person for all of trump's 
bad behavior but we you did say and you just say   this is a two-month process of indoctrinating 
people into thinking this was all stolen and   then they put labels on it and then the capital 
gets stormed so i think these companies are being   put in a very uncomfortable position which is 
at what point do you stop this maniac uh if he's   lying constantly we we were talking about these 
challenges on the pod for the last couple of   months and we were laughing i mean we were 
laughing at how ridiculous they were and how   ridiculous the the things that you know rudy was 
doing and um you know it was crazy so look not to   his supporters well but here here's the thing 
one of which is dead or four of which are dead   i understand and here's the thing democracy takes 
work i mean we have to you know we have to spend   the time to actually dispel these views and you 
know it would be nice to be able to wave a magic   wand and just censor the things that we don't like 
but here's the thing none of us has a monopoly on   the truth and you know we knew what the truth 
was in this particular instance but there are   other cases where we don't and and the question 
is really who has the power to decide so you know   just i'll tell you just a real quick story you 
know when i went to law school all those years ago   the very first class that you know that that 
i had in law school was this very arcane class   called civil procedure which is about 
what court you take a case to okay and   you know i was kind of wondering why 
is this like the first thing we learn   in law school and i'll tell you the reason why 
is because the first question in the law is who   decides is jurisdiction who has the power to 
decide an issue and here's the thing i would love   for lynnwood to be canceled and to not be able to 
spout these insane theories but who are we going   to give the power to to make those decisions 
and what we've done this week by we had this   feel-good moment i you know at least in in the 
tech community of being able to say donald trump   banned for life and all these other people we hate 
but we have now handed this enormous power to this   big tech cartel and it's not going to end here 
this is not the end it's the beginning look i i   i don't think that the um the leadership at big 
tech want to be in this position um you know i   i think it's easy to blame the individuals zak 
uh jack susan um sundar whomever um you know i i   worked at google when it was a small when it was a 
private company um you know chemoth knows uh work   with zuck i think we've all had experience with 
these individuals and i think one thing having   spent time with all of them i can tell you is that 
um i believe that all of them want information   to be freely available and accessible um 
and that's a really core principle and the   challenge that they're facing is that there is um 
you know as we talked about this social pressure   uh to move away from that core principle because 
there is always an argument to be made and there   is no universal or unifying kind of court of 
law that says this is the way things should   um should be done by law and as a result the the 
pressure is what changes the behavior and that   pressure will change the tides will will shift and 
um and it's uh it's a it's a very kind of um ugly   circumstance but you know i think characterizing 
the individuals is being in charge of this sex or   you know trying to um to handcuff to to make them 
feel like they should be handcuffed in some way   um is uh you know is is a bit of a 
mischaracterization and we saw that even um   in the congressional hearings last july 
uh just what an absolute joke it was to   see congress try and question these folks 
because the answers they have i think were   reasonable and rational as we all know as 
technologists like congress doesn't understand   this stuff the biggest observation to me is that 
the law hasn't kept up with the internet and um   you know if you look at how the the dmca was 
written the digital millennium copyright act   shortly after it was written youtube 
uh with all this user generated content   saw a lot of copyright content show up and 
they would get a takedown notice which is   the legal process by which you remove copyright 
content and then as soon as they took it down   someone else would post the same content and 
then someone else will post the same content   and then suddenly you know viacom sued google 
because they were like look our copyrighted   content is being continuously displayed on your 
site on your platform and that's because the   mechanism defined in the dmca did not keep up 
with the law the biggest issue i think is is a   legal one which is you know how do we create laws 
and how do we create a uh private industry meets   government court uh body uh governing principles 
that you know allows these arbitrations to operate just one sentence i mean apply first 
amendment obligations to these um monopolists   that's what my blog post was about i'll i'll tell 
you where this could go in a bad direction is if   you look at if you think about what social 
media has become i would put it on the top   of the list that includes other critical national 
resources that any country has so for example if   you look at in bolivia you know as it turns out 
bolivia has incredible access to lithium right   and lithium is like an engine we all knew 
that we want to medicate trump with lithium   is that what you're saying no lithium the 
the the input into into lithium-ion batteries   um but it also turns out that at every step 
along the way bolivia's basically nationalized   every single private investment of a lithium 
mine um in countries all around the world there's   you know numerous examples of this privatization 
turning into nationalization when something   becomes important enough and norway part of 
i think what we're struggling with here is   you know there's going to be this 
crazy push pull in in social media   what do you think happens if you know uh india 
actually says hey you know what you're going to   have to nationalize the rails of whatsapp or the 
rails of facebook if you want to be in my country   why is that so inconceivable i think you're 
right that that's that that is a second order   that that is a second order consequence of 
censorship that nobody even thinks about   you have the leaders of many countries across the 
world using twitter as a as a channel do you think   they are now going to want to rely on that given 
that twitter can censor them at any time they're   going to hand that lever of national power to jack 
dorsey no way they're going to look at this i mean   not even jack dorsey david somebody in like the 
bowels of the user you know user user access group   some some rando vp someplace is going to stop the 
president or the prime minister of a country and   communicating to their people exactly exactly 
and this is exactly the kind of second order   consequence that the people who who i think engage 
in this feel-good moment of censoring trump didn't   even think through didn't even think through this 
is exactly why the best solution would have been   a temporary pause on these accounts to let 
the dust settle but any of these completely   fundamental decisions that you can't go 
back from what is the technical difference   between saying it's banned forever and it's banned 
for ten days today technically it's not a decision   yeah but exactly what david said you feed into 
this emotion just like the people that stormed   the capital fed into their emotion and then you 
wake up the next day with this hangover and you   realize to yourself what the [ __ ] did i just do 
and i think that's that's what we're gonna have   to sort out now is you cannot unscramble this [ __ 
] egg because irrespective of whatever happens in   the united states there are two to three billion 
monthly active users daily active users on these   products they all report to different people and 
none of those people that they report to are jack   dorsey and mark zuckerberg they are the presidents 
and prime ministers duly elected individuals of   these countries and so you're not going to allow 
these two private citizens to disrupt power   we we have so much information we don't know 
about what occurred this past week i think it's   it's all going to get investigated it's going 
to be like a 911 commission all over again or   ukraine etc um and and i think that's why 
applause would be really good to find out exactly   you know trump's been telling people to come to 
this rally it's going to be a hell of a show and   it's going to be incredible and you've got to be 
there on the 6th it's going to be out of control   you know how how how much did they know right 
like that's what i really wanted how much did   they know about what was going to go down and 
why are these people carrying zip ties and pipe   bombs you know like this could have been a lot 
worse i think that's why people are responding   uh this way and i saw something today that i 
thought was i'll let you pick it up from me   freeburg but i saw something today that i thought 
was uh particularly interesting and in dovetails   with reconciliation which is what the country's 
got to do in 2021 and 22 we gotta reconcile this   [ __ ] because it's bigger fish to fry like you 
know china and the pandemic and global warming   uh one of these people at the airport 
who was coming home from the rally   is now on the do do not fly list they're taking 
this group of domestic terrorists uh is how   they're putting these american citizens 
who got whipped up into a frenzy by trump   and giuliani they're calling them domestic 
terrorists now uh some of them maybe maybe some   of them are just you know got caught up in the 
wrong mob they're on the do not fly list this guy   couldn't get home and he's freaking out and then 
i don't know if you saw lindsey graham with 20 of   uh the people who were going home from the rallies 
chanting at him that this is never going to end   and and that seemed like a very volatile 
situation and so the escalation continues   go ahead freeberg i'll tell you like it 
feels to me like this past week has been um   nothing but fuel for for both sides because there 
isn't a black and white um circumstance here   and there isn't a black and white um objective 
truth about uh you know what took place and what   motivations were and and what the connections 
were when i was 16 years old i went to a rave   in downtown l.a and for new year's eve you 
did and right before how old were you 16.   and um and the rave got shut down half an hour 
before midnight because there was some illegal   drug being widely circulated for free so you guys 
can watch videos of this on youtube it's called   circa 1996.

And we and everyone the cops came in 
and they shut down the rave it was outdoors in   downtown l.a and we rioted and so everyone left 
the rave and like i i i participated i think i'm   past the uh the period where they can prosecute oh 
my god seven thousand yeah i participated in the no don't say that don't say that on the show you 
you were you witnessed i witnessed um participated   in the sense that i was there and um and i saw all 
this all this activity but when you're standing   next to these people there was absolutely no 
thought around what to do and when and what   the next step was and i think if you watch the 
videos yeah if you watch the videos of the capitol   there's a lot of videos on youtube that 
you can watch now and you can watch the   interviews of people coming out of the capitol 
building it's like what were you doing in there   we were fighting for you know it's a revolution 
right i mean we're taking back the country   and then some people were saying well we're 
trying to stop the certification of joe biden   and other people were saying we're taking 
over the capital there was no uniform sense   of what the objective of the mission was 
and there was many interpretations if   you look at all the parlor messages that 
have been copied and published now online   there were many interpretations about 
trump's words and rudy giuliani's   yeah parlor and so everyone has a different point 
of view and i think that's the biggest challenge   we're going to have is we're all going to try and 
you know get to the truth and everyone's going to   cast this as a different point they're going to 
take what happened they're going to take some   set of events that happened and they're going to 
highlight that this is what the connections were   and this is the reason why it happened and 
this just creates fuel it doesn't create um   you know there is not going to be some objective 
outcome here we're all going to feel better   no one's going to feel better at the end of the 
day um and and we've basically just thrown a whole   bunch of gas on a fire that was already what do 
you think um that was my point was just like it's   all it's all great no my behavior yeah i mean yeah 
it's crazy um burn or whatever photos you took um   uh sax what do you think of this vp you know pence 
and trump and their relationship vis-a-vis pardons   in this end game here because it does seem 
like pence was upset uh obviously at what   occurred and that trump didn't even call to 
check on him and what was going on and then   a number of these people because there 
are q anon people there there are   you know i'm sure antifa people there but it 
was mainly trump folks um they wanted to capture   the vp that was for some of them the explicit 
purpose of this was to get the vice president   and to hold him accountable and you know so there 
are some speculation to do bodily harm to him   what are your thoughts on that i think one of the 
most insane aspects of what trump did was the way   that he denounced uh pence who's been the model 
of a loyal vp i mean certainly the other side   has uh criticized him for that uh for being sort 
of almost a toady uh no one could have been more   loyal than pence to trump the last four years and 
penn simply told him look i don't have the power   to cancel this vote of the electors you know and 
for that fact you know just for speaking truth   about that trump denounced him in front of this 
this mob and and made him a target and that is   one of the more insane aspects of what trump did 
and uh you know i uh truck no sympathy for that   um again this was an act of of demagoguery and uh 
this is an intimate esn for for trump's presidency   uh but even in terms of like you know i want 
to go back to what freeberg just said about   how he got kind of caught up in this in in 
that mob i think that that was true i think for   90 something percent of the people who are 
there is they went to this trump rally and   protest and it turned into a riot and they got 
caught up in it um and then in addition to that   there were i think hidden in that crowd some 
serious agitators who were there to carry out   violence in mayhem and had crazy plans you 
know hanging my pens shooting pelosi i mean   there really were you know a small number of 
those people i don't know what the percentage is   probably one or two percent what does he think 
it's about the majority sacks what are you doing   what do you think will happen if they actually 
did shoot pelosi or they did hang pens it is a   possibility but no but see that's threat inflation 
what you're doing right there jason is exactly   what you're what no i think it actually could have 
happened what if one of the people who died was   the senator yes it could have happened but here's 
the problem people are acting as if everything   that could have happened but didn't actually 
happened or may still happen at a later date that   that is what i call threat inflation and it's the 
biggest tool the sensors have for seizing power   because it it convinces you yourself said these 
people had those plans so we we do have to think   about it i mean the first time we were trying to 
blow up the world trade center it didn't come down   david but the second time it did come down i i 
understand but by constantly beating the drum we   needed to inflate that threat didn't we but but 
by constantly beating the drama of these threats   no no wait a minute stop no we we did not need 
to do anything there was a national security   apparatus who needed to do it their job isn't 
to inflate threats their job is to investigate   a politically get to the bottom of [ __ ] and 
fix it they [ __ ] failed on 9 11.

Okay yes   we know that conclusively so talking about it 
and amping people up jason doesn't do anything a better a better example of threat inflation 
would be the iraq war remember that we got to go   absolutely that was threat inflation threat that 
whipping people up you know and making them worse   i'm just talking to three of my besties and asking 
you what you think about what would have happened   if a senator died i think it's a valid it didn't 
close to happening but it came close this this is   the thing that is is convincing people helping 
convince people to give up liberties that they   should want to hold on to i'm just asking you i'm 
not i'm not saying everybody and i'm not saying   we need to be on edge that this is going to 
happen every day of our lives we can't live   in fear like that but that's almost what happened 
there are people who went there with that intent   actually we don't we don't we don't we don't 
know any of this now we're now we're no better   than anybody else you had you had a maniac 
who was a vessel he basically spilled over   there was a small fraction of the people that 
probably came to that thing with ill intent   and then there was a large number of people that 
got pulled into the undertow all of their lives   will be ruined because of one individual okay and 
at the end of the day there was in my opinion one   singular person to blame donald trump and then 
a handful of people who were his accomplices   uh josh hawley ted cruz rudy giuliani we know who 
all of these characters are in this terrible play   and then there were all these people that were 
caught in the undertow and i would rather just   deal with it that way because it actually allows 
us to have some sympathy i i felt sympathy   yeah so all i'm saying is let's just get back 
to the core issue at hand something bad happened   and then something really really stupid that is 
actually even worse also happened and by that you   mean the banning of trump on all platforms for all 
time no that that there is a there it there was uh   an arbitrariness to the decision making around 
free speech and i'm telling you guys i know that   you may think banning him from twitter is so 
much lower than this attack on the capital and   i'm telling you it's not because the slippery 
slope of event event number one is so obvious   the prosecution of that is so obvious the law 
is so completely clear but we've shifted now   into this realm where things are arbitrary where 
things are gray and it's a worldwide problem there   are 180 some odd countries in the world right that 
these sites operate in with 180 different leaders   multiplied by you know two or three 
political parties each like there are now   hundreds and hundreds of people who are 
trying to figure out some chess games   it's so i just think that we've made i just 
think we've made the problem so much worse   yeah i i agree and and um you know earlier today 
uh our heated conversation extended to one of our   friends in our chat group who was telling us that 
you know there's a group of sas companies that are   talking about the platforming parlor as well 
from just using ordinary software as a service   and other sites like it and you know and and 
again it's a little bit like it's just like the   censorship thing it's like a red scare it's like 
a red scare it's like a really scary podcast the   actual red scare that are yeah like joe mccarthy 
exactly we're literally going to go after anybody   who writes a screenplay who works for a communist 
socialist meeting but let me ask you guys how much   do you guys so i think that there's severely 
um there there's a severe amount of pressure   on the leaders of these companies to do well by 
their employees and that employees are all bay   area based and bay area base is a very heavy uh 
democrat um area 90 plus and so so so this is the   argument a lot of um uh you know conservatives 
make which is that tech companies in general   uh as a result act in the best interests of of of 
um uh you know of the um the liberal uh movements   sac and chamoth i mean and jason do you guys think 
that it is an employee-driven um kind of uh set of   actions that we're seeing and that the motivation 
is is in part to kind of appease the employees of   these companies in fact i think that more than 70 
or 80 of the impetus for these last-ditch efforts   was internally driven and this is where i think 
it's a complete crisis of leadership because if   you had just gotten up in front of your employees 
and said guys if we do this we will shift focus   away from what actually is the problem so 
i think the right solution is temporary ban   while we evaluate while we strengthen policy 
like some [ __ ] [ __ ] statement and allow   the legal court system to do their 
job instead they acted like vigilantes   in a way that basically appeased nobody and all 
of a sudden shifted the focus away from the person   that all these hundreds of employees wanted to 
basically have you know been found guilty and   pointed to one individual they all wanted one 
individual to be held culpable and now he's not   going to 100 and and and the proof of that is 
the fact that these employees have been calling   for this policy for years and now they finally 
got the excuse to do it and so i agree i mean   jack is leading twitter from behind the mob runs 
twitter now and they have for some time and to   freebrook's point it's like padme um padme i guess 
the great the great american star wars settings this is how democracy diced with thunderous 
applause yes that's exactly right everybody's   clapping over this censorship i mean the prequels 
are underrated i have to say i mean if you watch   revenge of the sith it's definitely i don't know 
the last three were the best but um the last three   were the worst but anyway but hold on a second i 
just want to get saxophone i'm just going to add   so so such math is 100 right there's one thing i 
would add to that though which is if uh just a few   months ago we had this senate hearing on section 
230 yes and both jack and zuck were berated by the   senators most notably senator blumenthal who was 
basically arguing for censorship he was telling   him you got to crack down and so i also think 
there's not this pressure from below there's   pressure from above these guys know who's coming 
into power in january and i think especially zuck   who has to be terrified of being broken up right 
now he yes exactly so he is thinking about how   do i modify and appease these politicians who now 
have the power and can break me up and i gotta use   for him it's too little too late they're trying 
to break you up anyway you're gonna get paid   up anyway and by the way i now agree with it i 
gotta say you know on previous pods i've defended   these tech companies but i've come around 
they are too powerful and they are using their   powerful their power in too indiscriminate away 
without power and can i say it more bluntly the   better but can i say that let me just let me just 
point something out you didn't say that before it   affected the conservative movement's ability to 
have a voice right hey don't calacanas sacks yeah   no well i mean no but i want to point out like i 
mean like and and a lot of people are having this   reaction which is once it affects and i just want 
to point this out once it affects you personally   that's when you take issue with the way that 
the system is operating right now you know a   lot of people make make fun of this but a few 
months ago or weeks ago there's a porn website   called pornhub and visa mastercard and discover 
stopped processing payments for them because the   new york times put out an opinion article about 
hold on david david how do you spell that p-o-o-r the electronic frontier foundation was the only 
organization that really made a stink about this   this behavior from these monopoly 
payment processing networks stepping in   and blocking their ability to 
run as a business not on any   legal grounds and not on any grounds 
based on some court making a decision and it was an opinion piece and suddenly 
everyone's waking up because now trump is   being silenced and this is and this is why 
no no no no no no unregulated exactly like   bitcoin you're going to yeah jason let 
me respond to that so um so first of all   porn has always been in a separate category the 
supreme court has said that you can regulate it   according to community standards and so i support 
the ability of facebook or twitter or whatever to   regulate it according to their standards that's 
perfectly consistent with the first amendment   i personally am not that upset about trump 
per se being censored i'm upset about this new   vast policy of censorship including de-platforming 
not just trump but parlor i mean you're talking   about millions of people and the fact that 
they're conservative is not the reason if this   was happening to a liberal app i promise you i'd 
be acting the exact same way for me free speech   is the most cherished value that we have it's the 
first amendment of the constitution it's the first   right in the bill of rights that's the thing that 
has me upset this is not a partisan thing uh and   so to your point freeburg you asked us what do 
we think is going on here uh at these companies   i think there's three things and we just heard two 
of them and and saks stole my thunder because i   was gonna say i think that zuck who i believe 
i'm very cynical about i think he is thinking   how do i p's the left now after having appeased 
trump for all these years now trump's out of   office now how do i appease the left okay i 
have to ban him for life and remember trump was   uh zuck was the first to give the lifetime ban 
not jack so zuck who's previously been in trump's   corner is now not um the third factor so the first 
factor is obviously the employees second factor is   uh getting broken up and appeasing all 
these senators i think the third one is   uh i think that there could be information 
that we are not privy to that they are privy to   that me that is leading them to overreact here no 
i'm going to disagree yeah i'm going to disagree   too yeah it would it would not have come out in 
that way it would have said we are you know uh   pausing the account we're suspending the account 
it wouldn't have been this next step of saying   your d platform forever i think in jack's it 
would have been necessary if it was a real   security issue no it was not the other thing 
i'll say can i just say one thing which is that   i've been in the bowels of these companies 
i helped build one um my team was probably   the most instrumental in getting one 
of these things to real mega scale i think that these companies are complicated 
enough that everybody needs to realize that it   is beyond the capability of any one person to 
manage in a reasonable way and these businesses   are they're too broad-based they exist in too 
many countries with too many different standards   that ultimately all comes back to one unified 
code base if facebook was actually 182 different   products on a country by country basis and twitter 
was the same there was actually be a path here   right and each one had a country level ceo that 
actually had power maybe this could be different   but the problem is that if all roads go back to 
menlo park in san francisco and you're putting   the power in the hands of 15 or 20 000 people over 
a multi-million line code base it's an impossible   task for even the smartest of the smart people 
these companies need to get broken up uh i think   we're all going to agree on that i do think you 
guys are missing a piece of them for another point   you guys are missing a piece of information 
i'm just going to read to you what uh from the   washington post twitter specifically raised 
the possibility that trump's recent tweets   could mobilize his supporters to commit acts 
of violence around president-elect joe biden's   inauguration and analysis that experts saw as 
a major expansion in the company's approach   um and so they specifically cited that they 
said they were and the tweet that they were   concerned about was this one uh that got taken 
down very quickly american patriots will not   be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way 
shape or form and then he announced right after   that that he's not going to the inauguration 
so what twitter believes is that that was some   sort of a dog whistle to go do violence at the 
inauguration and that's what they said in their   lifetime ban is they felt trump was uh doing that 
so just to point out you you could interpret it   that way and you could also interpret it the other 
way and that exactly which is the problem of trump   yeah he knows the problem of it's the problem of 
using judgment right and not yet can i ask you a   question would you be supportive of um platform 
level open architecture so for example that   you know the messaging infrastructure 
that supports facebook and twitter   um have to be unified in a way um so that there 
is that was originally called like there was rss   i mean there's a lot of open communication 
protocols that exist out there i mean signal   has made an attempt at doing this as well with 
with their approach and open sourcing everything   um i'm just thinking i'm just asking what is 
the technical solution if not to break them up   to make them more uh predictable portability of 
your profile i think you could pass a law i mean   like we do have a government we can pass a law so 
you can pass a law that says if you're going to   operate a communication platform here are the 
rules you have to abide by and here's how you   have to and now you're a regulated entity and you 
could regulate them and you could even create a   regulatory body to oversee them and make sure that 
standards of free speech are applied universally   and and in an absolute way um you know and 
you can give them a chance to correct right   here given that it may be so technically difficult 
to break them up that may be one of the points of   one of the paths of resolution and we're gonna 
find out the next two to three years because   i don't think that anyone on the left or 
the right likes big tech as they call it uh   and the way it's operating today but i think 
technically having been in these organizations   it is impossible to break them up and i will say 
something controversial i also think consumers   benefit from the scale that they operate at and 
i don't think that they should be broken up and i   think that there's economic value to having google 
be the scale of ted and amazon being in the scale   it's at facebook being skilled at and it doesn't 
harm consumers i think it helps in aggregate in   terms of pricing and service availability um 
but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be   regulated in a way that everyone can kind of feel 
like there's some absolute universal standard   applied um but i i know i'm in the minority 
on that yeah i would say um my my view about   antitrust used to be that it was all about 
consumer harm and i've actually come around to   more of the the liberal point of view on this 
which is it can't just be about consumer harm   it's also got to be about power and not 
just market power but democratic power   and the fact of the matter is these companies have 
just gotten too large and too powerful and they   have too much influence on our democracy and it's 
incompatible with you know a country democracy so   what do you think what if they got regulated like 
a utility sacks so like we have regulatory bodies   for utilities for both telecommunications and for 
power and energy what if we had a regulatory body   for internet services well yeah i mean first 
and foremost i want a an online bill of rights   you know i want to know what my rights are online 
that these techno this cartel of tech monopolies   cannot take away from me because something is a 
right if it only if it if it can't be taken away   and right now it can all be taken away you know 
your online identity your right to participate in   the public conversation can be taken away with no 
explanation by these companies we have no rights   and like what would you do if your online presence 
is taken away like that is a huge part of the   modern world what is going on in trump's mind do 
you think right now having lost his ability to   communicate with a billion people you know like he 
had this ability to control the conversation and   now he's i mean i don't even know if people will 
put him on air uh that's why i think something   is brewing um with him you know he is not gonna 
sit tight and and wind out the last 10 days here   um you know whether it's some ad hoc press 
conference he calls tomorrow and just rants on tv   or he tries to declare some you know pass some law 
without congress's approval or does something i   mean this guy has never proven himself to be able 
to sit quietly and to not be in the spotlight or   to be told that he's wrong and all three of 
those things are being imposed upon him right   now so he is squirming like uh like a cat being 
put in the bath also it seems like they're doing   some last-ditch stuff pompeo lifted restrictions 
for u.s taiwan contracts i don't know if you saw   that that was a little bit of an interesting 
thing that was slid in the last couple of days a little little jab to the chinese on the 
way out where do you think sax last 10 days   the zip tie guy apparently got arrested yeah 
i want to know what's going on with him i mean   these guys having zip ties with them is 
just no but this is incredible that how   systematically they've been able to basically 
get you know a lot of these folks i mean jason   i will tell you i will tell you the one 
thing we got going for us is the deep state   i mean thank god for you know folks who are loyal 
to the constitution and to the rule of law in this   country and the fbi is incredible and are um you 
know our the uh the the the the civil servants   who have been career civil servants in government 
as much as we make fun of the bureaucracy and the   [ __ ] that goes on it's great to be an american 
and to know that there's um you know that there's   these uh these folks out there looking out for for 
this is like being in the final stages of a stress   test it's like the final well by the way as i 
predicted on the last part i said there would   be major major arrests you know everyone was 
saying that that that these protesters being   treated with kid gloves compared to blm and i 
was like just wait there's going to be a rest   and sure enough they're rounding up 
these people quick a lot of charges   i think the most genius thing was i don't 
know who who said it was a honey pot but the   the parlor post yeah that said you know it was 
incredible sex but like um sax pointed this out   so i'll give him full credit for this but there 
was a parlor post where it was like the title of   the person was like you know office of the uh the 
president's pardon attorney and you know send me   your name and phone number and email if you want 
to be pardoned for what happened in the capitol and name the crime you committed so yes and then 
i just set up the website riots amnesty.org please   go to capitol rise amnesty.org and tell us what 
you did and uh if you outline each of the crimes   you outlined that you did you will get amnesty 
for those crimes you have to outline in detail   what you did and give us any photographic and 
video proof you have of your crimes the reason i   suspected that was a honeypot is because um jimmy 
carter pardoned uh you know after the vietnam war   he pardoned everyone who had dodged the draft 
as part of the vietnam war he did that as a   blanket pardon without naming any names so it 
seemed very suspect to me that trump would need   individual names and and crimes to build a part 
in them that was ceremonial right that was like   a healing a wound move by jimmy carter it wasn't 
no one was going after that because we weren't   prosecuting those sure sure sure and so but it 
was never litigated so it became a precedent i   think i i do think that trump probably i mean 
this would be a very interesting court case but   i do think he could issue a blanket pardon 
everyone on the mall that day it's possible   i'm not saying you should i think it's a 
terrible thing and that would be torture   escalation as opposed to de-escalation sex being 
our our lawyer and our historian you know what is   the the origin of the presidential pardon how 
is that even legal and how did we end up in a   place in this country where any law could be 
superseded by the president telling you it's   okay for you to break this law and pardon 
you after the fact or even before the fact   it's it's it's uh it exists because it's in the 
constitution the framers of the constitution put   it in there i i don't know what their thinking 
was i've never really studied that it is a   almost a residue of or a vestigial monarchical 
power that somehow was included in the comments   incredible right i mean like the intention of it 
my understanding was to um correct injustices that   occurred so that it would be a backstop against 
somebody who was by the judgment of the one guy it relies on you know people buying into america 
right and i think that's the trump stress test and   i can't wait till we don't talk about this guy 
anymore i'd love to see an amendment getting rid   of the pardon powers i i don't know i never feel 
good about it well they are thinking the court   should be where you should adjudicate the you know 
appeals and such but all right well listen we've   beaten this today can i can i end on something 
um let's end on something uplifting i took um   uh a bunch of spax public uh at the end of last 
year and on friday um one of the vehicles that   i'm the ceo of merged with sofi um and i want to 
tell you something about the ceo of sophie anthony   noto um and i think he'll be okay because 
he's shared this story a couple times but   uh his parents got divorced when he was 
three years old he uh grew up on welfare   food stamps um sort of free lunch kids until 
middle school um went to the um the west point um   was it a all-star stock analyst was the cfo of the 
nfl was a cfo of twitter then the ceo of twitter   um and uh you guys know my story but you know 
uh ended up in the united states after growing   up in canada after escaping a civil war i grew 
up on welfare and i said to anthony uh what are   the odds that two kids who grew up that way could 
have ended up in a moment where we were part of   doing something really amazing that you know 
for each of us was a meaningful accomplishment   and he said only in america and uh only in 
america this is let's keep that single best   [ __ ] country in the goddamn world 
100 um and it's worth fighting for   and it's worth having these debates 
and i think it's worth doing the pod   and so i'd like to see american constitution 
keep the pod going stop jason the american   constitution is the most incredible [ __ 
] document because that is the foundation   all of these things are built it's just the most 
amazing thing so i am really glad that we're all   having this conversation and i would just say guys 
keep the faith let's put the light back on donald   trump uh i would have as much sympathy as possible 
for as many of those folks in the capital maybe   not the folks that were intending to do harm maybe 
not zip tie guy but there's a lot of other people   that are that just got caught in the undertow i 
would try to have sympathy for them um and i would   really don't lose focus now people donald trump 
josh hawley ted cruz stay [ __ ] vigilant i would   also love you guys think about doing something 
for someone else this week yeah yeah that's all   let's all do something nice exactly yeah i love 
you guys all right love you besties love you saks   love you sex love you sexy poo come on sexy say 
it god damn it this is the time you're good say it and they've just gone crazy with it besties   we need to get these

You May Also Like