E36: New FTC Chair, breaking up big tech, government silent spying, Jon Stewart, wildfires & more
01:27:34 Share

What's kind of sex lp meeting?

Is there an .

lp meeting? Or you go are you going to lunch, Peter? till.

Said that sex every week, but to mois in italy, another button guts .

on done definitely.

Rain man, give me time.

We open sources.

fans and. Hey, everybody here, everybody welcome to another episode of the all in podcast, episode thirty six back with us today on the program the queen of kenya science uh, spectacular freedoms g is with us again with leading off last episode freeburg with a great uh, freedoms g science monologue, the crowd went crazy for IT.

How does he feel coming off that epic performance in episode thirty five? Tell us, what were you thinking going into the game? And yeah, well, I was thinking .

I would talk about the alzire drug approval, biogen. And I felt like I did IT when we were done great.

It's just it's like literally interview and code enter after like a fifty point game. okay. And with us rain man David sax with layers for players he's been styled and groomed uh and he's in some random hotel room. How are you doing? Rainman.

good, good. I'm not a hotel room. Man, oh, your home just .

happens to look like a five star. Aren't got to forgot that. And and give us some idea coming in to today's game with the layers, you obviously are here to dominate and and get your monologues up god, to be hard for you to look at the start line and see yourself trAiling in monologue s behind the dictator i'm court referring to all in statistics yeah where some many iact is breaking down how many minutes we should talk I said.

Jason, i'm really happy with my performance. For me, it's about quality, not quantity. I like to sick. Jb.

okay, got .

got what .

talking. How are you talking about account done? You know how the the all in stands have a ton of skills.

Like there is an audience for this podcast that has more skills then you. I like the five percent of the most killed people the world. Listen to this pockets. So in addition to doing the merge, in addition to doing who's the guy, Henry, who does all those incredible videos with animations, in addition .

to those times crushing.

those are amazing.

And of course, you have a Young spill bark who LED the charge, drop dib tracks. And now we have this new crew that is analyzing somebody put you know put on the show note a linked to IT, but they do um some type of A I analysis of the audio files and they tell us who had the most monologues and then the running time and then historic running time. So they're actually looking at IT trying to figure out you know who is speaking the most and they have thought freely was going to run away with the episode. But I kind of disappear in the second half the game uh and chmagh, uh obviously over in the corner and took his twenty seven percent.

But they don't have a pie art of how much we each .

time I have a very strong first, third or so he gets frustrated when he passes the ball and somebody misses a shot. It's kind of like we've brought in the early days. So kicking off today, lino has been confirmed to the ftc with bipartisan support.

interesting. And this is obviously going to be a chAllenge for big tech. On tuesday, the senate voted sixty nine to twenty eight to confirm linked on who is a very well established critic of big tech.

Um and this is obviously really unique because she's thirty years old and she's leave the ftc, which is unbelievable. I did a little research on her and watched the videos. She's basically written two amazing papers um and the first paper came on twenty seventeen and amazon's anti trust aper.

The second one came out in june um and was about the separation of platforms and commerce. And when you hear her speak, SHE is incredibly uh credible and knowledgeable IT is as if one of the four of us we're discussing that he could come into this podcast and speak credibly about amazon's businesses as supposed to the shades. We saw a different hearings where the senators and in congress people just absolutely had no idea what they're talking about.

Some of the items I picked up from a talk I gave in assis in um is that SHE SHE formed a lot of these opinions by talking to venture capital alist, who were concerned about amazon's dominance and other companies uh and the competitive space. And he is looking at consumer, one of the world lenses of anti trust, which will i'm sure David's actually will have some box on as our resident attorney here um and the framing of those in terms of harm of the consumer. He believes there is other harm that happens um and he thinks one remedy is to kill amazon basics because the marketplace shouldn't own the goods as well.

She's concerned about cloud computing, a consolidation because that creates a fragile ity and that is another type of consumer harm. While SHE freely admits that Prices have gone down, services are free and this is a consumer benefit. So he wants to rethink the entire concept and SHE is savy SHE brought up facebook buying uh a novo um the reportedly spy 点 VPN to give them a little advantage to what was being used on phones and maybe give them a little product road map information。

SHE also um brought up amazon studying the cells of other products to inform amazon basics, a claim that amazon says they don't do, but everybody know they do do because all that information is probably available. SHE talked about amazon's V C R M using data to invest in buying companies. Why wouldn't day that makes total sense.

Uh, that's great signal for them. H he seems to want amazon web services span out, which I think we would just double the value of IT or maybe at fifty percent of the value of all that. And SHE gave very pragmatic examples, like maybe separating google maps from android.

And when you turn on your android phone, you you would have to install maps, or maybe you would pick from the different maps that are out there, different programs, and that there would be integration in them. And people could swap out you know a map quest or apple maps in their google searches. So a lot of actually very interesting pragmatic approaches and SHE doesn't think these need to be decade long lawsuits. SHE thinks this is going to be a negotiation um and that people will kind of work together on IT but this is all with the backdrop of partisan politics and you know one group of people looking at this through the lens of wealth and inequality and another group looking at IT through censorship sacks, um since you are council here, what are you thoughts on .

disappointment? Yeah I mean the interesting thing is that lacon is the bernier approve candidate. SHE is liked by the progressive left but at the same time he got twenty one republicans, the supporter and so this um nomination sail through confirmation.

I think what she's saying, what he saying, I think there's um there's a very a good, good argument to IT that. And i've said some more of things in the past, which is which is basic saying something in the case. Amazon is luck.

You've got this company, amazon that controls essential infrastructure. Aw s the whole distortion supply chain going all away from the port to warehouses to uh to logistics and distribution that is going to be owned by a scaled monopoly player. You have a massive economies of scale.

It's pretty clear they're going to dominate that. And what they're doing is systematically going category by category and using the of monopoly profits they make by owning the sort of core infrastructure and subsidizing their entry into each of these new categories that amazon basics and others and SHE calls that your predatory pricing. And she's afraid that amazon is going to end dominating every cater every category that you could build on top of this core infrastructure.

I think it's actually a pretty valid concern. I think you see something analogous happening with apple and google in the APP stores. We had a congressional hearing pretty recently, which you had spotify on other apps complaining about what apple is doing to them, saying they are making our service nonviable with the thirty percent rate they're charging.

You remember bill girly had a great post about the same. Just because you can charge and thirty percent rate doesn't mean you should right now seeing this blow back from this, a massive thirty percent rate. And you had spotify saying, look, apple is doing this to basically make us, uh infeasible relates to apple music.

So I think there is a legit point here, which is that if you own the monopoly platform, the sort of an essential infrastructure you cannot use IT to basically take over every application on that can be built on top of that platform. Now I think is a very appropriate use of of anti trust law. And I think so I think that's the good here.

Now I think that there there are some some concerns or some potential downsides. And you know, and the downside that I see is that we used to think we used to judge anti trust law terms of consumer welfare. And so there is a limiting principle to the actions of government, which is you have just look at Prices and the effect on Prices here.

You know, the sort of movement that lean on represents so called hip stern ti trust movement. They're concerned about power, and they want to restructure markets to avoid sort of consist rations of power. I don't see the limiting principle there. And so I think what market should be .

a limiting principle? Well, IT would be a limiting .

principal in terms of who you could take action on, but IT, ouldn't be a limiting principle in terms of how you would restructure the market. And I think what we're in for over the next few years is potentially a hypermarket politicization of big tech markets. I think these two republicans might soon feel like the dog who caught the bumper in the sense that, yes, they're finally going to have the regulation of big tech they've been calling for, but they might not like all of the results because we because what could happen is a very intrusive meddling by government in the markets of technology. And I could go well beyond sort of this this gatekeeper principal, uh, that we've been talking about that I think would be a valid reason to regulate to mark yes.

to be careful um in focusing on amazon. So if you break down anti trust, well there are really three big buckets where the attack vector ies are. And i'm not going to claim to be an expert, but I think um the relatively easy to understand.

So you have the first principal body, which is called the sherman act. That's the thing that everybody's looked that and that's you know sort of where um most current um anti trust enforcement action has failed on tech companies because IT largely looks at the predatory nature pricing power that certain companies have. And you have to remember this thing was written in the one hundred hundred hundreds.

And so you know what did people do when they control things? They just they drove Prices up. Text as the exact opposite, right? They cost me, drive Prices down.

And what's counterintuitive is IT turns out that in the older days, driving Prices up drove out competition. Today, driving Prices down drives out competition. Yes, right? So know, you make gmail infinite storage. Nobody I can compete with you.

You make.

you know, a photos completely subsidized. You make certain music products effectively free, and you subsidize that, you know, you create enormous amounts of content, bubba. So give the sherman act.

Then somewhere along the way, we realized, okay, we need to add something. We created this called the clink neck, that was around M A right. We added to that um a lot of folks that are listening probably have heard of hearts, Scott reino H S R.

We've all gone through IT right on M A events. We have to file. These ages are clearances when you make big investments, for example, in our just matter um a climate change thing, we had to file H R and then there's this F T C A which is the federal tree commission dack.

That is where he can get you know if to use a poker term. Um you know a little frisky. why? Because the ftca has these two specific things, which says you can have an unfair method competition, or an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Now IT falls on her and her team to basically build the strongest case around those two dimensions. And my only advice to her, I wrote this into twenty in my investor letter as well. Just thinking about the breakdown of big tech. If you're onna go after these guys, that's the body of law that probably is the most um. Defensible um but you probably have to start you know whether you like IT or not with facebook or google um and the reason is there are more examples how you can use that language under the ftca to give those spokes a hard time I think so much harder.

The example of beach mouth that uh, we are giving away this product, losing money on IT to keep you in our store and mote you into our advertising network access a .

that's an example that's or or you know we then we then and then because then when you have controlled, then you can show that then the first part, the sherman act part kicks in. why? So you've seen fifteen or twenty years of google, facebook, less apple, by the way, um using their edge to decrease Price.

And for the first time in the last quarter, both of these two companies, and they were the only two, a big tech that announced an increase in pricing, right? They saw a diminishing of cpm inventory. And so they had to figure out ways to grow inventory as users started to stagnate.

And what they really said is were ramming up C P ms. And cp ms. I think we're up twenty eight thirty percent in a quarter. Yeah, and there is a little future right now. You put these two ideas together, which is step one, as you serve titius sly, basically take all the cost set of the system and then step to raise Price over time. There's probably something there.

Uh friedberg, when we look at her age and her obvious uh deep, deep knowledge, do you see that as uh an overall plus um in obviously you know David framework as the bernie approved candidate, but then conceded that twenty republicans are are are backing her. What do you what do you think about the master credibility? SHE has freeburg in terms of she's actually understands this deeply. I am sure .

he's not dumb. If that that you're asking, i'm not sure.

I mean, it's thirty two year old. Have we seen an appointment like that before?

I mean, ah that's good for her. So I just feel like there's um A A bit of a cycle underway where we have this kind of anti wealth anti wealth accumulation sentiment. H as an undercurrent right now, you obviously berny and I was but warn and others are our key vocal um uh uh proponents of of change that's needed to keep this kind of wealth disparity from continuing to grow.

And one of the solution is to reduce the monopolistic capacity of certain business models specifically and technology. Um the the downside that I don't think is realized and and that inevitably comes with this action under this new kind of business model of the the technology age with the digital age is the uh damage to consumers. Um and so you know as china and David point, like historically anti trust has been about protecting the consumer and the irony is the more monopoly or the more monopolistic or the more market share amazon gains, the cheaper things get for consumers and um and it's unfair to small businesses, into business owners, into competitors.

But consumers do fundamentally benefit and so the logical argument SHE made in her paper that was widely distributed few years ago um was around this notion that in this new world is not about consumer harm um and we need to look past the impact to consumers and look more kind of the you know that the fact that this company maybe prevents innovation and prevents competition but ultimately if the consumer is harmed, uh in the resolution of that concern, we're gonna wake up to IT for a while and then consumers one day are going to wake up and they onna be like way to second why I paying five books for gmail and you know, why my paying an extra ten dollars for shipping to get my amazon products brought to me everyday. And you know, all the things that I think we've taken on for granted in the digital age, uh, with the advent of these you know called monopolistic kind of business models where they accumulate market share and they can tweet pricing and keep people out in. The bigger they get, the cheaper they get, therefore, is harder to compete.

Consumers have benefit tremendously. I, I, I, I think all of us would be hard pressed to say I would love to pay ten bux amount for gmail. I D love to pay for facebook. Uh, and at the end of the day, these models, i'd love to pay more for shipping with amazon.

Um and so you know IT becomes a value question, right? What do you value more? Do you value the opportunity for competition, innovation in the business world? Or do you value as a consumer Better pricing? And I don't think that we're really having that debate, and I think that, that debate will inevitably kind of rise over the next couple of years if free berg, how much is kind played out?

And I think to be clear, freeburg, what you're saying is this is driven by the extraordinary wealth of .

jeff baz of za. It's easy to pin point that problem and then not involve the questions to consumers if you try and change how business Operates in a free market system. And these businesses are successful because they have customers that competition ing and they and they drive in a competitive way pricing down.

And they prevent people from coming in and competing, not by entering into contract and anti trust enforcement, all the sort of stuff they're doing that because they're scaling and offering lower Prices. I mean, going like Peter til and market recently separately argued for this in really intelligent ways, probably in a far more articulated way than I can. But h and they did this early on, which is we want to find businesses that can become an oily because if you can reduce your pricing and improve your pricing power with scale, it's gonna harder and harder for someone to compete.

And therefore, the capital theory is russia, bunch of capital. And these businesses help them scale very quickly. And this is obvious, the basis of uber and others.

And they get really big, really fat. Create the, create the mode, drop the pricing, and then no one can compete with your pricing. Consumers benefit and you've created a big business and you have everyone.

okay. So let me go on the horn here and frame this for everybody. Let's assume that a big tech does get breaking up this broken up.

This is uh, an exercise um we assume IT is broken up and youtube and android or span out instagram what's upper r span out A W S S span out. And you know APP stores are allowed on um apples platform H I O S for the first time. I want to know if this is good, bad or neutral for the following two people.

So these break ups occur is IT good, bad or neutral for consumers. And then two is a good, bad or neutral for startups. Sex.

I generally would lean towards saying, yes, I mean, a lot depends good.

Better, neutral for each party startups and for consumers.

I I think I could ultimately be good for for both, but I really depends on how it's done. And I think there is a big risk here that this just to generates into sort of hyper politicization. You get intensive amounts of lobbying by big tech in washington that what happens is, you know, you have a good cop, bad cop, where lino just becomes the bad cop.

She's here to kind of keep tech in line friends to break them up. And then the good cop is you by in and the administration, and then they they become the protection and the extortion racket they raised, you know, on god of the amount of money. And really, it'll be a banana for for all elected officials. Because now big text of the increases.

donations, even more supernal .

cynical takes, so we could end up with something much worse than what we have now. But but I think the legit, I think the words you're going to hear a lot, okay, are common career.

Because what he seems we saying is, look, if you are attachment options that controlled core infrastructure we need to regulate you like a common Carrier, you cannot similarly deny service to your competitors who are downstream applications built on top of your platform. The service can get behind that because that is the ARM IT they're been making about facebook cutting off free speech is you are a speech utility. You should be regularly as a common care.

You cannot cut off people some, mary. You cannot discriminate against people who should be allowed to have free speech on your platform. So I think there is I think the left in the right here can cut a deal where they regulate these guys as these big test companies, as common Carriers. I think that is what we're head towards.

So Bakery can deny service, as we talk about previous issue, to a gay couple who wants a cake because it's a tiny little company and there are other choices. But when we're talking about facebook and twitter, there are not other choices. And when you removed like trump s spin from the public where there is no recourse, you are essentially zero out to moths is a good for startups, bad for startup, s neutral? Same thing for consumers. If you know one chunk of every got cleared off.

it's unanimously good for startups in any scenario in which they get involved. And I think in most cases in which the government gets involved, it's good for consumers as well.

And why both?

So for startups, it's just because I think right now, we have a massive human capital sucking sound that big tech creates in the ecosystem, which is that there is an entire generation of people that are basically unfortunately filtering away their most productive years, getting paid what seems to them like a lot of money, but is what is effectively just, you know um paola, to not go to a competitor, go to a startup at a by big tech.

So during clearly, for example, like a few machine learning person, right uh those machine learning people um you know can get paid seven hundred and fifty to a million dollars a year to stay at google and instead they won't go to a start up because they takes sort of the bird in the hand right you multiply that by one hundred or one hundred and fifty thousand very talented, you know, technical people. And that's actually what you're seeing every day. Now those numbers are actually my tire.

You know, if you're a specific eye, son, you can get paid five, ten million dollars year. My point is they could have started to start up. And they Frankly, they just million.

They look let's beyond st. They go to google, facebook and whatever. I don't think anybody sees the real value of what they're doing in those places. Expect getting paid. Now they're making a rational economic decision for themselves, and so nobody should blame them for that.

But if startups had more access to those people um or if you know those engineers finally said, you know what, enough enough, I actually gna go and try something new. That's net additive to the ecosystem. It's net additive to start ups, right? That's for them. And then for consumers.

I think the reason why it's positive is that it'll start to show you in which cases you had been giving away something that you didn't realize was either valuable or you didn't realize you were giving away in return for all of these products subsidies that you were getting. And I think that's the next big thing that's happening. You can see IT in the the enormous amount of investment apple, for example, is making in both advertising the push to privacy as well as implementing the push to privacy.

You know this last wwdc know they really threw the GTA down. You know they were really trying to blow up um the advertising business models of google and facebook um and as consumers become more aware of that, they're probably willing to pay more. So a simple examples.

You know there are a lot of people now who will pay higher Prices for food if they know IT to be organic, right? There are people who will pay higher Prices for electricity or for an electric car because of impact for the light of in the climate. So it's not to say that people always want cheaper.

fester Better, right? I mean, sometimes people will buy an iphone because, uh, obviously protecting their privacy and they know it's not an air base model. And in fact, apple is now making that part of their process. So uh freeburg I S the other gentlemen, uh if they thought some large unit being chopped off of every company, youtube, A W S uh instagram you picked um would be a net positive for startups or negative or neutral. And the same thing for consumers, what do you think .

which gentleman did you ask means that much?

I was specifically referring to the ones .

who .

are wearing tires.

So, uh, i'm using the term lightly.

So if you guys .

go back a few years ago, you'll a remember there are these I think there were congressional hearings and h jerrem's toleman from yet was pretty vocal about how google um was redirecting um search engine traffic to their own kind of reviews and they pulling yelp content of the site.

But then they said to yelp, if you don't want us to pull your content, you can turn the web crawler, talk a off and we won't craw your site, but your site is public and available. We can craw IT and we show slippers on our home page. But then their argument was what you're using our content to drive your own reviews and they made this whole kind of case that google kind of monopoly and search was harming their ability to do business.

Um you know the the counter argument was, well, if you guys to have a great service, consumers will go to your APP directly or your website directly to get reviews they won, go to google. And so IT created a little bit of this kind of noise for a while. I think there was some follow up and this is all very much related because ultimately, if he was able to get google to stop providing a review service, his business would do Better, right? Google would effectively redirect search traffic to his site as opposed to their own internal site.

So IT is inevitably the case that in house apps or in house services that compete with third party services when you're a platform business, um uh you know if they're removed, it's certainly going to benefit the competitive landscape, which is typically startups. Um you imagine if apple didn't have apple maps pre installed on the iphone, everyone would download and use google maps, right? I mean the t and whatever came along like ways and got a Better map.

But because they have this ability to kind of put that apple maps in front of you is a consumer and it's a default on your phone. You're more likely to just click on IT and start using IT. You're down IT certainly opens up this window.

But I think the question is what ultimately best for the consumer. If you believe that consumers will choose what's best for themselves, you're starting to kind of manipulate with the market a bit. Uh and sex, I don't know. I think you've got .

a different point of view on this. But yeah yeah why i'm a free markets type of guy, but my experience of paypal really changed my thinking on this because IT was a startup that launched effectively as an voluntary APP on top of the ebay market. At that time, ebay had a monopoly on the auction market, and that was the key sort of beach at market online payments.

So we launch the top of ebay. They were constantly trying to disclose us and remove us from their platform. And really the only thing keeping them from just switching us off was was an anti trust thread.

We actually spin up that you could call a lobby Operation where we would send information to the ftc in the dog and say, listen, you've got this auction and apply here that's taking eighty competitive actions against us, this little startup, p and you. And so we were able to roll the sabor and and sort of brush them back from the plate from taking a much more dramatic action against us. And Frankly, we did something kind of similar with VISA master card because paypal was essentially an application on top of VISA as card as well.

We offered merchants ability to accept VISA master card, but also paypal payments, which were gradually eating into in the planting the the credit card payments. And so you know, VISA mass card had a very dim view of paypal. And they were constantly, you know, they were constantly making noise about switching us off. And I do think that without the threat of anti trust hanging over these big monopoly or do obit would have been very hard for us as a startup to get the access to these networks that we needed. And so I really kind of change my thinking about IT because, you know, if you let these giant monopoly run while run, run a muck, they will absolutely stifle innovation.

will become .

gatekeeper. And so you have to have the threat of anti trust action hang over their heads or you will stifle innovation.

absolutely. I mean, if you just look at the interesting google flights over time, i'm looking at a chart right now, we'll put IT into the notes. Google flights, you know I know some of us don't find anymore, but you know, for somebody whose are looking for flights on a regular basis, watching google intercept flight information, put up google flights and is an awesome product. And just expedia and bookings of the company called .

I T A software based out of boston. And I, T, A was acquired by google. I T A was the search engine behind flight search for most companies.

There was like seventy P. H S. There were all statistics guys. And they basically built this logistical model, flights, pricing and all the first to wow. Uh, search capability that they then provided.

And they were making plenty of money providing this as a White label search capability to expedia and kac and all the online h travel agencies. And google wanted to be in that business because travel search was obviously such A A big vertical. Um and rather than just buy a travel search site, they bought the engine that powers travel search for most of .

the other ganger and then .

and then they also revealed the results in their own search result home page uh which effectively cut off the O T A S. And the O T S are big spenders on google ads. So so basically google.

this is how the fair that is. If i'm hearing what you're saying freeway correctly, they watched all this money being made by those O T S. They watch where they got their data from, then they bought their data source and then they decided, you know what, we won't take your cost per click money, will just take your entire business.

I don't know. So another way, what's best for consumers, so does the consumer.

Because what happens a lot in the dictionary, I guess.

do to make money in online advertising. There are a lot of these ad arbitrage business. This is one way to think about IT where um you know a service provider will pay for ads on google to get traffic.

The ads will come to their site and then they will either make money on ads or a sumer. And so that's effectively what the O T. S. Were is they were maybe came on online service and intermedia that were arbitrating google's add costs verses what they could get paid for the consumer.

And so google look at and were only capturing half the pie and consumers don't want to have to click through three websites to buy a flight or buy a hotel. And by the way, if they did, they would keep doing IT. So why do we just give them the end result right up front? And then consumers will be happier the less time they have to spend clicking through sites and looking at other child add, the happier we'll be.

And the product just works incredibly well. And are consumers while building a power base that then could make their lives? Because I think saying .

though is you can't just look at the short term interests of consumers ers. You got look at their long term interest, what the long term interests consumers to have decision in the short term, these giant monopoly can engage in predatory pricing to lower the cost for consumers. And so just looking at the Price on a short term basis isn't enough.

And they can trick people to giving them something else that they don't know to be valuable. So in the case of these, you know, a lot of these companies, what are they doing? They're tricking them to get enormous amounts of user information, personal information, user generated content and they get nothing for IT. And then on the back of that, if you are able to build a trillion, look at look at the value that youtube has generated um economic value and then try to figure out how much of that value is really shared with the creative community inside of youtube. I'm guessing it's less than fifty basis points.

well, fifty fifty five percent of revenue. But you're saying downstream with all that data, google making a massive amount .

of I just want you if you compute the value of all of the P I, I, that google basically I personally identifiable information, all the cookies that they drop, all that information, and you equated to an economic enterprise value, not necessarily in revenue, like a discounted cash flow. Over twenty years, you would be in the trillions and trillions of dollars.

And then if you discounted the same twenty years of revenue share that they give to their concern, producers IT will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars at best. And so you're talking about an enormous tradeoff where google basically has built, you know, a multitrillion dollar asset and has leaked away less than ten or fifteen percent of the value. And but that's an example where. They're giving people something that they think is valuable, but in return, the able to build something much, much more valuable, right?

I just want to address like access point, which is the regulators are now going to start to think about the long term interest over over the short term interest of the consumer as um effectively giving the regulatory thread uh to uh elected officials.

And this means that you are now giving another throttle right another control uh joystick um uh to to folks that may not necessarily come from business um that may not necessarily have the the appropriate background and that may have their own kind of political incentives and motivations to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong for consumers over the long term. And ultimately, there's are going to be value judgements, right? There's no determinism here.

There's no right or wrong um there's going to be decisions based on the kind of opinion and nuance of of some elected people. And so IT is a very dangerous and kind of slipper slope to end up in this world where the judgment of some regulator about what's best for consumers long term versus the cold, hard facts, oh, Prices went up. Prices didn't you know? Uh but really say, well, this could affect you in the future in this way starts to become kind of a really, you know, scary and slippery slope. Uh, we have embraced this a this this new regulatory .

order are moving on. Big news this week, uh, apple had a gag order. IT has been revealed. It's pretty crazy um and we we only have partial information here. But the justice department spinet apple in february of twenty eighteen about an account that belong to dollar m again who obviously was the uh, trump's White house council at the time and obviously part of the campaign is very famously uh known for being interviewed by Miller and at that this is the time period, by the way, we're talking about here in february of twenty when Miller was investigating manifest, who of course uh was super corrupt and went to jail, that was so ly parted because that he was also involved in the campaign in two thousand sixteen. It's possible that this related mulder is unknown at this time. Uh many other folks were also caught up in this dragged net rod rosand steam was a second and it's um unclear if the F I agents were investigating uh, whether Megan was the liquor uh or not trump up had previously ordered began the previous june to have the justice department removed Miller, which Megan refused and try to resign and Megan later revealed that he had in fact lead his resignation threat to the washington post uh according to the times disclosure that agent sec lected data of White house council uh, which they kept secret for years, is extraordinary .

good sex wax out here. I think you're missing some other key facts. So the the justice department after trump starts this investigation into leaks of classical formation, they're on a more hunt effectively and they start uh making the Serena to D O J. Sapa records from apple and IT goes very broad, and they end up sapin. The records, not just of Megan, who's the White house council, which is very bizarre and curious that they be investigating their own White house council.

but they also, well, PS.

yes, but are they also in the records of atos shift and small well and member sy house intelligence committee and so you have now um an accusation which is being breathless ly reported on CNN and M S B C that here you have the trump administration investigating its political enemies and using the sapna power of the D O J with apple's compliance to now spy on their political enemies.

That that those are some big jumps are some big just those are some big jumps because um according to pret baha and some other folks were in the industry um who who have done these actual sophana, they could have been pining, you know, one of manifests, you know corrupt oh, partners in crime and then those people he could have been talking to many people, the trumpet administration and then subsequently family members and other so he might have not been the target.

He could have been caught up in the metadata of other people. Yes, so this might not be trumped. Ying, get me his iphone records.

IT could be, there are some dirty person. They know they are dirty. And that person had reached out to other people, and they might have even done one more hot from each .

map pot I mean, to, okay, that's one version yeah and then you know the the other version, which is important is usepa your own lawyer by going to apple getting basically god knows what data associated with this man's account and then you know, institutes a guy gorder on that company so that they can neither tell the person until now when the guy gorder expired, nor tell anybody else, nor have any records, to the extent they think that this is a legitimate, that to me, smells really fishy.

And so, you know, like there are other mechanisms that, that we know of, like physa request and other things that these big companies have to deal with all the time. This at least the way that it's written and how it's been reported is something outside of the pale. And so I think you have to deal with IT with this question of like what the help is going on over there IT does seem like they were going, uh I I mean you know kindly maybe more hunting, more neffer ious, sly witch hunting um but they were trying to pen IT on people.

And they may have used this blanket sort of deniable plausibility of the russia, you know, embryo. But really what these guys were doing, those they were investigating anybody that they thought was a threat, and that is a really scary thing to have in a democracy. And then the fact that these big tech companies basically just turned IT over and didn't have any records to protect the user or to inform the public, forget truth for a second. I think we don't necessarily want that to be the president that holds going forward.

The same thing here is that sex, jeff sessions, rose and sign and bar all say they're unaware of this. So what would be the terrible reason they were unaware of IT? Or what would be the inferior is or or is that important at all? Because that was really strange. They would go after the White house council and adam shift, and those top three people would have no idea, are they lying? Are you?

What's next? As you are, we gonna basically go to a point where, like, you know, every single, no, I mean, like every single post that one makes on facebook is basically surveyed. Um if you make an anonymous post on twitter, will you be tracked down? I member, like, as much as everybody thinks there's anonymity on the internet, there really isn't. And you should just completely assume that you are traceable, are being track, have been tracked, everything is in the White open, is just the matter whether it's disclosed to you or not or was IT it's brought back to work up.

So yeah, so look, I mean, I I agree with to moths at the stink and it's it's an invasion of people, civil liberties. But I would not make IT too partisan because the obama administration was engaging in similar activity back in two thousand thirteen, and I don't think people realized this. See, there's an old saying in washington that the real scandal is what's legal.

And the fact of the matter is that what the trump ministration did was certainly suspicious, and IT might have been politically motivated, we don't know, but IT was legal. The D. O, J.

Convened a federal grand jury. Got this, uh, you'd got these stupas present them to apple and this information. And in a similar way back in two thousand, the administration, that means somewhere it's quite extraordinary, disappeared the records of the ap for two months.

They got the records of reporters and five branches of the ap and all their mobile records. And they were on a mul hunt to try and find leakers of classified information. So the trump ministration basically did exactly what the obama ministration did. The only new wrinkle is that they only went after reporters. They actually preciptation records of members.

You're missing one. Huge, missing one. Huge difference. Trump was under investigation for espion hash entries at the time so IT is slightly different .

um obama I I don't think it's that different in the sense that trump use powers that were pioneer by the obama istra's .

addition to that um when obama did IT, all the top press of the department of justice were aware of this in this case of three people who are running the depart cm.

they don't know. No, in two thousand thirty the new york article on this i'm going to post on in the shower notes but IT said that went first. All the ap was not informed about disciplines until a number of months later.

So IT was a secret seizure of records. Same thing here with the gag water. And so you have people being investigated that, or even know they are being investigated stigand given, get a lawyer, spin up to oppose the invasion of their eyes. I agree with you.

but the attorney general knew about that.

Maybe the enter generals is with the White house claims that IT didn't know. So in any event, I mean, look, yes, what I my view on this is that we shouldn't try to make this two parties. And we have here is an opportunity to hopefully get some bay partisan legislation to fix the issue.

And I think the fix should be this, that when you investigate somebody, when you sepa records from a big tech company, you have to notify them. You should not be able to do that secretly because the fact of matter is that apple and these other big tech companies don't have an incentive to oppose the sepa. They're not your lawyer and actually bad smith, the president Michael t.

Had a great oped in the washington post that we should post, that we should put in the shown notes where he said the secret gg. Waters must stop the he said that in the old way of the government's supposin records is that that you would have essentially offline records, you would have a fall cabinet, and the government would come with a search warrant that present the search, warned to you, and then you could get a lawyer to oppose IT. Well, they don't do that anymore because your records aren't a fall cabinet where they're in the cloud. And so now they don't even go to the person whose being investigated data, go to a big tech company, seize the records and then put a get on top this you even know you're being investigated.

That's part of IT. That's and by the way, it's even more pernicious .

in that sex because to uh.

combine this with the previous a story, what incentive does apple to say to an administration that could break them up? We're not CoOperate. Course they are not .

your asian in this. And here's to think those are your records. They're in the cloud, but there are your records in every. The private context, we say those records to you, not the big tech.

So what this is why moving everything to.

why should the government be able to do in n run around you, the targeted to the investigation, go to big tech, get your records form.

because not your records. Well, first there not your records. These companies trick all of us by giving IT to us for free so that we gave them all of our content. They are not just are not just the custody and they are the trustee of our content. And it's a huge distinction in what they're allowed to do.

And Jason brings up an incredible point, which is which is that, of course, they're now incentivize to have a back door and live under a guy gora because their their defense in a back room is you guys, you know, when in the light somebody says we should break you up in the dark, they can say, guys, come on, we got a back door. You just come in, guy, order us, give us. You give you what you want.

You want a honeypot. You don't want this thing all over the internet. And can you imagine how credible David that is to your point? Because that is a body of concentrated power that I think is very scary.

In fairness to apple freedoms g um they have locked down the phone and they've moved all of this information from the cloud. They're starting this process and saying we're going to keep some amount as the data encrypted on your phone. And of course, with the same burn dito shooting, they refused in a terrorist shooting, a no terror shooting to not give a back door.

Um that's a crazy standard. It's like, you know what okay, there is a sand bird, do know shooter and they were like, nope, sorry, that's a bridge too far but you know down again and basically like, you know political sp and there's like, here you go no, I don't know. How do you make these decisions?

Let me, let me, let me ask you guys a question.

Would you be.

could you see yourself thriving in a world where all of your information was completely publicly available, but also all of everyone else's information was completely .

publicly available? yes.

Oh, everybody has all their news on the web, is what you're saying.

Everyone there, a book by Stephen baxter called the light of other days. One of my favorite side, phy books, I sent IT out to all of my investors this last. We do like a book being every year, and I reread IT recently, but the whole point of the book is that there's like a warm whole technology, but they discover and they can figure out how to like, look.

And you can boot up your computer and look in anywhere and see anything and here, anything you want. And so all of a sudden society has to transform under this kind of new regime of hyper transparency, where all information about everything is completely available. But I think the the fear in the concern that we inmates have with respect the loss of privacy is that there's a centralized or controlled power that has that information.

But what if there was a world that that you evolved to where all of that information is generally available quite broadway? And I am not advocating for this, by the way. I'm just pointing out that the sensitivity we have is about our information being concentrated in the hands of either government or a business. Um and I think you have to kind of accept the fact that more information is being generated about each of us every day, then was being generated by us a few weeks ago or months ago or years ago.

Basically I S and body the true man show is what you're saying well in the geometrically growing way.

information which we're calling P I I R, whatever is being generated us and I think the genes out of the bottle, meaning like the the cost of sensors, the access to digital, the digital age. And what IT brings to us from a benefit perspective is creating information about us and a football us that I don't think we ever kind of contemplated.

But as that happens, the question is, where is that information go? Can you put that gene back in the bottle? And I think this a there's a big philosophical point, which is like if you try put the gene back in the bottle, you really just try to fight.

Information wants to be free. Information wants to grow. What's the name of the book you're talking about? The light of other days by Steven to and artha Clark helps write IT.

But the book is most interesting about the philosophical implications of a world where all information is completely freely available. Anyone yeah completely transparent. And so do we see ourselves? Because I think there's two pass.

One, as you fight this and you fight IT and you fight IT every which way, which is, I want my P I locked up. I don't want anyone having access to A A. You either see a the minished of services or you you to see this concentration of power where we all kind of out where the government or or some business has all of our information. The other path is a path that society starts to recognize the information out there. there.

It's not just about pii here. This is about due process. This is about our fifth amendment to due process.

You have the government secretly investigating people. They could never do this if they had to present you with a search word. They are doing and run around that process by going to big tech.

Just about the numbers on this big tech is getting something like four hundred seven as a week for people's records. They only oppose four percent of them. Why they have no one of to .

how many of those you should be able seen, you know? How many of those are secret or not?

We don't know how many of them to have a gag order. They are require to tell the target what happened, but not if there's a gag order attached to IT. We don't know how many have a gag order. You should have the right to send your own lawyer to oppose the request, not if you want dect for IT if you .

want to see an amazing movie, the lives of others. H, which is about the state security service in eastern germany, uh, also known as the stasi, and the impact of literally in your apartment building there are three people spying on the other ten people and they are the postmen and you know the housewife and the teacher and they're all tapped and secret we're recording to each other IT leads to chaos and bad feelings. And obviously when espalin um when the wall came down, all of this came out and IT was really dark and crazy.

Yeah I mean this issue actually because I am my view they're both very small civil liberties issues, which is in the case the sensitive issue. You have the government doing an and ran around the first amendment by demanding that big tech companies engage in censorship, that the government itself could not. Do you have something very similar taking place here with these records? The government is demanding secrecy about its season of records.

They are imposing that on big tech. They are making big tech do its dirty work for them. They could never do that um directly if they had to go to the target of the investigation and ask for the the records that way. So you have here is a case where we don't only need to be protected again, the power of big tech, we need to be protected against the power of government usurping the powers of big tech to engage in your behavior. They could .

others SE engage in in the government are, uh, overlapping and inkau z or there in some, there are some really crazy dance. The money is flowing freely from lobby's and a very, very complicated relationship. It's A S A very complicated relationship, right?

Seven day average for covet debt is a now at three hundred and thirty two um finding cases of people who have had covered um is now becoming like almost shocking uh and if you guys saw but the point guard Chris pal um who was having an incredibly winning season in the N B A, he basically cuckoos. They said he was vaccinated so IT could be a my case but he's been a pulled out indefinitely and he's about to play on the conference final. So it's pretty crazy.

And freeburg, uh, obviously, california is opened up after fifty months and we were the first to shut down the last open up. And we were hit the least, I think, of any state or amongst the least of any certainly the least of any large state. Um and you are being asked to stay where I masks at your office.

I'm also being asked to take off my shoes when I get on an airplane yeah, twenty years later and I don't think canada exist anymore .

uh yeah maybe some other parts of IT explain what's happening to you in the proceedings, which is um a lovely state park ah here in california. Er the government .

office in the proceedings, california sanford, cisco colony and the federal government have all removed mass Mandates. But our our landlord has determined in their judgment that everyone should still were masked to go to work. And so to go into my rented office in work, I have to wear a mask. Um and I think it's it's an issue for uh a lot of people who like there's a people that uh i've been probably a couple of restaurants this week and you know you go to some restaurants and everyone is just chill in the employees are not wearing must. There's other restaurants where are being told they have to keep boring masks by their manager or their boss.

Um and so this brings up the big question, which is like we've now got the kind of psychic shadow of COVID that that is going to cast a very long shadow predicted dict and um and so people that Better in power want to continue to kind of impress upon you know whatever employees or tenants or or what have you they might have um in whatever they deem their judgment to be, which is obviously in in many cases and informed, uninformed, nonscientific and uh and not Mandated judgment about effectively what people should have to wear. So if the threat or the risk have been removed, and all of the health officials and all of the government encies are saying the threat has been removed, you no longer need to kind of wear masks, but your boss or your manager or your landlord tells you have to wear a mask to conduct your business or to go to work. Um you know it's going to bring up this whole series of chAllenges and questions I force for the next couple of months that leaves and maybe for several years about what's fair and what's right.

And and there will always be the safety argument to be made and the other. So it's very hard to argue inst, that and all the inconvenience is just a mask is not a big deal. But for you know a number of people to now to be told you .

to take a year. To sort all these things out because they all get prosecuted, not prosecuted, but relatives and .

they're going to go to court. They will get for on and .

and what's gna happen is that you're gonna basically have again, just impact to the example of the the Bakery colorado uh private institutions will be allowed some level of independence in establishing um you know certain employ guidelines and so on exactly. And you you'll have to conform to those. And um IT IT is what IT is.

I mean I I I just change in Austin in terms of these covered dead enders who just will not let you go. I'm in Austin where nobody y's wearing a mask and then they rely. I went into lululemon and they, like two people charge me with masks in hands and they were like, you have to wear mask.

And I was like, do I know? Like, guess it's our policy and was fine. I'll put IT on. I don't care you no big.

This thing has really fried as bunch of people's brains. I mean, crazy. I think it's basically like you've taken an entire group .

of folks and kidnap .

them and kidnap a sense it's incredible. It's really, really.

really increase one's been held hostage in a prison for the last year. And so you've kind of accepted that this is the new reality. I got to wear a mask. I ve got to wear gloves um and you know it's the similar sort of shift in reality that I think was needed going into this where people didn't believe what I was and now part for them to believe what it's become.

We flag human nature .

ah yeah we flag .

on this pot a few months ago the threat of euro ism, which is that we wouldn't you know all the special rules and restrictions lift until there were a few cases of covet and we all know that never going to happen cover d always be around in the background and just add a layer to what's happening here in california is yeah on june fifteen th we lift to the restrictions.

But governor newsome has not given up his emergency powers and he he says he will keep them until covets been extinguished so he's now embrace zero ism on behalf of um this sort of authoritarian m yeah and you so we've got this like golden state seizure or and now was interesting is I don't think this is just because he's a tyran, although he certainly been heavy handed. I think it's because that I think it's more about corruption than ideology, because federal funds, emergency funds from the federal government keep flowing to the state as long as we have a state of emergency. And so the longer he keeps the thing going, the more money he gets from the federal government that he can then use in this recall year to pay people off.

And so we ve never seen his one buying every vote he can, right? He gave six and our boxes to everyone making understand five thousand. He's for giving all the traffic fines and parking tickets. He's doing this lottery ticket thing for getting the vaccine, and so he just wants to keep the the gravy train from washington following.

The I mean reminds me .

of nine eleven where .

people are just like, hey, we can keep this gravy train no.

I mean, like nine eleven is the perfect kind of psychic you know scenario uh you know replying itself with COVID. There are behavioral al changes that have lasted forever, the regulatory changes, the department of homeless security. And you go through the amount of money that get, and by the T.

S. A, every year, and the qualified risk, the qualified benefit, completely unquantified, right? Like the amount of money that flows into these programs, because you can make the the subjective statement, there is a threat, there is risk, therefore, spend infinite amounts of money, right?

Like it's because because you never kind of put pender paper and say, what is the risk, what is the probability, what is the severity of loss. And therefore, let's make a value judgment about how much we should spend to against that downside. And what's now doing the same thing with cove IT, we're not having a conversation about how many cases, how many what's the risk. Should we really still be spending billions of dollars of state funding to continue to protect to a state where seventy percent of people .

have vaccinated and we and we have a massive surplus and we're still giving people money um who may or may not need IT and we're doing discriminated speaking of uh discussions and heart topics and being able to have them.

Youtube, which kicked off a ton of people on the platform for talking about things that were not approved by the W H O, has taken professor bread White teens podcast down because he had a very reasonable discussion about ever met in and its efficacy, or lack of efficacy. This is a doctor A P H, D talking to an md. Um and the video was removed. Apple did not remove this episode.

These people should not be the day keepers of the truth. They have no idea what the truth is. We talk about that the john .

store appearance on Steven, he killed.

he killed on Stephen coal bear. But the things you were saying about the lab c would not have .

been allowed on youtube three months ago would have been removed for IT. Even as a comedian, the performance was amazing. He basic says, you know, the woo hong, a copy lab, is where the woo on, you know, you know.

the disease is named after the world. And so where where do you think he came from? A panel in mr.

Made IT with a bat. I mean, this isn't in any goes on this whole diatribe. It's incredibly funny, yes. But then at the end of bit I had to take away, I don't know you guys felt this first I was like john towards a little and hinge gear like, I mean, there was a part of IT that was funny and and there is a part of IT which is like.

wo john wards been trapped indoors a little .

so I I thought that is well, to be honest. But then the second thing which I saw on twitter was all these people reminding, uh, anybody who saw the tweet that this exact content would have not been allowed on big tech platforms, where IT said three or six months ago. And I was like, wow, this is, this is really not meaning. IT takes a left leaning, smart, funny comedie. And to say something, if the right, if the right would have said he would have just been instantly banana shed in that's like, that's kind of crazy .

yeah the great what was I think we are a great debt of gratitude to science. Science has many ways ped ease the suffering of this pandemic, which was more than likely cause by science.

Yeah, IT was a funny line where he said something like if there was an outbreak of chocolate goodness .

and hersey pencil pencil .

IT wouldn't because know whether the panel and kissed bad is because a fucking chocolate factory like.

I don't know maybe it's deep of made in with a coco meko chocolate backbone be that.

Was so so I go.

which month take away? I mean, this was great example of of censorship, run of market, these big tech companies. But the other thing I saw that was really interesting was stevan kober lose control of his audience and, you know, start killed on that show. But you could see, even kober was, I think.

visibly nervous, very comfortable, very .

comfortable.

not know what was coming. And he was trying, when James are kept pushing this, like, well, you just try to qualify wall. So what you're saying is, now that fouche has said this might be a possibility, you're saying you might be a possibility and gesture was having a bit he ran right over that said, no, the name is the same. It's obvious. Come on.

Yeah, yeah. The kobe cap chAllenging. I don't if you saw this part where said he listen, is a possible that they have a lab in mohan to study the crown of our disease because one on there are a lot of novel cron of rs diseases because is a big bad population and then stored is like, no, i'm not stand for that.

He goes, I totally understand it's the local specialty and it's the only place to find bats. You won't find bat anywhere else. Oh, wait, Austin, texas has thousands of the of a cave every night that does. And he would let you go. So it's just .

great watching IT IT was our minder, Frankly, of how funny both john steward and Stephen cover were about fifteen years ago. And I think I don't think Stephen colbert is funny anymore because, no.

because he kind of keep his job.

He come very .

and and what .

store reminded us is that comedy is funny. When is making fun of the people who are pretentious and basically who aren't telling the truth? And Stephen cole bear has become so political that he's lost sight of the comedy. Yeah.

just to brought IT back, had this element of sad, which even in your face, funny, whether koba was like setting and dry, and you had to think about IT, there was layer. And if he's totally losted totally, totally just well. And then, and I thought start came out, swing heart, I do think sex, you have to agree, did IT seem to you though, like steward had not like he just needed more human to human interaction.

He was a cage tiger man. The time they let .

off to absolutely IT was the .

funniest thing .

john sorts done in many years. And the reason is because he connected with the fact that here is this obvious thing that were not allowed to say, and that is what comics should be doing.

Yes, put IT light on that. I mean, if comedy is plus time, I think that this is a great moment for us to reflect on. Like, I think we're gonna back to Normal pretty quick.

Um if you remember, after nine eleven, there was this idea that comedy was over forever. You were not going to be able to make fun of things and that this was the end of SAT tire people where this is you know um a bridge too far. Cea, and I think we're back, we're back and that's IT. You know we can joke about the corona virus. We can talk about IT. We don't need to censor people for having an opinion where all adults here, um you know the idea that you know we have to take down people's tweet because they have some crazy area or put a label on them, like we went a little crazy during the pandemic um and try to stifle discussions for what reason exactly like when we look back on this is going to be really strange that we demanded that we put labels on people questioning or having a debate, including doctors. Doctors were not allowed to debate to the public on youtube or twitter about, uh, what was the drug that trump kept promoting remember .

that whole Q I think this.

uh, I ve met in and whatever IT is is just trigger ing people because he feels like that less drug, which is a drug that mayor may not work to slow down the progression of code. But anyway, this is all over. If you haven't gone, you've got the vaccine. Please get IT.

Stop denying science. By the way, climate, climate change is not real.

Oh my god, the youtube just cancelled their account tomorrow. What are you doing? You can see .

science. We talk about science as if science is a definitive answer to a question, is a process by which you come to answer, you test them and look hydrox y clan has been completely wrong, but let the debate happen. The answers came out anyway.

Tell you a fundamental premise of science to chAllenge assumptions. And so when you chAllenge um uh uh an existing hypothesis or uh kind of an existing thing that we hold to be true, you are engaging in science. And the rigorous debate around what works and what doesn't work was notably absent over the past year because everything became about the political truth. You either true or your false based on your political orientation. And we reduced everything down to kind of the one more time guys weeks ago.

But like think about every conversation you have how um common IT is now to immediately think about what the person on the other side that you're talking to you said and then trying to put them on a blue red spectrum is how we've all kind of been reprogrammed over the past decade or so where IT used to be about the topic itself and the objective truth finding or the or the specifics of what we're talking about and now it's become about you immediately trying resolve them to be in conservative or or not red or blue trumper, not turtle. And so every conversation you kind of try and orient around that simple, ridiculous, one dimensional framework. And it's a complete loss of the discovery of objective truth in all matters in life and all matters that affect all of us. Um and it's uh it's really quite uh starting and sad.

This is why we need a new, new .

political party.

And I think it's .

less I is more about everyone rating themselves when you a conversation and then recognize that maybe that's not the way to make a decision about the conversation or about having an opinion or point of view, but have an opinion or a point of view about the topic itself, not about the orientation of the topic on a on a single dimensional spectrum.

And then there are identified politics into that. So not only you are politics, but your gender, your race, your sexual preference, the color of your skin. And now how is anybody y's have a reasonable argument when I have to process like oh chabot from you know SHE lono but he went through canada and he worked for, I mean, well.

it's so reductive that no one gets it's so reductive that no one gets to have an identity anymore, right? Because we are all complex and all issues are complex and they are all nuances. And when you reduce everything down to kind of this one dimensional framework, you lose any ability to have depth, to have nuances.

to have said another way, the issues are complex enough. We don't have to put identity politics or political, you know, leaning on top of IT, all right? So we had the worst fire season uh, in california ever last year. Obviously mos said, ga global warming is uh a conspiracy um by the chinese uh as per your guy trump uh sex and uh what is there is climate .

change in switzerland there is a center called the center for climate change. There is a reason that there's climate change in the olden. It's coming from that lab.

The center did.

And look at the side. We said that client .

aid to propagate this conspiracy. Y vy, yeah, alright. So it's going to be the worst.

We, well, we are at risk more than ever rights. So we're entering june. So as of june first, the california snowpack is down to zero percent of Normal.

That's never happened before. So it's below if it's ever been there. There is absolutely like no snowpack in the entire year. And the entire state, forty percent of the state is in a state of extreme rought right now. We've had sixteen thousand acres burn as a few weeks ago, up from thirty six hundred during the same time period, the same day of the year last year um and so the the tender is there now remember uh last year was the highest um uh california ever seen.

We we burned four million acres uh last year california has about thirty three million acres of farmland of forest land representing about a third of our total land size in the state um you know sixty percent of that land land is federal, forty percent is private. Um and so the the big kind of variable drivers this year are gonna um you know a wind and and heat and we're already seeing a few heat waves, but it's the wind that kind of texting things off, but the tender is there, right? So like the state is dry, um the um uh the the the snowpack is gone.

We're on severe water restrictions and a lot of counties throughout the state. Um it's worth, I think, talking about the carbon effect you know last year um based on the forest that burned in california uh we released about one and a half times as much carbon into the atmosphere from our forest fires as we did from uh cars burning fossil fuels in the state and so wow so here's some statistics for you guys, which I think you're just for the highlighting. Um there's about two billion metric tones of carbon storage in california forest land, which is about sixty tones per acre um so there's about nine million new tones of carbon sequestered per a fruit in california by our forest land per year.

When there's a fire, we released about ten times per acre. So about one six of the carbon in that in that forest land, the rest of the carbon doesn't burn up. So remember when there's a forest fire, typically the outside of the tree burns, the whole thing doesn't burn to ash and so a forest fire can actually, if you look at the launch jet ual kind of effectivity burning forests can actually preserve the carbon c quest strain activity verses you know just removing for us they're removing trees um and so there is to some extent um you know an effort that has been shut down several times which is to do these kind of control burns through the state but it's met with such resistance uh given that is so controversial. No one wants to have smoke in in their neighbor.

but they shouldn't be IT shouldn't be controversial. The problem, you can present simple data and have people have a logical conversation.

And the cost per acre to clear land and farm to force land in california IT ranges, depending on the complexity of the land at somewhere between fifty and a thousand dollars to call IT a couple hundred dollars per acre. So you can very quickly to do the math on A. Credit basis of tomato is about forty box per time uh for for carbon credit today.

So you're actually you know you can kind of preserve about four hundred dollars per per time by not punting carbon into the atmosphere. And if you can actually manage farmland uh foreland clearance and forest land preservation uh from fire at a cost of four hundred dollars or less and there was an active carbon credit market, you should be able to cover the cost of managing that forest line back but work incredibly high risk this year. IT doesn't mean that we're necessarily gna have a fire because weather is the key driver.

The weather is highly very wind. We need wind wand. We need a heat wave with wind, and then there will be fired.

But and then what do they do when the wind kicks up right now? Uh, the electric company turns off power in california because they don't want to be blamed when a power line goes down and starts a fire. So we have these regular moments.

This is the power of, this is not just a california provine. Everyone wants to beat up on california, but like the whole western U S go look at google maps, the Green stuff there on GLE it's Green up and down the west .

half of the us. Free berg IT was trump right that um raking up the forests uh to put IT in uh laments terms or simple terms is an actual thing that helps sixty percent .

of force land in california is a federal land and h IT was the federal government's responsibility to manage that that cost down, to manage that risk down. What is the incentive? What is the motivation? What is the key drivers?

Those are obvious. Ly IT does work to clear IT.

though theoretically, when you reduce the amount of tinder, you will reduce the risk of a burn, right? And so the but the cost of doing so, as we mentioned, that probably couple hundred dollars per acre. And so who's good? You let's say you want to do that on five million .

acres know for a bunch of jobs await. We're paying people to stay home. Yeah like if we create a ton of jobs. I mean, I hate to be like that guy, but like, could we have thirty five dollar our jobs for? People have heard skettle.

but that newson is so worried about fire season that they're going to try with the recall election. So that happens before there is the conventional, listen, the conventional ism.

What would that do? He so small, I did IT IT would be strategic ventures, the venture ism.

that you'd want to wait as long as possible, do the recall because the longer you wait, the longer you get the rebound of the economy from covet, right? But now there's time about accelerating IT to beat fire season because it's looking really bad. And for ice that we needed much more aggressive forest management. It's not just climate change is also a forest management we don't do in in california anymore. And so I think we are in for a really healest fire season .

going to have a terrible we're going to have a terrible fire season. Um there is going to be Brownouts probably throughout a lot of the western states. What played out in texas that affected folks a few months ago, I think will some version of that will happen um in many places in the us.

This is uh and it's all roughly avoidable. And the critical principal act to here is the progressive left. They need to marry. Their distant for climate change and they're disdain for a the things that need to happen to prevent IT because right now these two things for them are just like it's catch classically not possible um for us to agree on.

For example, as report says, a control burn program has a mechanism of sort of like fighting climate change, or you know, investing more in the the Green fiction of the economy so that we can actually eliminate the use of a lot of these non sustainable energy sources. All these things basically just come down to a group of individuals deciding that they can both have an opinion on something as important as climate change. But they are also willing to then go at right now.

They won't until they do. Um it's just going to spill over everywhere. It's gna be a very bad fire season.

The only the reason I know that IT is, is that every year before IT has been every single year has gotten warmer. It's not to be in Better. Yes.

by the way, correct. A statistic I said because the static C I gave was a few weeks ago. But as of today, we are actually happy average uh the historical average in terms of number of Bakers at a burn in california, as we've seen historically.

I will also say that you are close to one six of um california uh uh uh forest land burnt left here. So there is a tremendous amount of tinder that has been removed from the risk equation. And we typically burn about a million acres a year.

I think we burnt like four million last year, over four million last year. So you know you look at the the accumulative kind of um reduction of burnable acres, we're actually the good thing that's going on is actually a lower risk scenario into this year in terms of total amount of tender. The risk of the tinder catching is higher because it's drier. When you have add this all up, they're certainly a high probability of fire season zero scenario .

that can happen as a publishing temperature studies. They do measured measures of how, uh, much warming there is in the earth. Last year we said yet another record. IT was the seventh year in a row where IT was warmer than all the previous successive of years. It's just going in the same place. I mean, and so if we're all of sudden supposed to bet that a trend that is effectively been reliable for the last decade is gona turn, i'm not sure that, that's a bet you'd want to make or that the wind is not .

a student. No reason to make that bet. I mean, this is like betting on .

a one outer. We we need, we need the left to take control of this .

issue and solve IT. Get ready for marble skies over calib.

literally. I'm thinking about an escape plan from california, and I am putting a generator in this month. I bought six new air .

filters that.

well, I have my house totally sail, and I have the air people fires built in air por five thousand. And I have six portable ones in each other .

that are you coming back in August.

uh, in at the end of this. But by the way, let me let me tell you where IT relief, the rubber meets the road. Uh, just again, i'm speaking to the progressive left. They care apparently so much about minorities. I just want to make sure you guys understand that, you know, air quality, this proportionally affects the minorities.

why? Because we are not not me anymore, but you minorities are the ones that typically live near industrial output, near transportation, through ways in when three years IT is IT is statistically proven that blacks Brown. Other minority people are the worst people to suffer from respiratory diseases and airborn alysa.

And these are things that are that are happening today. So again, I want to go back to the same group of individuals who apparently believe in climate change but don't believe in nuclear. They don't believe in control burns.

They believe in inequality, but they don't want to do what's necessary to regulate a mission. What are we doing? guys? Just get something to the job. To the job. I do your fucking and job.

You're says correspond.

but I thinks a sad statement about the progressive left at the only way to reach them through an argument is argued for the spirit impact on the minority.

The facts. All american. Yes, exactly.

exactly.

It's red. Give me red code that you holding them out.

No, troon, ths understands that audience he is making the argument they're going to be respond to. But the argument that day and every we responding to is is bad for everybody, for planet, all humans.

Exactly what do you guys going to do for fires .

and do actually, i'm thinking about renting a house like I I went to a house in chicago and like michigan last year, and I went there and he was a great escape for a month to get away from fire season.

I am very scared to be in california. Are doing all of this to be completely on. I don't want to .

be there um ah i'm going to try to figure out .

in late of August and hopefully everything is come down. But then although IT well because .

IT gets very very of aust temple was the heart of IT type with the heart heart and jack oh .

you think you're going to go to my ami or Austin or something you know I went back to Austin for a wedding .

and met the governor .

um and you sweating and you met you .

have to beat that up you went to sweet go about the governor yes um and going to boston in twenty twenty one is like when I would come to safran cis go and go to the battery in two thousand three and six, two thousand and thirteen and six to say, why don't you live here? There's so much going on and come to this. I did uh and I I got the last five years of the peak, but uh awesome, very appealing to me. And then i've been looking at beach houses in um miami and i'm fifty percent of the way there are folks.

Oh my god. I mean, the fact that you can now buy A B Charles, I mean, got america.

Let's got america. three. I had a seventy one three average in a high school, seven of the sites. And I going to buy a.

and I forgot that I convince you to move over, to go yet another way in which .

I contributed to .

the month of .

the absolutely up. Okay, i'm going to use calin every day, calls underway.

everything. You would even be A V, C. IT wasn't for me.

you to be A C. I try be doing conference producing. You really pushed me towards IT. And then special thank you to you in trouth.

Billy for anchoring and dave go, you know what I mean? I treated the other day. At the end of the day, you know, our lives are a collection. When we look back on them of memories with our friends and you know include family and friends in this pocket not to get all go SHE and in whatever is uh, been a delight over though you know really hard pandemic that's now ending and it's I just i'm really happy that we get to spend this time every week together.

Every week I get you know a little bit excitement uh, like I used to get when we go your host poker uh sax or or trial you know those days when we have a poker game, uh, sky date will tell me and you know I I get a little tingley feeling a like, oh my god, i'm going to see my friends tonight and play poker and laugh and you know, we got that amazing note from the woman who said he was really having a hard time during the pandemic and that the podcast all in pocket really helped her and you know, shout to say, thanks for, yeah, sam, that really made our week. So shout to some long way of saying, I love you sex. Well.

I love you sex. J, J, K, L, you are the Stephen cole bear to my john store.

I think I think I .

have to have to come on your show and red till you and make sure that you you're saying the truth that not getting too wrapped up in your trumper rangement syndrome or .

whatever at the end of the day. You know, we we are, I think all of us working through complex issues to freeburg. I really love your contribution today about how complex these issues are and layer more complexity on to them of our identities, our wealth, you know, our histories, immigrants not would have, our politics.

These issues are so hard, and in some ways, also so easy, with technology and world class execution, that the world needs to have more reasonable conversations. And I think that what we've demonstrated here is that four friends can have reasonable discussions and laugh about life and enjoy life. And that should be for listen.

which was very hard warming. So thank you. Yeah.

that was great. Yes, I mean, guys.

must.

Dow load new directions to escape forest fires .

love .

love program of L O V E query dictionary a feeling of eviction for another entity like, I like playing video games. So two A M and my dog, can I say a two.

a llys. Two, coding, I M solving using my computer. Eight, seventeen b subroutine .

overheating. Must play this with Peter tee and stop saying, I love you to jake.

Thank you. so.

My short was so expensive, but yet so ten, I put on yet another year .

part i'm looking because I came to fifteen pounds. I just make up dollars. How do I look with .

four colors for you? Say, no, it's more too, but also two chances.

My double change.

Better than one.

Better than .

one are good.

Sex is adding that was you.

Love you guys.

Rainman give its.

We open source IT to the fans.

and we just got crazy with.

why? Why you.

We should all just get a room, just have one big huge org, because they like, like sexual attention. We just need to release .

that what your be.

what your B, B.

we do get marking are.