E48: The role of decentralization, China/US break down & more with Bestie Guestie Balaji Srinivasan
01:28:43 Share

So um we biology here um and obviously ologies and expert in everything but ology you're used to be in interviewed uh one on one uh I had you on my podcast couple years ago. We had managed a great discussion you on bunch of other people's h today we will see how you do on, uh, on the squad here with five people passing the ball. You you listen to the pot before.

Yeah, i'll pass. So twenty percent each year, whatever.

It's fine. Okay, perfect. Well, well, all in states .

in to get twenty percent with this moderator. This says .

the guy who has the largest percentage.

you you fighi a non shooting point guard, Jason, nobody wants to see you break .

three pointer .

after .

three point or just bring the ball .

down the court and pass IT.

Just coming from the guy who has twenty four percent .

of A I R time, David sax, I fit exactly what I should be doing, which is one quarter, is I prove IT. we.

man.

We are all to the .

fans and.

Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of the all in podcast with us again this week to mathai apathy of the dictator and just a great sweater and David freeze.

Er, you should touch this. You have no idea the material that is made from it's made from like the the chin hair of like a baby goat, a baby goat that's then luck to buy a tibetan supa who literally is forced to a use lotion and camford to keep their hands soft so that they don't disturb the in eight properties of .

the thread. Amazing and available right now. Two for one at came out fourteen, five have just going based on the atheistic of the look a David free berg is back the queen of kin wa, uh recently uh, having his office hit by a unk. Are you okay, David? Are you be OK for the shell?

We're right just getting the getting used to the condition.

but you're on your own bedroom. And did you get hit by the sunk or just your office got hit by the gun.

but my windows were open, apparently its baby skunk season here in northern california. So there are some baby scans playing around.

start. You sure it's not your returns. Do so does .

IT wait too soon. And let's from definitely IT and from a nondescript motel aid somewhere in .

a texas, in taxis, taxis.

David sax, a coastal ite in texas. On mute, you're automotive, David, where this is episode forty eight. You can. Yeah.

I happen to be in texas. That's correct. I had happened to be a tax free state. No coincidence.

Happens to be a state where you can Carry a god now, yeah.

exactly.

And women are no longer allowed to make decisions for their own own body.

So two, one to three, bad. What a great place to live.

ridiculous. David, are you considering moving to the great state of texas?

Well, I am open to the possibility, let's to say.

open to IT. You're open to IT.

But I I recently ran a twitter survey where I asked miami or Austin. And miami won by about fifty two percent. I also got about forty eight percent with over ten thousand votes. So is pretty interesting.

You have a preference yourself between the two.

I personally, like miami, already have a place in miami, but i'm checking out Austin deserve you.

How closer you to eleven .

two diligence to just for complete two diligently um I think at this point we should just go through the cities that sex doesn't have a home. Can we just that might be easier for us to narrow down side possible location. Alright, listen up.

People started to ranging us on the twitter to have a sympathy justice on the program. And so, uh, we decided we were bring, uh, blog, shiny van blog. Shi vin, did I get IT correct? I mean, i've been pronouncing your name wrong for five years.

I mean, you're a fucking ignorant. You are such a fucking and racist in this.

Great names are harsh pronounce and games logy everybody .

gets that logy logy.

New logy pology you you've never figured out .

how to say Polly hoa.

So I have been training the world had a Polly hop tier for years.

Three link ket names are the only names that are harder than south asian names, although time names are pretty brutal. I am, yeah, time is basically you guys add like .

maybe one or two more soles. So I actually have they take liberal license to go on for another twenty minutes.

Okay, guys, to drop a few sillily les, from your names.

We could, we could yeah, but we don't location thing to mark the ball. Three, no, I map poly.

right? There's a big tech backlash. Uh and it's not just because of David sax comments. The new poll shows that eighty percent of .

register voters before we go them. I have a question for ology. You are in my opinion, but I think a lot of people say one of the most incredibly well red, thoughtful you know commentators commentators that we have Frankly like you know not just in tech, but I just think generally in our society, I would give you that I think you're incredible.

I'm curious, how did you become such a polymetallic? Just one of these things where you've always been curious about everything, like just tell us about i'm curious about like how you grew up, first of all. And then second, how do you spend a Normal day? I just wanted know those and then then we can just stop. But I just curious because I try do extremely well, red and extremely well.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Um you know I try to learn from from everybody. What do I do? Um I think Normal people .

go the .

club or they they go out and have fun. And I I read math books in history books and science books and stuff like that. That's how I have fun. I find that more interesting are nothing wrong with with going out. People do that go for walks and stuff might work out. Um but so I I do a lot of that um and uh I have I I mean other than that, I just I just real lot and I and I I think I remember a moderate amount and so I said that and so I think really much more kate than that.

I think we call that a Polly Matthew A.

The only different sea moth would be you if he could stop going to the club and he lost that last forty percent.

I will make an observation, which I actually talked me sex about this, which is there are some people who are great at business and learn the tech because that part is necessary, put IT together, and there are shock people who are fundamentally like scientists or academics and then get into business in order to advance technology. And nothing wrong with the first group. And I think that's totally you don't find and legitimate like business people first and in the in tech, i'm really part of the second group I think where you fundamentally an academic at heart spend almost the first three decades of my life meditating on mathematics um and just kind of gotten to tech relatively later in life than than many years all right.

And you spent your career building companies everybody remembers and actually .

extremely queen by queen by stern is on track for hundred million revenue, actually much more than that in terms of G M V is broken out separately in their um not there s one, but they're quarterly filings. You'd go and check me on that.

And the other assets that we added after I joined queen bus are more than fifty percent of cob revenue again in their filings and in this custody in all of its um assets come from roseta, which is something that we did there. And we launched U S D, C. When I was there. And that is whatever, hundred million dollars a day. So they ve got a lot of value out of that acquisition .

with A C T O for a while of coin base. easy. What would you take on coin bases, land product? The ssc coming in and saying, hey, pump the breaks. We want a unch of information. And then they've just brian on strongin coin base announced that they're not going to do the one product .

we should take on that. So I don't speak for coin base more, okay, you know, in my personal capacity, but I do think that this is the beginning of an era where we're gonna rolling back the alphabet soup that F, D, R. Put in place that to say, you know the the S C C is not set up to go after millions of crypto holders and developers are set up to go after a gold man in a Morgan.

You know, just like the fa is not set to go for millions of drone developers is set to go after posting in airbus and the fda is not set up to go millions of biohackers just have to go after your Fisher and mark. So the entire twins century alphabet suit, that regulatory apparatus is meeting something that is not really set up for and uh, it's going to be the problem is not the problems, not any one actor like coin base or crack and have you their problem is that technology has shifted and they've got many more people to deal with that may those individuals were more restoring and company. So so I don't think they're going going to be to maintain the the status quo of one hundred years ago, the statutes that they're sighting. I think that's gonna either get knocked down in court or going to be technologically invalidate gonna sanctuary cities and states for cypher or just going to be international and is like what else is doing in. So I don't believe that, that era is going to maintain, but I think we should not be a big conflict of print.

We will see how do you think it's different this time? The apology to the like crackdown because folks said the same thing um going in to canada next era when you know everything was basically appear appear um sharing of media files that were technically copyright and there was you know some regulatory regime that you know had oversight over that copyright but then the D O J got wrangled in and went made made an example out of arresting a couple hundred kids like that kind of basically we called everyone to back away entirely from the market, similar to kind of what we may be seeing happening in china right now.

But is IT not possible that we see a similar sort of response this time around where they they kind of take this targeted making example approach to kind of share this scare people kind of out of the the frenzy that's, uh, that's, I think, driving a lot of people onto these platforms rather than going after the platform themselves, the kind of saying, look, this is this is a violation of security flaws. You guys are getting prosecuted. Here's the hundred examples. And unda eighty percent of the, uh, attention kind of gets vacuum down. yes.

So I see a few things about. The first is I think twenty one is different from the u two thousand in the censeur. China's an absolutely ruthless and very competent state um whether the U S uh government I would consider you know it's a difference to in lower level and chaotic vial guys know that from judges and dragon's okay.

So chinese government is lawley. Um they're very organized um and they plan ahead and when they push a button and they just execute like like this whole society and they don't leave you know round corners or or things left up. The government is today in twenty and not the one thousand nine hundred and fifty U S.

government. The twenty years government is like this shambolic, chaotic mess that can really do anything and is optimize for P R. And yelling online um and that's a whole important topic but tear. So that's one thing where I think there's a difference and just stick capacity, but in that not to say they're not onna try with what they've got. The other thing is that um so tior naper point um there was theses and entities but there was synthesis that to say um you know abr LED to gaza and limestone and actually the gaza guys went to skype to something legit came out of that. But the more important or more on pointing is IT like to spotify, itunes, the record companies were forced to the negotiating table.

There is there is a way point there that's important, which is when that happened in absa, we were in a company called when p then I was part of a, well, the biggest architectural flaw, nor was and and what the biggest problem with napster was that I was IT was not fundamentally peer to appear. And so there were these servers. And so you know, the the simple software architecture decision that somebody had to make was, okay.

Well, let just make a entirely headless product that basically is a fundamentally par appear. That's what the new teller source code was. We actually released that on a wells servers without them knowing.

He took them a few hours to figure this out. They called us. We shut the whole thing down.

But in those few hours, IT was downloaded about five or six thousand times. All this open source code that we put out that was the basis of line wire bear share. And that is what basically just decapitated the music industry.

And IT was there that then the music industry realized we needed a contractual framework to Operate with these folks because they'll just keep inventing technology that makes this impossible. And then that's what that's what itunes was able to do with the ninety nine cent store. That's what spotify was able to do after that.

Um but a lot of IT started was because of what pologies said earlier, which is a technologically, people just will continue to push the boundaries. And we did we did that in music. And I think that's a lot of why the industry looks away does IT IT.

But ultimately the premise kind of resolve back to centralized systems, right? I mean like think about um know the matter concept IT was really supposed to be true peer to peer file sharing and and ended up becoming the itunes store, everything SAT on apple servers and ultimately .

the reflexivity because like what happens is all of these folks, you know you're sitting at one road for Warner music, universal music group. You're seeing an entire industry that was worth probably twenty or thirty billion dollars just getting completely decided. And then there's a psychological thing that happens where first, you wanted shut everything down, but then because there's this other thing that is even more evil and even worse uncontrollable than the thing that you hated, then you actually say, well, listen, my enemy's enemy is my friend and so then you say, well, find, let's find a few partners to work with, and we can try to find a way of of living with these technologies. And that's going to repeat your point.

Pology crypto o is probably now where we're going to see a play out first because that's probably the most important intersection of individuals desire and a regulate framework that's outdated, where the S C, C has some extremely complicated questions that needs to answer, especially even after something today, like if you're sitting inside, you know, the sec and all of us that you see that that china, an entire country that basically was where an enormous amount of the crypto activity started and originated and was happening, can completely turn something off. What is our position as a government and as a society? We don't know. Well.

they just feel everybody in first time who don't know what happens on the taping today, sometimes twenty worth chinese government has announced that doing any transactions in crypto currency is now illegal. Holding IT. Apparently you can still hold IT. And this comes after bitcoin servers being kicked out of the country. So yes, they've pushed the button.

Good ideology to freeburg, I would say. Um bitcoin is what kept the recording dusty, honest. And that kind of force them to the table of itunes, to chaos point.

Also, I wouldn't all IT more evil, I call IT more good in bittern also lurks out there as kind of this no peer to peer enforce. That is a check exactly. And it's not gone. And in fact, it's a basis for new technologies.

And I think this in their flare, their thing is that with clip to the upside, even though the state wants to cracked down at the harder, the upside is also greater, and the global internet is picture. And so I think the rest of world, meaning all the world, besides U. S.

And china, is a huge player in what is to come. That's india. But it's also you know brazil is every other country that's not the U S.

For china. And so that's a new player on the stage. And the third to um to out to your point about um yes, china and crypto can use well.

You know what's interesting is people talk about china copying the U S. Nowadays is actually in many ways, especially of policy from the U S. Is copying china without admitting IT.

But IT does so poorly, for example, the locked down, okay, the chinese locked down, you know, was something where IT wasn't just sit in your rooms. IT was something would like drones with their momeby and central quarantine. E, where people were taken from their families and centrally quarantines.

And a thousand ultra and choose of measures that the population by and large complied with. I mean, forget a bit of vaccine Mandate we're talking about. Like you can see all the videos and stuff from out of china government itself is published.

You didn't see really first.

then see real first, right? yes. And so you know the thing is that for the us to follow that, it's a little bit like as a mental image.

Imagine a life chinese Jimmy going and doing this whole gymnastics and a big you know lumpy american following and and not able to do the same moves, right? The chinese government, you know, is is, as I said, law level. But they are set up to just snap, snap that do this, do that.

The U. S. Governments is absolutely not. And U. S. People are not whatever you do this.

our system is a democracy is IT not like. So you cannot just do that even if the government wanted to let people into their homes. We have a democratic day here where we have to discuss these things. And there's legal, yes, even in in the one thousand nine .

hundred and fifteen, in one thousand nine hundred and four and nineteen and thirties, the U. S. Was still a democracy. But IT basically managed to exert a very strong top down control on things.

Today we have something for for a right link, you know, under F, D, R, or in the fifties, a very conform, a society which was able to kind of drive things through, even though democracy IT was something where mass media was so centralized that a relatively few small group could get consensus among themselves. And then when they print into headlines, I mean, who's going to go to figure out the facts on their own? This gets in to the media topic later. So is the fact to centralize at the media level, information production and dissemination level, and then you kind of manufactured consent from there today. Is your combining that democratic aspect, the legal aspect, the new information dissemination thing, which is disabled zed.

to think a lot of things.

sex, which you take yeah, I take on an article that came out this week in the wall street journal, I think was a really important article, came about four days ago, and IT was entitled shi shing. Ping aims to rain in chinese capitalism and huge to our social vision. And the article describes how we've all seen and talk about on this power to how they've been cracking down on tech giants.

You've been cutting down there tech oligarchs down to size like jack mow, how he disappeared under house arrest and we've seen that you they stopped the the anti IPO but but this article went beyond those steps and really talked about she's, uh, ideological vision and and what IT basically says is that what's going on here isn't just the ccp consolidating power. They actually want to bring the country back to socialism. And what they say is that that within the ccp, at least, cheese view of IT capital m was just something they did as an intern measure to catch up to the west.

But ultimately, they are very serious about socialism. And reading this article, I had to wonder, well, g, did we just catch a lucky break here in the sense that, look, if they're abandoning or they abandoned the thing they copied from us, which is market based capitalism, they use that to catch up. Maybe this is the way that, actually, this is the thing that slows them down.

And the thing that that historically, that IT brought to mind is that if you go back into the the fifteen hundreds, and you compare europe to china, china, the chinese civilization was way ahead. I mean, the stand of living was way ahead. Technologically was way ahead.

Euro was a bunch of squalled warring tribal nation states. And then what happened is a single chinese emperor banned the ship building industry. Any ship with more than two mass was banned.

And so exploration just stopped in china. They became very, in word, facing wear as the european states explored and discovered and conquered the new world, colonize the world. And that LED to an explosion of wealth and innovation.

And as a result, western europe. And then it's serve to send of the united states ended up essentially conquering and dominate the modern world. And so I guess you are bringing back to my question, biology. Is there a chance that what he is doing returning to socialism could just like the chinese emperor who banned ship building or am I reading way too much into this single .

walsh journal story? So my shorter answer on that is I think IT is uh I think the socialist thing is real but I think is Better to call IT nationally socialism um with with the implication that has where is I think the U S. Is kind of going the direction of what I called maybe socialist nationalism.

You know where it's it's like different emphasis in terms of what is prioritize. But you know and I think in many ways is china is like the new nazi germany, walke amErica is like the new soviet russia, and the decentralized center is gonna the new amErica can elaborate on that, but basically we respected this. One thing I try to do is I try to transplant lots of stories.

So rather than, for example, nothing wrong with a wall sty journal, you know a piece like looking at IT, but for every W S shapes you read is useful to get like, you know what is CGTN or global time saying even if you discounted just to see what they're saying and then you also regulate which lets say the indian or russian point of view. And by doing this, you I feel that it's Better than just reading ten american articles. And you especially reading primary forces like this is good cycle, reading the chinese dream, which actually translates primary sources, and then you can kind of form your opinions from that versus like like a good hot take and not think you are i'm just in that that what I try do.

So I think we've really gotten china right here. I mean, I think that if you if you look at what's happening, I think we've basically forecasts the orchestration of essentially the reversal integration of china. You know we have china ink where the CEO is issuing and where there is a it's it's it's almost like they're they've changed the game where what they are playing essentially is like settings of kata or something where the goal is just a hord resources. And I think that they have enough critical resources for the world.

And the clever part of what they did was the last twenty or thirty years, they leverage the world to essentially finance their ability to then have a um strong kle hold on these critical resources, whether it's ships or whether it's where earth or other materials. They leveled up, and I think that was the genius, but they leveled up on our capital. yeah. And now that all that infrastructures there and now that we are addicted to the drug.

they can then change the rules. And with our Operating system, IT was a brilliant room.

They allowed treated neurons to believe that they could be treated. Neurons allowed entire ety to basically level up.

you know? And nobody see this coming from off. Nobody saw this coming. People .

were not .

starting .

ventured road, ian, right? I mean, what is belt road? Belton road? Is there a bill? Is there creating ports and super highways to extract the resource? Is that boss is talking about and bringing them into the chinese system? And what did we spend our trillions on nation building in afghanistan?

Why didn't we see this coming? Everybody was looking at china starting venture firms there, uh, you know, embracing a taking company's public wall street politicians.

Nobody does this company. The rising tiger stories been around since nineties, right? No, no, i'm talking about why didn't we see them cutting the heads?

The answer, because they spent, because I was not about White people. China was in three launcher. China was in africa.

These are not sexy, interesting places. Western audiences, they, you guys couldn't give a fuck. Let's just be honest OK.

And so that's why I didn't matter because you we thought we all thought that these are countries that are sort of you know squalid third world, uh, developing nation states that don't really matter. They don't necessarily have the resources that matter. But what they trying to do, they they realize that those folks are the future GDP.

Those folks are the future population pools, the Young that can actually do the hard work. And then they went and they secure IT again. So not only just now. So that's one thing. Hold out.

So that's one thing I think we entirely missed IT because as David said, the military industrial complex doesn't look at um you know uh a developing nation and say we want to be there IT looks at afghanistan, says we want to dominate because we can actually feed off of that domination. So that's one thing. The second thing is that I think that we misunderstood jean ping's ambition.

And I think that that's a reasonable mistake to have made. The first one is an air of could just complete stupidity. The second one is something that I think he was legitimate toughness.

And to your point of life, he did not only sold the entrepreneur playbook, but be colonizing other places and giving them debt and giving them resources in building ports in .

other countries that I was done, let's all be honest. You know, ten years ago we did IT.

No, I and you can do previous you in a lot of cases, we benefit. So china set up and boat like the largest pork production company in australia. And what do you see the those pigs, you feed them soybeans.

And where do those soybeans come from? Largest soybean exporting market is the united states. You we had a tremendous customer in china as they expanded their consumption patterns through all of this investing they were doing worldwide. We were exporting john deer farm equipment, caterpillar construction equipment and uh, so I being products and there is a and our knowledge industry and there is a tremendous service model and globalization really created call a catch twenty two for the united states where we were watching the rising tiger um you know at a field in part by this kind of distributed entrepreneur r ism. But as the distributed on conventional ism creates.

you know, obviously, the social, you think there is an equal amount dollars that went into western develop nations from china as IT went into the world nations went that money .

is too hard to turn down.

There is a mistake, our thinking with respect to the rest the world that we've been, we make IT over and over again. And I was all kind of predicted by A A historian name, Samuel hung ton, at harvard in the ninety eighties, you rote a book, or called classes, civilizations. This this book is writing the same time that another famous book came out called the end of history in the last man.

And what the common belief was that the nineteen nineties in the us. Was that we had reached at the end of history where every country would become. Democratic and capitalist, right? That was the end of history, is democratic capitalism.

And we believe that the more we went all over the world, spreading our ideals, IT would have in this day where they all become democratic capitalist. What hudden ton said is, no, your cultures and civilizations, these go back thousands years. These are stubborn things.

And what these other cultures really want is not westernization, but modernization. And what they're gna do is we're gna modern, is we're going to learn from us as much they can about technology. They're going to assist late and adapt and take all of our technology.

But they are not gna become like us. They are not onna western ized. And that is basically what's happened the last twenty five years.

And so that chinese have caught up to us. And suddenly we realized, oh, wait a second. They have not westernized.

They are so their own unique civilization. They they have basically the equivalent of a modern day emperor, and and they have no interest in westernized. And we're like, what have we done? Because now we've allowed them to catch up from a technological standpoint.

Village you, what do we? What do everybody in the west .

get this so wrong? A few things. One is political differences aren't public in china, but they are real. So it's it's all the backroom stuff.

A and there was a real leadership shift from dying and jane and and who to to g uh you know the mw error was revolutionary communist. The dang jane who error was international was capitalist. I think that was real.

And the gear is national socialist and is just different like who did not fully controlled the military the way that g does um there's this ad you guys should watch the chinese military ad let's call like we will all be here something like that. And the thing about IT is not just that. It's like extremely well corded a military parade and set to be intimate so on.

It's said the whole thing clearly just falls up to one guy. g. It's not him writing in a car with the rest of the communist party. Blanking him as an Oliver is just like one guide.

This two million personal, my folds up to him that is a true consolidation and roll up the power that he is ill to accomplish ammonite things with tigers and flies going in throwing boje lee in in prison you know having generals you know thrown in prison for whether they were actually corrupt or whether they simply dissented or right power ah it's it's it's hard to know from the outside you know in one sense because so many folks in the change government were taking bribes, almost like an equity stake in their province. Know like coming up there like yeah you know grew so you know give me a cut um every a lot of people were vulnerable so he just consult heat. So it's not something you know people say o you know the chinese plan for one hundred years.

They don't plan for a hundred years at this huge war in the twin century to the national of communist. The dg transition know he's trying for the day before that was not seeing now. He planned their human beings like everybody else, and they had a real leadership transition after three hours of continue.

And this is I think this is the key point you're making, which is I think the reason that this actually flipped and we didn't see a coming, is because he, ian pain, decided, I want to have complete control over the country. These other people are getting too powerful. And we're actually reading into this that they're some crazy plan IT just could be a crazy man.

not a crazy plan. I I really disagree with you .

what why explained, but I mean, he just decided he just decided to basically a very entrepreneurs company.

They were not trying to do. They were doing all of the stuff in plain site. okay. As an example, you know we ve you see early as a place where we make commercials about or we try to fund rates for or we send U S A I D.

They will you serially on as a place where there is critical resources that uh are dependent on that the future of the world depends on. And so they will go, they will modernize, they will invest and they will known those critical resources view, review chi as a random country in south amErica that a buts, you know, peru and argentina. They view chilly as a place where you where there is the larger sources of lithium that we need for battery production in the future. They were doing this for decades, right in front of us. And the reason we could be happy m in the reason we didn't pay attention is because of those countries mean anything to us.

Okay, so I and and the thing is, so I argued that the blinds catch, he comes from boat ends of the political spectrum, like on the conservative end. Oh, these are shade le countries basically. You know, you can believe that a few one, but know you know it's something where, for example, covert was only taken seriously once he was having italy.

And france, like china, is still considered like a third real country. But IT actually also comes from the liberal side in a different look like it's a slightly mask, but it's a condescent of not the military industry complex but the non profit N G O you know complex like oh the White savior with the N G S you know coming in and you know pat them on the head kind of thing. They are not a not a big deal.

And um the thing about this is like the one thing I think is a huge thing for a diplomatic car today is making any generalization about another culture which says that they're not completely good or that they have some aspect to them that doesn't match exactly to the U. S. You can be called the racist for doing that. And so this is kind of kind of islam.

And if you critics udi arabia for throwing gay people off of buildings you are not respecting.

I just say that ology just gave the most precise deliniates. So let me just rebook age what you said, because IT with me, western philosophy tends to view countries in three buckets. Bucket number one, are countries like us, right? Those are the other western countries to g eight countries.

They feel like world line. And then what happens is you you get this weird thing where then you move until like countries where you basically either deal with IT with voguish, right? Oh, let me go pat them on the heads.

Let me go try to see them because IT makes me feel Better. Or you deal with them as neocons where just like, and let me go dominate them and take them to war. And literally you can take all one hundred nadia countries in the world and effectively sort them into those three things.

And that I think is the problem with with, uh, the america's view of what we're doing. And so what David said is really true, which is that while we were doing this, we had newton war wok ism, or I your our body because you're like us, the entire world reordered itself with completely different incentives. And they did IT right in front of us. And now we wake up to realize, oh my god, that was an enormous .

miscalculation, that if you look at kind of the history of the west, interaction with rest the world, and let's talk about colony ism, and what whether you're time about colony ism over last few hundred years, or even you talk about a microcosm like afghanistan over last twenty years, I would argue that there's three phases to the west interaction with these other cultures. Face one is sort of domination, right? Like math was saying.

Face two is a simulation where the the culture has been dominated realizes that they're behind and they want to catch up. And so there's a process of americanization romance ization. And what they're doing is they are learning from us and taking our technology and IT lows us into a fall sense of security that we think they're becoming .

americanize or becoming it's a nant.

It's just they're trying to catch up. Then the third phase is rea seria, where the the dominated country culture, you know what have you research, this traditional culture and its tradition views, because they've modernized, but without becoming truly becoming america's or western ized. And we are caught off guard by that.

And we don't really realize that they never really wanted our culture. They just wanted to throw off, you know, american domination or western domination. And so what they've actually done is used this period to to basically a simulate and catch up.

And the reality is like in afghanistan, they don't have to fully assist late all of our technology. They don't have to become as strong as us because we are in their land. They just have to become strong enough to basically achieve .

systems to achieve .

a defensive superiority is on offensive capability. So it's much easier for them to catch up that we think and we are always caught off guard by this dynamic and to repeat itself over and over again. And what you seen in in, in china is, you know, thirty, forty years ago, you had a great economic former dunk shopping he laid out.

They had to do, he said, he said a by your time and hydrogen gas hde your strength under a bush that was the the great moto by dung shopping. He said that policy for thirty or forty years, they embrace basically para stroke without glasses ness. They reformed their economic system.

They copy us, but but not making gorbachev mistake of giving up any political control whatsoever. And by two thousand and twelve, they had largely caught up. And so I would say that he was not an Operation.

He was a really assertion. They had gone to a point of strength where they were ready for that strong leader who is ready to be assert there, basically their ethnic nationalism. And that's the point we're out right now. And once again, we've been played for fools .

and caught off guard freeburg.

I mean, one of the signs, one of the signs was his corruption crackdown a few years ago, right? I mean, that was kind of step one, where took all these provincial managers and kicked amount and put him in jail and started to, uh, you know, clean things up internally, uh, where there was clearly kind of corrupt behavior under way. But you know, i'm a couple points back.

I think you to worth highlighting debt to some degree, you can kind of try and diagnose his motivation or diagnose the motivation is being you know rather not too surprising and maybe not too nefer ious and the kind of you know power grabs sense, which I think we all of want to bucket IT as. But um you know if there's a population like we're seeing in the united states where uh when you loosen the screws on liberalism and you know you kind of allow more freedom to Operate and more kind of free market behavior, you see tremendous progress. And as I think we talk about the past, tremendous progress always yields.

Um you know a distribution of outcomes amongst the population, but everyone moves forward. Some people just move forward ten times faster and farther. And IT causes popular drax, right? And um we've seen IT in the united states. I mean, if A O C Elizabeth warn and berty standards were elected to be the you know uh the triumph that ran the united states today, they would probably say, let's end all you know the capital of them is creating all this wealth and united states and progress generally would slow down um and I think that there's been instance of that. Clearly there's data to support the engines of this in china that indicates you know what the the loosening of the screws has allowed tremendous progress but it's time to tighten the screws because populum and unrest is gonna rise from kind of perceived inequality uh, just like we're seeing in the united states and you know I I guarantee or I can guarantee but I would assume that if you know certain populist leaders in the united states had the same level of authority ah that chinese leaders do, they would probably act in the same way.

I I think what we're going to see next is, and I think we should talk about what we think will happen next with china hiding chinese on the brink of having a revolution. If you look at what happened to the wagers, obviously can practice religion there. Students in hong kong camp protest, you can't publish what you want.

Founder can't start companies now. You're not going to be able to play video games as much as you want. You can use social media. And today you can't have any control over your finance. If you squeeze people across this many vectors, this hard, this quickly hiding freeway drive, they could result in massive .

china's not like a uniform people in a uniform culture.

of course. Yeah, but I mean, I just listed like seven, eight things they are doing to.

but there many, many provinces, many cultures, many differences, many differences of experience, by the way. I mean, you know, the rural population in china doesn't experience much of what I think is driving industry and driving this inequality and proceed inequality and the changes that are under way. I don't think that A A revolution is generally supported unless you have, you know, enough, can have concentrated swell across the population. I don't know how you could see something like that happen. As diverse a population as china.

I support china's limits on social media use by children. I, I could use that here for my kids.

I clearly, sax is letting his kids use whatever they. I mean, we definitely need to have some of those over here. ology. What do you think is gonna happen? Worst case, best case for china in the next two decades?

Well, so one thought I wanted give us basic that in some ways this is inevitable, because china and india, thirty five percent the world, asia was the center of the world. And one way of thinking about IT is that america, the west, executed extremely well over last couple of centuries, and asia didn't with socialism and communism. And now they've actually got a Better OS.

It's not like the U S. Really could restrain them, you know. Um so in that sense that's also a part of their internal narrative in in a way I know of course now killed millions of people.

They are they screwed up their own stuff, but they are narrow is they were colonized by the west and the opium words or patronizes copycats and masculinity film for decades there. Like heads down and sweatshops, they build plastic stuff. They took orders from all these overseas guys and announce your time to stand up and take back their rifle position in the world and that's like that's their narrative.

And so it's it's important to you not not agree with IT but at least understand where it's coming from because they want IT more, I think um and so I disagree, Jason, with with your view that they're gonna a revolution. I think that's like that's the kind of that's a western mindset where you know australia for examples, having these covet protests in china, the harder the crackdown, the less more crackdown, like the easier makes the next crackdown. It's like it's something where it's not .

to be easy revolution, that's for sure. But we saw protest. You saw t eight square, you saw hung was thirty .

years ago.

It's still prove positive that if you squeak people, they will take .

to the street the the quality of life in china has accelerated path over the past thirty years. The average person in china is so much Better off than they were five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, twenty years ago. Revolutions don't come out of that amount of progress, right? When your life, when you go from four thousand dollars a year on average to twenty thousand dollars here in average income.

what time if they don't have jobs in the recession?

The only time you revolt is because of economics.

There a uh, if they have a, they're going percent a year.

The G, D, P grown eight percent a year. The .

population of seeing an incredible benefit.

would you a reversion? I think we topology point about this is like a western mindset. I mean, think about the air of spring.

We saw all those revolutions with the area of spring, and we thought, oh, look, they are. They're finally throwing off the yoke of oppression, and they are going to set up democratic states. And what do we actually get? We actually got religious and amenta ism right? Like we didn't get what we thought. And I think this happens over and over again is that is that you know we're trying to superimpose um our mindset on them. You know we're thinking like Frankly, a davos.

No, i'm begin.

People want security, by the way. And security security can come in a lot of different forms and religious fundamental, one of them, and you know, the the way that we see kind of government Operate in china may seem foreign uncomfortable to us. But IT provides enough security to people to know they onna have housing, shelter, food, medicine and be able to do the things that they want to do to some extent. Some limit you is is not necessarily an equation that says all humans that don't live like americans are going to be unhappy.

Yeah last thing to say is basically I think that china will collapse from internal revolution or um you know the U. S. Military is like really strong relatives.

China, I think, are both actually forms of visual thinking. With that said, I do believe that we need a strategy for china on a global scale and think the future is a centralized eastern, decentralized west. And but but I don't think it's gonna just A D, S, X market and is going going to solve this problem.

No, I don't think the revolutions go to the necessary over turn china. I think you're going to see revolutionary moments. Well.

so just say one thing in in your defense, shake out because everyone .

is beating .

up on you, is jack I yeah.

i'm not. It's a guarantee of revolution, but I think this is going to be going to be some social unrest.

Yeah, we look, the one way in which I agreed with J, K, L is I do think that freedom ultimately is the birth right of every human regards of where you're born, you know, who you are, what culture you are. But I think the thing that the united states is learnt with last twenty years is the road from here to there is going to be much more complicated than we think. And longer and longer. And cultures are very stubbing things, and they're not going away time soon. And the transition is gna have to happen within those cultures is not something that we can superimpose.

By the way, I would also point out freedom is the the birth right and the want of a people that at some point have enough security to feel have that luxury. Up until that point, I think that you have to make the decision of the security, give me more than freedom and in a lot of cases, security coming with all the cost IT comes with may give people more than absolute freedom. And that's a transitioning phase. I think you know a lot of peoples go through h people's being, civilizations and states. And would not .

anybody have a prediction of what's going to happen in the .

next twenty years or we will move on until I can't believe sax was a empathetic your point jack out.

I have a few predictions. Yeah I think actually if you read you know the kill chain or similar books that's by I think Christian Brown. Good book um where basis like you know this million is a perfect record in its war games of china.

China's won every round and uh you know you if you look at just the fact that would cover use, military basically suffered a military defeat and since said he had the whole biodefense program exposed to protect against biology weapons that in work afghanistan, huge defeat to trillion dollars. You have this August thing where IT looks like france is now pulling off and you know from from nato where they use doing their own thing. I think that china is uh, and then china's really already predominant in many ways in asia, and the U.

S. Just doesn't care about the area as much. I mean, who wants to start another gigantic war over this? Certainly I don't think the people of amErica do after after twenty years of forever war.

And china really cares about taiwan. They really cares about their backyard. So whether that's a war or whether that's a referendum on taiwan or whether it's some unpredictable event like covet, I don't know. But I I do think that china does have some mono doctrine like thing that IT gets to within asia um where basically says, you know just like you, I said, hey, you know we're running the hemisphere. They are saying, hey, we're running the sector of things whether that's a military conflict, the decisions to just withdraw, I don't know.

And then I think what has to happen is we have to figure out what the decentralize west looks like, an eye tric response to china because it's going to basically be the number one centralized in the world. You're not able to combat IT head on military. It's just, you know, it's got like tonics growth in front of IT. It's already a monster unless are some assassination or revolution or something crazy like that is large predict if IT manages what it's got. It's got like it's it's like google twenty ten it's got ten years of that in front of IT.

And um whether it's a chinese decade or chinese century, I think depends on whether we can build the technologies to defend freedom, meaning like encrypt tion, meaning you know uh decentralized social networks, meaning these kinds of things um because that's only, I think, kinds of tools that they are going to help us, whether it's drones with the other kinds of things. A eem tric defense versus what what they're going to be. It's not gonna be A D S X more.

I think I look I think that's a great point. And on j, because I just going to talk about so what one of the things that ologies commented on that I give him tremendous I credit for is, uh, corporate is is the idea of corporate journalism. In fact, biology, you're the first first. And I heard that term from corporate journalism, which is a recognition that all of these reporters, actually our employees of companies, and they have a company culture and they often have, they have owners, the companies do. Those owners often have an agenda.

There's often a dog inside these corporations and um and IT really got me to see journalism in a new light because these journalists portray themselves as the high priest of the truth who are there to speak truth to power and actually they're really just kind of the lowest paid functionaries on the corporate totem pole and um and in contrast stinks to what you've called citizen journalist who are people who are writing uh what they see is the truth in blogs or blow you know formats like this where they are not even paid for IT. You know we're doing IT because we wanted put forward what we know to be the truth. And actually i'd love to hear you speak to that because I think this is like one of most powerful ideas that i've heard you put forward.

sure. So, so much I can see about this. The first thing I do is I recommend a book that recently came out by ashly rinser g called the great lady wink.

And the reasons, very important. And I put IT up there, Frankly, with top five books that recommend, I know, recommend other books, top five books that recommend great lady wink. IT goes back through the archives.

You know, the new times calls themselves the paper of record. They call themselves, you know, the first draft of history. They've literally run billboards calling themselves the truth.

But it's just owned by some random family in york. And you know the sky are the sales burgers who inherit IT from his father's father's father. And so you have dislike branded m Richard White guy in new york who literally tries to determine what is true for the entire world.

His employees write something down and supposed to believe this is true. And I simply just don't believe that that model is Operated anymore because I think truth is mathematical, truth is script graphic, truth is truth that one can check for oneself rather than, you know, argument from authority, its argument from tom phy. And you know, one of things with biton, with grip currency is is given decentralized way of checking on that.

Now to the point about corporate media, it's their literally corporations. These are publicly traded companies with financial statements and quarterly you know reports and and goals and revenue targets. And so once you you know kind of are on the inside of one of these Operations, you realize that that hit peace uh or or would have you is being graded in the spread shit for how many likes and r ts IT gets on twitter.

And if IT gets more, they're gna do more pieces like that, flood the zone with that. And if IT doesn't, they're going to do less. They're all conscious of this.

You know, for example, nicolas Christoff wrote an article, I think it's like it's the articles no one read is the article someone will read. Very noticed that his trunk columns gets him like five acts more views than his other columns is like a huge ratio. And so at least some folks there are privy to their to their page.

Es, so and of course, they're looking at their twitter legs. And rs, even if they those are not directly page there. There are certain ly current with pages on the article. So all these folks are literally employees of four profit.

Corporations are trying to maximize profits, but we believe them when they mark themselves as the truth, like the N Y T, or as democracy itself, like the washington post, or fair and baLance, like fox. These people are quit themselves like truth, democracy and fairness. They weren't exactly around at the founding, okay? They weren't they weren't part of the constitution and seventy seven six, the post offices, but these media CoOperations were started later on.

And if of glom themselves on and declare themselves like part of the establishment, you know and and they are not. And the last point, and i'll just you know give you guys, you know the fit is but we didn't go and say, or blackberry do Better, blockbusters do Better, born to noble do Better. We just replace them, disrupt to them with Better technological versions.

And so the idea that, oh, you know, you are times do Better, that's completely outmoded way of thinking about that. We need to disrupt, need to replace. We need to build Better things. We to have things that have like on chain fact checking, that have voices from overseas, that have voices that are actually experts in their own fields, that are voices that are not necessary.

corrupted by on chain fact check. In .

this, a very deep, but fundamentally, the breakthrough of bitcoin was that in israeli and a palestinian, or a democrat, republican or a japanese person, a chinese person, all agree on who has what. Bitcoin on the biton blockin. IT is essentially a way of in a low trust environment, but a high competition environment.

You can use competition to establish mutually greet upon facts. And these facts are co ns. What million or billion of the roughly trillion dollars on the bitcoin blocking? And that's a kind of thing that, I mean, people will fight over a ten thousand dollars shed.

You know, when you can establish global truth over a bite which says, you know, you have twenty or five or ten, B, T, C, you can actually generalize that to establish global truth on any other financial instrument. And that's tokens and that, you know, loans and erosive, and that's a huge part of the economy. And then you can generalize IT further to establish other kinds of assertions.

And that is little bit further field but not just you know proof work and proof stake, but things like proof location or proof identity. Uh, there's very other facts you can put on there. So you start actually what I think of is not the paper of record, but the letter record, a ledger of all these facts that some of them are written by social trip oral, some them rise out a small contracts.

But this is what you referred to you. And as A A today model of what that looks like, it's sort like how when someone links a tweet to prove that something happened, people link and on chin record to prove that something happened. Concrete example you I remember when the telemeter arian made that large donation earlier this year. Yes OK. So like to have I think that you basically tweet out .

something that was essentially trying to raise uh money to uh secure necessary equipment and pharmacy ticals supplies to india during a pretty bad good outbreak. Uh, and then I think you you decided that you were gna donate some money in the vast basically stepped up and actually gave quite a large summer.

If I am not exactly sure the exact number of logy. So IT was an enormous amount in illiquid terms of uh uh this mean coin shibo coins. But the thing is that everybody when they when they wanted to prove that this has happened because of so unbelievable, such a large amount of money, he was marked IT on the on the over billion when he gave IT do how they proved that they didn't link a tweet.

They link to block explore, okay, like an on chain record that showed that this debit and this credit happened. And the big thing about this is, you know we take for grant when you link a tweet um you're take for grant that twitter hasn't monkey d with IT because what total of monkeys will love eats he says a lot of people get disappeared and so it's not actually that good of record of what happened anymore. This is deleted.

This guy got suspended. You know, like even the trump s i've forget about like trump himself, but that historical archive, what happened? You can't link IT anymore. It's link about IT just from that. Like I know it's one of the thousand and most important things about IT.

but it's an important thing in the example of satisfying um and china believing taiwan is part of the one china concept and taiwan believes IT is A A country and everybody in the world has a different vote on that. How does the block chain clarify what is the fact about is china a country or is IT a province?

Very good question doesn't what IT does. IT IT clarifies the facts about the meta data who asserted that IT was a country and who asserted that that was a province? And what time did they do so? And you know what money, how much BTC that they put behind that, or would have you? So IT doesn't give you everything, but IT does start to give you an ambiguous, like proof who and proof when and proof what. And then from that at least.

yeah I mean, like the way the way of kind of explained two family members who have ask because you know that the concept of a chain is difficult. I think for people to that that aren't you know have don't have a background in computer science, really grown is like but everyone understand the concept of a data base, a bunch of data in the except in this case, the data that makes up the data base is what's being verified by everyone and it's distributed. So everyone has a copy of IT.

I wants to know what you guys think about a this week in the facebook monster fire. Let's move to something splashing.

You say one thing, there's a book freeburg on what you just mentioned, which is called the truth machine by casey and vigna. And IT gives a pop culture explanation of the letter record type concept just mentioned.

which which I don't I don't think a lot of people grow yet ology tear point and and I think know we're skipping past ted, but it's a really important point, which is historically, database have SAT on someone servers and whoever has those servers decide what data goes in the database and how the I did did and what's allowed to come out of the databases. So in this notion, generally, a data abase with information and IT can be held by lots of people who generally, as a group, kind of vote and decide what's going to go into IT and that's that's the power of decentralized and how IT changes you know, the information economy, which drives the world and and it's gonna lot of applications.

right? Facebook worst month ever, uh, continues. We talked last week about facebook having a lee internal league called the facebook papers uh this is a uh, continuous league to not only the all street journal, but apparently members of congress are also getting IT in the leaker and the S, C, C.

And the S C, C. And the liquor apparently works in the safety, uh, group. A according to a congress person who has been getting IT and they are going to unlock themselves and that they were leaking this at a frustration that there is human trafficking, democracy issues and obviously self harm in girls using instagram and know this research.

But that's not all facebook uh is in admitting uh, for the first time this week that apple privacy updates are hurting their ad business. I think the story you are referring to is that two groups of facebook shareholders are claiming that the company paid billions of extra dollars to the ftc to spare mark ochberg and share sambur from depositions and personal liability in the cambridge ica saga from the political political article quote zcb g. Samsung and other facebook directors agreed to authorize a multi billion dollars ttl with the ftc as an express quit pro quote to protect soccer bird from being named in the ftc complaint made subject to personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition.

According to the article, the initial penalty was one hundred six million, but the company agreed to pay fifty times more or five billion to have zc ancel expect from deposition liability. Uh, here is the money quote. The board has never provided at this from the group shareholder suing the board has never provided a serious check on sucker's unfettered authority instead, and has enabled him, defended him and paid him pay billions of dollars for facebook quarter coffers to make his .

crimes go enough. I have one um prediction the facebook whistle blower you know when you are a federal whistle blower, number one is you get legal protection but number two which people don't talk about much as you actually get a large share of the fines that are paid by the act of your whistle blowing.

You know there is a couple of S C claims that I think we're settled last year where the whistler or got paid I think like a hundred and fifteen eight million dollars or something and just an enormous amount money. And the S. C is not a fabulous job.

And you using whistleblowers as a mechanism of getting after folks. And you know, I think the S. C C said they've collected almost a billion dollars since this whistle low program started, that they paid out or something, just not an enormous amount.

And I had this interesting observation, which is this person leaked a bunch stuff, or whistle blue, to the senate, to congress, to the S. A. C. There probably will be an enormous fine.

This person may actually make billions of dollars, which will then make every other employee and facebook really angry about why they didn't leak at first, because all, like, I guess, all this stuff was sitting around and apparently now theyve shut IT down, right? So that that entire data repository around this old topic is no longer freely available for employees to prove, uh, what under a key T M thing. Well, I I think he was more like like, I guess like all of this data was sitting inside of some facebook in the internal server.

No, I mean, I mean what this this league makes money under like .

key tac will pay uh for information that results in um a fine. And so they just recently announced um that they paid out a hundred and fourteen million dollar whistle player payment. I was the highest uh ever um and that they this whistlers extraordinary actions of uh and high quality uh information improve crucial to successful enforcement actions.

I don't think they announced all of these whistle blower payouts. They just pay them. So do not that's my one observation .

is I actually think that the whistleblowers may make billions of dollars or more than any of us made of facebook, which I think is. But the second thing, which is more important is that there is an article in the while three journal about how sentiment amongst americans have now really meaningfully change. And I, js, and I don't know if you have those stats, but this is a plurality of democrats and republicans where it's eighty percent of anybody now basically says the government needs to check big tech on the wall street .

general publisher article yesterday highlighting a new poll conducted for the future of tech commission found that eighty percent of register voters, eighty three percent, eight percent repub, agreed that the federal government, quote, need to do everything I can to curb the influence of big tech companies that have grown too powerful and now use our dated to reach far into our lives. Findings are based on a survey of two thousand or so registered voters.

I think it's a really um really, really tough road that these guys will have to navigate.

Can I can I offer some contrary views here?

Yeah please.

So um you know the whistler thing, you know real whip lers in in my view are like snowden or sunday who are you know basically overseas and um or or in prison for for telling what the U S. Governments doing and the differences i'd say they are whistle lowing. If accepted an actual on would reduce the power of the us.

Whereas these, you know, kind of awards and so on, I think they do distort incentives IT sound like you're giving a billion dollars to snowden for blowing the whistle on the nsa. The mlt an industrial complex is not happy with that. But this money is being given because government is currently mad of facebook and wants to do something that is like a causing nationalization of facebook.

Now very similar to what happened in in china where basically all the taxi OS, they just do a much more explicit there is basically to capture all them say, okay, you're going, you know, spending time of your family in the U. S. Is done in the sort of denied way and so on.

But the the us. Government gaining more control over facebook is not a solution to facebook s real problems. It's just gonna an back door surveilLance of everything, every single thing that was push back on, every enton encysted thing that they implemented.

Now the keystone cops in the us. Government, not they don't just survey everything that the database is leaked and it's all on the internet, just like what happened under the solar wind tag. So i'm not denying that there are you know like bad things about facebook.

I actually think on net, it's probably been more beneficial than many people say, but I don't believe that the federal government is a solution to those problems. I think the solution looks more like decentralize social networking, where people have control of their own data, not simply the us. Government causes nationalizing the thing.

So you know, people bring up this to centralized social network thing and as if there is a Better solution. I think you believe it's a Better solution. But I I really hear anybody talk about what if their slander on a decentralized network, if there's child pornography, if you are personal banking information or your you know you were personally hacked and that information was put on a decentralized social network that cannot be reversed and stopped because it's decentralized correct IT depends.

Um you know the thing is it's basically about but what is the depend?

You just said that the blockchain couldn't be changed and that all the facts were permanent. So what is IT dependent?

Well, for something like to porn, for examples, is actually being used to that you're not going to find lots of people who are running those nodes. IT is something where edge cases are always used to attack something others.

The famous cartoon, which says, how do you want this wrapped? And it's called control of the internet, and it's either protect children or stop terrorists, right? And so when we talk about an h case like that, I mean the c cms of cl porn, you know, that was that used by apple to justify the truth of devices that are scanning everybody stuff the I think the answer to a lot of those things is if if you're doing something that's bad, there's usually way as of going after IT that don't involve this dragging tics surveilLance state that was, after all, only built in the last ten or twenty years is Normal police work that you can do if they're actually like, you know, a bad guy.

There's other forms of police work you can get, search warns. You don't have this completely lowest thing where you know some guy in term of tisco hit the button and you're digitally executed. And so so you know it's not that there isn't any possibility for rule of law. IT just said that has to actually be exercised in, I think.

a long way away from decentralize social networking actually being the norm or being a Jason, I think, were at the step of actually figuring out and how much tolerance we have for probably specifically facebook and google s specific business models. And it's those business bottles that I think they are coming up against privacy.

They theoretically now and will figure this out, maybe coming up against mental health and you know, our child welfare policies and what we all you about that in those are fundamentally governmental issues that they should adjudicate. And I think the more important thing that I take away from all of this is that we've all kind of let IT probably get a little bit too far. And I think now that there's a plurality, um something's gone to happen.

I don't think it's gonna right. I don't think it's gna be just it's kind of like trying to perform surgery with a rusty knife. There's gonna all kinds of .

color specifically to head a police, facebook, twitter.

social networks. I think it's just like social media. I think we've jumped .

the shark at this point. I tion like balloon.

I I I do think that that's the ultimate luck for two key things. One is the most important thing that we 15， one is to know what the actual economic relationship are having with folks that we spend time with this. So when we spend time with friends, that's friendship, there's no economic relationship.

They're necessarily okay. When we spend time with a lot of these applications, there is a subtle economic relationship that is actually hidden from us, which is that we believe we're getting value for free. But really, what's happening is we're giving back a bunch of information that we don't know.

When you move to a world of the centralization, you shine a light on how people make money and you allow us to vote. Do I want to do I not. That single feature will provide more clarity for people than any of the other stuff will because it'll force people to then step into an economic relationship with these organizations. And I think that, that's just fair because those folks should be allowed to make money, but we should also be allowed to know what the consequences are and then decide.

David, you are big component of freedom speech. Uh, we saw massive uh, election experience. The russians trying to use social media to create division.

Uh, other countries doing IT to each other is not as the U. S. Of russia is china and russia everybody doing to each other. Do you believe that something like election interference and those bots would be solved or IT would get worse because of desensitization and you were found of decentralized? Or would you rather have a centralized facebook, twitter and somebody responsibility like burger or jack to to mitigate this for democracies .

around the world? Well the problem that we have is we do have a problem of social network spreading lies and misinformation um however, the people who are in charge of um of censoring those social networks keep getting IT wrong so they allow this information to be spread by official channels whether it's you know um you know whether it's A A corporate you to say doctor.

you to say doctor for you .

there's so many official channels, I get things wrong. We talked last week about the rolling stone iver macon hoax. There's been absolutely no censorship of that manifestly wrong story.

There's no labeling of IT but then a subjective opinion like what dave porter ny posted about aoc attending the magala, which can be factually wrong because it's just him an opinion that is factor ting labeled. It's bizarre. So the situation we have today is we're not preventing this information.

We're just enforcing the cultural and political bias of the people who have the power. And that is always a promise. censorship.

And this is why I agree with justice brain dice, when he said you, the sudden ze a beto infect the answer to bad speeches, more speech. We need to have more free and open marketplaces ideas. And that ultimately is how you prevent this information. So decentralized twitter.

d aliza social networks, do you think that is too much sunlight and too unruly? The fact that things could be.

well, i'd like to see what those things look like when we actually have them. I grew to month. Were soul some ways off from that? How are we? I mean, but ah I .

think we have these .

out and just one out there and other services out there ending with .

these very issues.

So other way this happened philosophy, not love. I just say one thing before you go, but like this, this general philosophy is not novel. Uh you know the internet and and the the the water being called the tech platforms were meant to be the response uh to the undue influence that kind of americans thought existed already in the media when they emerged in the late nineties um and you know you can go back hundreds of years like the state was meant to be the response to the church and um you know the media was meant to be the response to the state and propaganda and then the tech companies meant to be the response to media.

And you know now we're talking about death centralization, be kind of being the response to tech and at at some point, you know, information across in this kind of ayme tric way and IT all IT becomes call that undue influencer. And that I think, ends up becoming the the recurring battle that will continue to see whether or not this notion of decentralized systems actually is the end point or is just the next stepping stone in the evolution um that is this constant kind of evolving catch mass game of what is the information lie, who has control over IT and whose influencing people um ends up kind of being, I think, the big narrative that will kind of realize over the next couple decades but I don't know ology if that becomes the end point right? I mean, this is this field to meet part of a longer form narrative .

yeah so I think like lots of things look cyclic if you look at them on a like this, if you look from the z access, more like a helios where you do make progress even seems you're going in in a loop. And so I think you know IT it's centralized, then you decentralized and you recently ze it's like the concept of and bungling and bundling.

You unbundle the the C, D and individual yp y three, you rebundling into play this right? And so would desensitize me. It's not purely every single node on their own.

I think it's more like a million hubs in a billion. And Jason, to your point, basically most of those hubs are not going to allow things that ninety nine point nine nine percent of people think are bad, like C M. Know as other things like a slander, hacked, tag, consumated.

The thing is, current central arbiters will falsely accuse people of these things or enforcement in political ways. The centralization actually also known solutions being abused as a sacks, you know, points out, in fact, official disinformation early and covered, which know I had to like basically beat back with the stick. Fortunately, you know, got some of IT on time.

But you know, people said the floods more serious of travel bans, were over reactions that only woo han visitors were at risk, that avoiding handshakes is paranal, that the virus is contained. Test are available. Masks don't help.

You know, all that self the surgeon general himself know to you. You know, people don't wearing masks, right? Buzz feed.

N N Y T, all these guys got the story wrong. And then they rewrote history to pretend that they didn't. So that, to me, is a much greater danger when you have a single source of truth that's false.

So we're picking the least bad solution.

It's such a good point because i'm old enough to remember when, but he was right. About everything related to the beginning of coffee. And i'm all enough to remember when in April of last year, I rode a piece in favor of mass when the W.

H. O. And the surgeon general and all these official channels were saying, don't wear mask.

So the problem is with with us, these with official censorship is that they keep getting IT wrong. They keep getting IT wrong. And I want to I want to bring more quick point.

Okay, Jason, you mentioned foreign interference on facebook. I would really encourage anybody who's concerned about that issue to look up. You can go, look, you guess, google the actual ads that were run by agents of the fsb on facebook during the two thousand and sixteen election.

You can actually see the ads they are. I want to make two points about that. Number one, the ads, or ridiculous they are, they are sort of like an absurd of foreigners. Perspective me.

they're me with bad english. Yes.

battle english. And if somebody who doesn't understand american cultures attempt to propagandize in america, and you look at IT, it's so ham handed. Let me give an example.

It's like in one of them, they've got jesus are releasing with the devil things, and its jesus saying that I support trump and the devil saying I sport hilary clan. I mean, literally stuff like that. okay?

It's if you see at a trib rally.

it's uteri absurd and nobody would ever be come inspired IT.

The second people I tried.

The second thing about IT is that when you actually look at the number of impressions that were created by the some total of all of the the so called deformation of all these ads, IT is a fractionally small, if contestable, drop in the ocean compared to the total number impressions on facebook. And so i'm not disputing the fact that somebody in the basement somewhere, moscow perhaps, was .

running some information Operation .

that was running ads on facebook. What what I am saying is that when you actually look at the effect quantitate timely and quantatitive ly, you realized that that whole story was massively blend out proportion in order to create hysteria a that then justify censorship, then justify the empowerment by centralized authorities to be able to, to be able to regulate these social networks with the effect that the people empower, end up censoring in ways that do not support the truth, but actually just reinforce their own power. That is what the disappoint making story is really about.

No, it's not what it's really about. Sex is that russia wants to pit people like you and me against each other. You're right leaning on left leaning.

And what they want to do is create this moment where you and I are fighting over this, instead of fighting russia. Russia has this as a strategy to demoralize us. And this is classic K, G, B.

techy. So battles back and force between americans. So we don't .

fight against fighting russia persae. I am not incident picking fights with foreign tries.

and you should want to fighting at russian.

And I also not engaging in a fight with americans. I'm attempting to d propaganda fellow americans who've been LED to believe that russian in referenced election was are not saying IT didn't .

happen but but then let but .

they've been LED to believe that he was a much greater threat than IT actually was in order to empower essentialize authorities, engage and some trip over our social network. So i'm trying to essentially deep program, an enormous amount of programme that's taking place. I do not consider that to be fighting with fellow americans.

Well, I mean, the point is you have the G, O P recounting votes even to this day saying the electra was stolen. And then you have on the left, you have the democrat saying russia won the election for trump. In both cases, these are probably factually incorrect.

In our last forecast, I cited the piece by rich Larry, which he is the other of national of you speaking to conservative, saying that the whole stolen election myth, yes, he called a myth, is an albatross, is nothing IT will do nothing but backfire on conservative and republicans. I think there are plenty of people who recognize that story to be what IT is. We're talking about something .

very different here. I can I just want to a pipit forward a little bit, and I think it's a good question with pology on on the line. But yeah, just assume we we move forward to the decentralized model where there isn't a central media platform that a judicael content and makes IT available to to the users of the form.

So now in a decentralized world, take take youtube for example. Youtube has an application layer, which is the website we all use to access the videos. And those are recommendation. Let's take pops up and then all the media that that that exists on the youtube platform sits on some servers.

And so the application is how I kind of selecting what media to watch, but that kind of being projected to me because of the recommendations being made by google and and the search function, if you guys to remember, I don't know if you guys are old enough, uh, but you know, in the early nineties, we were all on go of for boards and we were trying to find information. And he was a total clutter, right? I mean, there like no word, no way to kind of find what you're looking for.

And so search became kind of the great unlock, right and use that and search became the great unlock for um for access in content on the distributed network that we call the internet. Now in the future, if all of the youtube media is decentralized and sits on distributed servers and sits on a on a chain or or whatever, what is the application layer look like pology? Because how do you end up giving users are ultimately gonna have to pick an application or pick a tool to help them access media, to help them access information.

And there has to be, to some degree, a search function or algorithmic function that creates the list of what content to read or they simply subscribing to nodes on the network. And that's kind of the future of decent realization where there's no longer to search a recommendation function, but there is simply a subscription function. And I think that, that to me is kind of a big philosopher question because from user experience perspective, people want things easy and simple.

They want to have things to recommend them to them. They want to have a bunch of a list of things and they click down the list. They're done.

I'm not sure most people, as we saw in web two point o when they were all these like, you know, make your own website stuff in your R S S. fees. And that all died because IT was complicated and that was difficult. And IT wasn't great content for most people. They preferred having stuff presented to them.

So do we just end up with like ten, twenty, thirty subscription applications that create different algorithms and different kind of access points for the content? Or are people just living in a subscription universe in a decentralized world? I want to .

come to media is a great question. So I think um first we have some vision of what that world looks like already because um if you think about block explorer and exchanges and wallets and much of the rest of cyp to ex system, they are all clients to the bitcoin and a thorium and other blocks tions right? So you know I wrote this post called yes, you may need a blockchain where you know people have set all blocks are just low database.

And that's like saying the early iphone camera is just a poor camera. Yes, IT was worse on one dimension, you know, image quality, but he was far Better on other dimensions, namely, the fact that he was ubiquity was always with IT was free. He was bundle IT was program connected to a network.

And so book chains, yes, they have lower transaction through, but but they are a thousand x or more on another dimension, which is the number of simultaneous root users that to say it's a blocher is a massively multiplayer database where every user of road user that meaning everybody can read the rose in the bitcoin blockchain and anybody who has some bitcoin can write a row that's a debit or credit to someone else. Ebay with compute can mind blocks. okay? So it's it's open and permissionless similarly for a decentralize al to Operate a similar way where let's say something like twitter or paypal, the root past where is not public, nobody can can access IT.

And so what this leads to, to kind of continue point is basically, I think there's basically in three errors of the internet. The first was p to p, which was, you know, here to peer, right? And so individual nodes are point to point communicating and that's F, T, P. And it's, uh, he was telnet before S.

S, dress.

yeah. Exactly right. And so the great thing about this is open sources, peer to peer, is fully programmable. You can see everything right then, because of search, because of social, because of the rise of the secondary M V C model view controller. Essentially, many protocols like social networking research are not efficient. If every note is paying every other note, you can't pink every other note with the index of the web. You can't pink every other node with on facebook entire social graph.

When you know you go and message somebody, you want a central hub with their photos and stuff, so you can just send a few packets back and forth, right? And this LED to the, you know, the last fifteen years, these gigantic hubbs last years, these giant hubs, the search and social and messaging to set of marketplaces, hub and spoke architecture. And these hubs have global state. They're highly mono tizer. You can make billions of dollars of them is many of our friends have.

by the way, that the early peared appear version failed, right? Because of you stump, you know, the alternatives didn't really work out.

The government spoke, yeah, yeah, exactly right. So I mean, vittoria did exist in this time. It's not like this was zero.

But generally speaking, this was the era of hoban spoke MBC dominant. And now we're into a third architecture, which I call cbc client, blockchain client. And so this top clients have a blockchain that they communicate with.

For example, I have a wallet. You have a wallet on your client. And then the big coin blockin intreated dites us. I debit and credit you, okay.

That's a different architecture than both the MBC and C, B, C, and actually combines the positive quality above its decentralized and open source and programmable like peer to peer. But IT also has global state and highly monodist able, like nbc, to combine the best of both worlds. And IT has some something very new, which is not open source.

Where is open source code? It's open state, where it's open state database like open seat means the back in is open also. So all the applications I can build out assented ally, our clients that seem back and that seem back in thea would have you back.

and. And then you kind of exchange between them. And the true scarcely now comes not from locking in your users, but from holding a currency. A kind of gets produced, the I P, gets reduce to its minimal viable thing, which is holding that .

good currency in what you can do that. But so give you what does media sit and how do why is a user have an experience on what media to to view, to access. Like think about because again, like just speaking in in a in a lamon's term for folks maybe to understand, you know, most people I don't understand the DNA ics of what underlies es a social network as much as understand the user experience and browsing youtube, right?

So yeah, what is what is my option in browsing the decentralized version of youtube? What does that experience end up looking like in this decentralize world, right? Who all who ultimately judicael the algorithm defines what my recommended videos are that i'm going to be accessing from these kind of, you know, different nodes.

I like the idea that you can bring your own. You can pick one.

That's my point, is like the picking function is what does that didn't work in what .

take a look at. So ferial, that state could potentially so today blockers are not very scalable, but tomorrow, um they already they actually they're improving very rapidly if you're if you aling matic, if you're following polygon and um if you if you're looking where what seller is doing, like you can do a lot more on chain in two thousand twenty one that you couldn't join twenty, it's kind of like band with IT just improves every year.

So more applications will become feasible, like search indexes. Moreover, blockin actually, so just to your specific point about search indexing, Blanches actually radially simplify surgeon such a point. There are darker st.

Competition to google. What I mean by that is google index. I open web because open web is open.

And then social networks were like a dark web, you know, to them where that's why they were so mad. Google was so mad. I could not acquire facebook, right? Because you could index, couldn't index.

Witter had to deal with them. That's all on there, you know, on on their servers. So the social life is even harder index in the open web.

But block explorer, block ck chains and you block explores are like searches on the top of them. Blocked tions are easier index, and either the open web or the social web. And the reason is many, the problems associated indexing just go away.

For example, just one small problem, as you're probably aware, when you're indexing the open web, let's you've got a million websites, you're crawling. Each one of them only have only have a certain band with amount total. So you have to figure, okay, do I recall this or this one? Which one is going to fresh? Okay, does this update every day or not? So you have to run all these fiscal estimate or just to figure out when to cross site all that goes away. For example, in the context of a blockchain where you just subscribe and you get a block of transaction.

everybody got a real time index and they can there's no advantage being google and have to serve from freeze g we rap uh for best to math. Uh, David sacks friedberg and our best evo logy actually coming on the pod and we will see you all next time on the all in the pocket by by.

your.

Own man.

We open sources to the fans and just .

got crazy with.

We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge org because .

they just like sexual attention. 想到。

没有 B B.

we did get much.