E50: Crypto investing deep dive, Facebook's whistleblower fallout, Chappelle's new special & more
01:23:11 Share

Our daughters had his dropped because the her doctor, SHE SHE, felt the head. Jes A K.

S, whose head has gotten bigger, yours or your daughters.

What do you mean?

Quit your day jobs.

Sex max didn't quite .

land is trying on material total.

We are not in rhyme. You know why mercury retrod grade? Our fifty of episode is.

can we go three, two. man.

We open our to the .

fans and got.

All right, the facebook wistful blower hearings occurred. And facebook.

where was your hey everybody, everybody here.

three, two. Hey, everybody wants to. Another episode of the all in podcast, episode fifty. We made IT to fifty.

Nobody expected .

us to make IT. Here we are. We've made IT and everybody is uh, thrilled uh to be here with you. And thank you for the support of the first fifty episodes .

episode closer to get .

getting cancelled. One episode closer, man, how great would would be to be cancelled and never have to work again would be wonderful. Okay, so, uh, Frances hogan, uh, revealed herself self on sunday night on sixty minutes and then appeared.

But we don't send our own personal interests. There are no, we're out .

and you're .

even .

the most retrograde .

mercury retrograde a doesn't the .

audience no week, the and himself David sax and the queen of kin wa. David freeburg, I love the, of course, the dictator to map and i'm your boy .

jay cow tax. I got to say, I think I think your A U M is positively correlated with the bags under your eyes.

If you mean is getting bigger.

you're going, they're hiding.

you're heavy.

they're heavy, you dragged you down.

That's where you're hiding all that salona in your fucking under your eyes.

You Better clear that a on a position what you're a lock up twenty four months funk now .

he's trying to sell IT to me and text, of course we're negotiating .

discounts.

I just had the family. You're fucking the whole thing up.

Think you i'm hold i'm holding you .

think I buy one millions. Anything about this count? Everything is a discount.

Everything's discount. You want to clear .

that position .

in an L L C I A S this.

but you're holding, correct?

Yes.

yes, okay.

yes. We too. What I mean, if something appreciate, at what point is the appreciation in an asset that you've invested in early, something you need to, you know, at least clear a position of them? Walk in win I an, what? What's enough? One hundred x, five hundred x? You got to, at some point, panko in, right?

Well, I think you have to put things in a bucket of like, is IT an investment or is this something that represents, uh, an idea that you love so much? If it's the latter, you should never know if it's the former. Yeah you've a is IT .

a trade or is salona was not a direct investment for us? What we did is we invested in, in a crypto venture firm called multiple in capital. This is back in two thousand and seventeen. We realized like crypto is becoming like a full time job for us as a total rabbit hall.

And we were like, we don't have time to figure out the twenty four seven trading stuff, but we met colon to shark, who were these two Young guys? We met him through any linguam, actually, yeah, they were creating multiple in capital. And we actually invested.

We gave a million box at a twenty cap to help set up their firm. And then we invested in their data, both a venture fund in a hedge fund and they were like the first money into salona. So that fund, I mean it's like a hundred x fund is just like bunkers craze.

And so as a result of that, we are um indirect beneficiaries of this huge increase in sana. IT will end up being about you a billion dollars of I think sona for us determines the returns. But but is the multiquarks determine the trading decisions on that?

yes. And so people who don't know sona is a programmable you know a theory um um competitor I guess and it's at fifty billion dollars as a market cap, was trading at a dollar not long ago and now it's one hundred and sixty .

four is in a serum competition basically for you know a smart contract platform. And there's a lot of people I say smart money and to looking valley who are betting on a flipper ing where sona could ultimately overtake a theory um as the prefer platform. But even if IT doesn't overtake a theory um it's the number eight cyp TOTO currency right now. You know IT could go. There's a lot of peal betting it'll go to .

number three year, you know what have you? Additionally, IT is a fraction of a penny for a transaction. Us and IT can do many more traction actions then a theory um so it's you know technically should be much cheaper if you're buying N F T right now. You're probably spending you know tens of dollars you know uh in fees on a thorium whether if you did the same H N F T which some people starting to do on salona they would cost a fraction of a penny corrective or chema.

Yeah I think the the platform is is known for being a faster, cheaper block chain.

Really, really congratulations. And if veni lingers, instagram is any indication. He did pretty well because his instagram suddenly turned into a world tour of private jets.

He like, which, which, which island should I buy?

Well, like vne was sort of like I don't think he's full time of multi coin bed. He was sort of venture partner to colon to share and he helped set them up. This is back into the seventeen.

He helps bring us in as the first investors yeah I mean, for us, IT was sort of a founder bet combined with a like A A team like service, a space bet like we knew the capture of currencies were certain be traded twenty four seven. We knew IT required more like a hedge fun skill set than what we had. And so we we made a bet on those guys .

and man of nice strategy, write taxes. If you are helping in new fund managers are, which i've done a couple of times now, you get to learn from them uh and basically dive into a data set of a new market, right? I mean, it's a one of the nice things about being an L P. And a fund as you can place a small bed, whether it's fifty k or five hundred k or five million, whatever IT is you, you get like this made education of an entire sector, correct? yeah.

But I think, you know we didn't do IT to learn from them. Although we have it's more that we realize that crypto was like it's becoming such a habit hole like if we realized we would either need to do egypt to full time as a fund or we would need to like partner with people who actually did you see that with like a lot of V C firms now is are creating like specialize cyp to funds or at least I have specialized crypto partners. There's so much to know about the crypto world is a hard thing to invest in the last year. Like totally focused on IT.

i've struggled with that. Like i've tried to go deep on a couple topics and like I realized holy shit have been in this like four to six hours. Just kind learn this stuff and i'm not like there and then I feel uncertain about making any decisions.

I I I totally get IT. I mean you gotta have folks like working on this and the place is changing um so rapidly. Uh you really need to to be up to date on on what's next.

You the other is really, really chAllenging. When you look at crypto, people use the world cyp du as if it's like that. All there is so crypt to is like exchange computing, yes. E cash together. Y financial modeling or building new economic systems from there .

is business model innovation, there's technology innovation, there is economic innovation, it's computing innovation, action hardware. I am quite a lot, uh, layers of activity to month. Are you spending time in crypt to yourself for you of people doing IT for you? Or how are you?

Yeah, look, we have we have a lot of IT, a lot of a lot of everything. So yeah, we have think what .

did you go deeper yourself to up? Like how do you spend enough time to really get up to speed on all the goings on?

I Cherry pick in a snap and opportunities where I get intellectual, curious and jump in. But a lot of the credit goes to my team. There's a couple folks that spend a lot of their time in IT, and you we've we've had a couple people do extremely well for us. You know, similar similar to David story back in the day, you know I invested uh, in paris sober and the market paris ber, yeah. And you know D C G is now why not i'm guessing a twenty billion dollar company, maybe more.

I don't know, so happy that mechanically work with your team. They they are investigating opportunities and then they come to you and bring you you, hey, do a meeting and going .

to share with you.

no. So so basically what happens is they have car plunged to do whatever they want. And what they're typically doing is they're working with entrepreneurs to seed projects and no to to to get projects off the ground.

And then at some point, when those when those projects become the large enough, then theyll issue tokens and know we will get a certain allocation of those tokens. And so we've done that for call IT. I don't know some number of projects that we think are valuable. Then along the way, you know, they'll have certain views on bitcoin, they'll have certain views on the theory theyll, have certain views on salona and will make capital allocation decisions. They tend to have the ability to do whatever they want. And then what I tend to do is just think about when he gets above like IT to me, I need to see the chance to make at least, you know, in the rough justice around, you know, five hundred to a billion dollars and then i'll get involved. But othe wise, they just kind of run the whole thing.

Let me ask you guys a question here. We know when you look at the market caps of these projects, IT seems like things are changing. Uh cardona or cardona um is number three now and tethers still remains number five X R P one number six. But so long I .

encourage people to not look at IT like that. I think looking at IT as a rank list betrays what IT is. So you know I give you a simple example that like that compare the the fate of two projects are actually right now there's a distributed form of um discord that's being built.

Discard the ChatApp yeah part time in a completely distributed way with an integrated critter wallet because if you look at discord, it's really too cohort of people. There's gaming and there's script, right? So little big ones here.

So you know that's an example of a really interesting product that has some real potential. Then if you look at something like D O, D O is a decentralized social programing framework. Then if you look at something like helium, that's completely about building a large distributed you know connection of um of on raps to the internet internet connectivity.

So those are three completely different ideas with three completely different paths to success. If to invest in those tokens, you you have to believe in three totally different sets of things. So to look at IT on a rank list and just buy something because it's cheap is, yes, I know know it's stupid. No, no, no. That was a really my question.

My question was, no, we have an extraordinary number of the public. We've invested in bitcoin in a thorium as number one in number two. And those projects feel may be stagnant when compared to the dynamism of what I call know the projects wanted ed, in the last three or four years .

because there are a different number. But you're talking about confusing again, this what I mean, those are layer one protocols, right? Meaning they are at the core substrate of how all of crypto is going to work.

Then you have these other projects that had built on top of these things in different ways or build around them. So my point is if you don't have if you don't want to take the time to understand which layer choose you want to own and which layer ones you want to own and why. I think you're much Better off. I understand your point, my point etf for something else because there are there are ways to own these things.

So example David David sAlina is does not need a theory um to exist. So my point is do we, do we see a day when this, you know, the past decade has been about big one in a? Do we see a day when maybe people stop buying those and start buying these new ones?

Anything possible? But here is the evolution are thinking I, me. The first step was realizing, okay, we need to own bitcoin.

why? Because you know there's now enough events where what like A A decade, there were more than a decade into this. Nobody has been able to essentially counter fit a bitcoin.

IT is new money. IT is IT is Better money. So if you so i'm not going convent feel right now the argument for bitcoin. But if you believe in IT, that sort of the first step is realized.

You really need to have one to two percent of your portfolio in bitcoin in the event that fight money sort of becomes debased and eventually moved to cypher, then you realize a way to second bitcoin is just one application of block chains. There's a unch of applications of block chains. So maybe we need to own not just sort of you know, digital money, but we also need to own the underlying blockchain platform that leads you to a theory.

Then you realize that there's a bunch of competence to a theory um and is still very early days and one of those guys might ultimately display the theory mum of our chain platform. Then you realized that there's all these applications on top of all these block chains. And so you know, the conclusion I come to after all of that is I can't figure all this out. Well, maybe I could if I was willing to go back to school and like, make this a full i'm job which I just don't want to do I mean, i'm lazy and that's why I focus on says, like that's what I know was buster yeah like i'm not gonna about myself.

It's like you playing a hole version. P right?

exactly. So but this is why we partner with multiple in capital. So what I would to say is like the idea that you as an individual investor going like pick off the one gypt to currency here there to invest in. I mean, that can be a lottery. I would I would find a manager basically who is really good, who has a track record .

to understands this stuff, our approaches to hire very Young, extremely technical computer scientists and mathematicians to basically do the work that's that's working yeah .

and you know, one of the things that I think these guys do in the reason that is very helpful for the big computer scientists is these are all open source projects. So they go look at the repos, just go look.

go look at what, see the changes being. And this, like you realized, is only twelve who are actively working on salona.

But you you need to look at all the code .

checks for a.

you need to look at all of the code checkers. You need to look at the city of the coach. You can see my company projects are being created on these platforms.

The White papers are also really exceptional. Like if you if you read these White papers, they are they are they're they're really incredibly thoughtful and and well written, and you can really understand what their goals are and you can make some informed decisions there. But again, if you're not going to be in the business of being in the ecosystem because I think dave is right, everything is moving so fast.

Um what successful today could be just a dog tomorrow and vice versa, that I think speculating in this market would um not only will you be super vulto, but more than likely you're going to lose all your money. So I would encourage people to not speculate, encrypt. I would encourage you to figure out an elegant way of having an abstracted. But if to the extent you care about IT and by the way, in the U K, for example, there are ways where you can own publicly traded mutual funds that give you exposure to, this is just simple as, yes.

yeah. But there are mutual funds of do the work.

find these mutual funds to own those things and let somebody else do the hard work because it's too hard.

is several the other investors we made back in two thousand seventeen, two thousand eighteen time frame. One was a company called bit lives which was creating an e tf four cyp to so it's A A monthly rebaLance ed portfolio of I think the top ten crypto currencies, and you can buy they finally got approved by the c and you can buy IT like like with a ticker simple from your e trade account or the exactly so that that was pretty incredible to see the progress safe made.

And then the other big that we made was just a institutional custody back into the seventeen we invested in bio. Actually, bill, I help found that company many years ago. And then that became last year, galaxy announce a deal to acquire them for than one point two billion largest cyp to acquisition.

today. The thesis there was just that crypto would go more institutional. And I think we're starting to see that now where in downs and so on to realized the need to have some portion, maybe one or three percent of the portfolio in crypto. And so unrealistic.

look, we have two almost three billion dollars of market cap crypt u. It's unrealistic for folks to expect people to be able to be living in disco channels and doing all of this work. I think what that means is that the S C, C.

Is going to be asked increasingly more often to approve simpler er on raps for this stuff. And now in the last week, by the way, we had a pretty important two things happened, both drew on power anger against are basically said, crypt s here to stay and now we're not going to band this stuff. And so hopefully what that means is that you get some E T S.

Pass in the united states. You know, gray scale is one. There could be more. And I think that stuff makes IT majie for folks too own this stuff.

What a clear regulation would be a great thing for the industry for people to buy into IT and removing some of the, let's call them I don't want say bad actors, but people who are may be questionable like either. I don't if he saw the bloomberg sorry, yesterday, but he was, uh, a bloomberg reporter basically found out that tether. He got the list of what that owns with their stable coin and IT looks like they are giving a lot of loans to other cypher projects and owe a lot of chinese paper um in that they are basically making the float on sixty nine billion dollars sweeping IT which then incentivises them to take risky bats because they get paid on them. And it's anything but a stable coin if you think about IT for that regard.

I don't know the details on tether. I won't speak to that, but i'll say that any stable coin, if it's not one hundred percent backed by dollars, if that's a currency that's going in and out or a other hard currency, that's not a stable coin. A stable coin is used to be a service.

It's not used to be a speculators currency. It's basically just used to be a mechanism by at the on rams and all frames of the cypher to ecosystem. You can convert your dollars into a temporary like a stable coin that will hold this study so you can a poker trip that you can use to then by bitcoin .

or theory or whatever. Yeah, U S D, C, U S D, uh, c jermy alair competitor from circle just said that he would switch to a hundred percent to what you're saying, cash, cash equivalents.

The guys this is this has always been a money market fund. IT should be treated like a money market fund and IT should be regulated and manage.

which was to there's original vision and then they flip the scrip because I think they are greedy and .

now they all I think they go, by the way, by the way, IT speaks to the role of recognition. Like you know, a lot of people have trust in faith because they make some claim, but there's no regulator actually checking on their claims.

The only people that want regulation are two end of the spectrum, so Young and so disruptive where they want rails to Operate legally and so big and so over the top that they want to basically entrench themselves for the rest of their lives. That's IT. No, everybody in the middle isn't really want regulation company. Or if your big tech, you both want regulation well.

But there but there are some narrow cases like again, if if a stable coins going to say that we are just a money market fund for one hundred percent dollar reserve IT is really nice to have a regulator, somebody we trust, to go in there and put the stand of approval on IT so we can trust IT.

That is that is a valid role.

I think, for a regulator in .

traditional financial markets. You have the self a regulating bodies um I I think is far is a self regulating body, right and so know somebody self regulating bodies should be formed in the crypto community. I don't they are doing this. I'm so even the space, but certainly would make sense to have A S R O form that that does self policing effectively ve in the community rather than trying bring in a government regulator .

or is a thing thing if you please yourself, you can uh really h define the execution uh in the ramifications of that policing. If you have thirty .

call IT competitors and CoOperators in the in the market space doing this together, I can be A A highly effective model for creating a system of trust and reliability and not having to, you know bring in, you know call IT outside and competence overseeing the rules and rights yeah.

another area we need standards is around the token capta les for these projects, right? So how much how much of the token capable goes to the founders? What are the rules around them selling? What are the vesting periods and what are the disclosures around them selling in public markets? We have ten b five.

So if you're an insider who runs these companies, you have to disclose when you're selling. There's no similar rule for cyp to I think there probably should be right. Like if you own the if you own the token and you run this project is publicly traded and the public can buy IT, you should really probably have .

to disclose your say yes and maybe um you know this is very strange because they are running foundations. I had a crypto person on from a music cyp to project and he said they had like three or four hundred million in this project in panis like who's on the board of that and is like I can say. Why can't you say? And he said, security reasons.

I was like, well, anybody who's on a public board has to be public. And of course, they have people were on the board of G E R, IBM or amazon. They have security issues like they deal with their security issues.

That doesn't mean they don't dispose with the eyes again, not comfortable saying who they are and like, okay, well, they saw three, four hundred million. I like how do they give that money out and is like, i'm not sure i'm not on IT. I'm like what like there's some organization in panama that's IT was really weird .

yeah working that i'll say positively about about descriptive founders is that they uh, will never allow a single venture investor to clock up their capable number one, they do a great job of creating these large broad syndicates of participation when they see their projects and then know a lot of IT goes into treasury, where then the issue coins as needed. And I think that, that strategy actually is very pro employee and pro ecosystem.

So you know when we see these projects, all these companies tend to raise you know three, four, five million box IT all tends to be IT like thirty million pre and IT all tends to be uh distributed. So like you know you know it's us and reacts sqa and it's like you know we put in two hundred grand each or four hundred grand each, you know that's why you're first then go into the market if you believe in a project and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy into IT after the fact. And I think that that's very um very powerful. So really important dynamic that if IT comes back to, uh, traditional venture could be really disruptive.

why?

Well, could you imagine A A S founder that basically all of a sudden? Ys, all right, you know what? I'm raising a six million dollar series. A, you know, craft can take five hundred k so koa you can have five hundred k um you know blob ty blog folks and then you raise six million box that way. And you never allow anybody to have more than color, you know a few percent of a company.

So the fact that it's it's like a mini IPO, it's like a private IPO on the road.

Yeah and then your board construction looks entirely different. And then as a result, you know found the protections probably go way up. Employee protections probably go way up. It's s way down. I know I actually think what will happen is you're less likely and around like that to be OK with some dark dingleberry joining your fucking and board.

You're going to actually point to some industry expert and say, this person is joining my board SHE does X, Y, Z job at such as such a and then the investor said, well, that's a pretty great advocate for the business. Go ahead. Do that.

Another thing learned about the whole token space was when I talk to ana toy from h salona. When they sold there three or four hundred million h tokens to fund uh, the company because they consider the utility tokens not shares, they paid taxes on IT. So the I R S. Is getting massive amounts of tax revenue will think about IT. They're selling the talk and is supposed to be for utility with therefore as a taxiway event .

that actually was really smart. That is showing, I think, some wisdom because there's a lot of founders who want to have their cake eats too, which is to say they want to say that these are utility tokens and and they don't pay tax.

And then when they later get trade, they want to say there they know they're not securities, but so when does the task get paid? I think it's really smart to pay the tax up front to establish that this is a corporate sale. They're basic paying the corporate tax, right? Yes, that is what is because this this is the promise.

If if you wait until they're traded publicly and then say, no, no, no, their utility focused security tokens, the government ask you, well, why didn't you pay corporate income tax when you sold them? right? So that is actually showing some perspective.

I think. Could somebody .

look for four side this JK okay.

great, awesome. It's so great. They have the two producers are either sound of you write down feeding new vocabulary words well done. So here's here's um you know um another question with this. If the majority of people sacks um put your legal hand on for second.

If the majority of people who bought a token in a project will call the in acme cypher project, they buy acme coins if they're buying them and they have absolutely no interest in using them for the utility and they say, I bought these as a speculative device and the founder says there are utility tokens, but let's say seventy percent of the people who bought them said, I didn't buy them for that reason. They just came out right, said I bought this to speculate on the Price. What should the government do? Should they deem them a security or should they deem them a utility token?

I think that's A A complicated question. But I I think that there should be an opportunity for these crypto currencies to establish themselves as utility tokens because they are they do serve a purpose. They are designed to be part of a system.

They're not just objects of speculation. And by the way, even if they were, we don't we don't treat baseball cards as you as as sort of as security. So IT wouldn't ously make them a security just because they're speculated on they actually do serve a function in a designed computer system. So I think what's important here is that there's a safe harbor where these scripture companies know what the rules are and if they if they can basically um meet the criteria, such as by paying corporate income tax, when they sell the topics and other things like that, that they won't later be deemed to be engaged in awful self security. I think the I think the important thing is just that untreated urs founders know what the rules are so they .

can to bed by them .

and not be right now, so they don't get surprised later. They don't get vami button basically, you know, because they are building something legitimate here.

you know.

right? But IT would seem to the snifter asked, the people buying the tokens have no idea, have never written a line of code, have no use for them.

I don't see why that's relevant. I don't see what that's relevant well.

because they're profiting off of them as if they are shares. And unlike baseball cards, which you can sell a thousand baseball cards for an increasingly um you you know in a very instantaneous way.

you would have to put them to be a lot of friction.

There would be a lot of friction. Yeah uh facebook, what do you think if the majority of people buying a token or doing IT to speculate? Can the founder says utility token, and then those people who are trading at, like either baseball cards, maintain coins, whatever analogy shares you want to use, or in IT for the increase in the value, should IT be a security and should they have to play by the rules we play at in the traditional venture sort of game?

I mean, the question is what's the utility? So I mean, if you can demonstrate some utility, then maybe that's the uh the the and this i'll probably be litigated at some point, right? Um i'm sure they'll be enough capital slashing around here that someone you'll say, you know what we believe romi, we're seeing this happen with ripe already.

But um someone will mitigate this and will get some clear definition on you know what statutes are going to be referenced in what those statutes might say with respect to how this time to the definition of utility. And that will become hopefully a standard that that people can kind of look to, to guide them in the future. But it's definitely the wild west right now. The reason I .

bring you up because because gancy lor was sort of a floating this argument to math, what do you think .

I think that um you can't wipe three trillion dollars of value out of the world and so so prime that would be hard to do got IT. So it's here to stay and it's too institutionalize ed now. So you know, there's this way too many organized poles of capital that are now speculating inside of this entire ecosystem.

You know, I saw a tweet today. There is there is a firm I think like called jump trading or something. It's a high speed frequency trading organization. And they tweet out some pictures where, you know, there they hire a bunch of folks to start a jump and they did a coding boot cap on salona that was their own boarding as an example.

So when you have people in high finance, you know really vested in this thing, uh, and you have three trillion dollars of value that will go to six million and then go this can go away so that's why I think powel and gangster had to says some version of that on the record, which is, you know, we're not onna bend this stuff because they know it's not possible. So I think David is right. You have to create some rules, make folks and let folks pay their taxes.

You know, I remember, for example, like I did this bitcoin transaction twenty fourteen or something, I bought some land. I used bit pay, I transfers and bitcoin, but the land blob of block I was like, know whatever, but whatever I, I, I mean, I, I, I, I, I love. I mean, I I owned a lot of the time, so IT wasn't that big of a deal.

But my point is finding away from me to pay my taxes was a huge deal. I remember. And you know, we filed the tax return and we tried to make sure that we pay our taxes.

These are very complicated, even if you want to be conformed to. The government is impossible right now. So they just need to create some rules where folks can say, here's what I own, here's what it's worth, tell me how much I owe you and we're all willing to pay or not. Maybe we're wrong and I am because I just think it's like make sure that we can we can trade around IT hedged structure IT do the things that we would Normally do with any other risk assets right now that's very hard. And when you own lots of this stuff, IT sits in your baLances and you just take these enormous swings and you're just like, god, you can do anything around this stuff and that's not a viable financial market that doesn't yeah to to .

be specific about what games or sad I just looked up here. You know he at compared utility tokens with you know laundry mat tokens or tickets, the Opera and he said entrepreneurs are choosing to perceive their tokens as utility to decide step regulation um and that here is the quote. They are highly speculative investment tokens for people who are trying to save or speculate for the their future. And that's why I think it's improbable to bring them inside the investor protection program. Or I agree with him, I also agree with future moh that this is a kind of worms that I want to help with the G D.

That in about. But he's partially right. I mean, he is partially right on some tokens, but he's not completely accurate on some other tokens. I think it's on a case by case basis and IT depends.

Listen, I think anybody who is buying these tokens right now knows that they are engaged in in financial speculation idea that people in middle dle amErica are gonna blow their retirement savings on crypto. I I.

if they know if you're doing speculation.

then IT be a current no dai. I you totally look at quarter returns, uh, the filings of earnings from companies like Robin hood and how much and square and how much money they make from cyp to and look at their audience.

that's totally not true. But do you think that audience skills really Young and they're getting their like a simula check and they're yellowing IT .

into mean stocks or crypto?

Well, well, because something like low the retirement savings. okay. Well, if you're time about twenty five year year olds, you got five thousand hours of retirement savings, maybe, but they still got a, they still got forty years .

of work I had on a second wait. No, they don't. This is gonna the least hardworking generation of our lifetime.

why? No, no, not. Not because you're not hard working. Why there are seventy trillion dollars that bombers have that they are about to pass down to these folks, on average, between two and three trillion in a year for the next thirty years.

Also, they know how to do gig work, but they're so smart this generation, they know how to.

And I M you going to take one entire turn of the world's GDP and give IT to one hundred million people in amErica over the next twenty to thirty years. That is what is actually going to happen.

So yeah, look, I think I think we're going .

to keep you allowing this stuff.

Yeah, look, I think I think we're going off like a little bit of attention here. Point my point is not that there shouldn't be investor protections, but rather that I think we also need to baLance another important objective, which is to create a hospitable environment for innovation.

And the fact the matter is that you've got a lot of brilliant Young entrepreneurs, computer scientist, building this financial infrastructure of the future with crypto is not just speculation. There is a lot of code being written. IT has functionality. There's a purpose to IT don't don't honestly want to interfere with that too. To the point.

has to do their security. So David, at all, the other start of that are not encysted or playing by the rules. So it's cyp t of people get a pass.

It's unfair. I agree with jack. People make this claim, and I just think it's so special.

Do you think that you would have made a single professional decision in your life based on tax rate? Have you ever made a single like i'm going to start this company. I'm going to make this product, you know, i'm going to change this job. I just think that .

much not talking about paying taxes. I think he was smart for, for example, sona to pay corporate taxes on their token sale. I think everyone should pay their taxes.

That's not where are talking about here. And i'm not saying that against or should prescribe regulations. I think that part of the purchase regulations should be to give entrepreneurs predictability, to give a safe harbor so they can build that they want to build.

Let me make one final problem. I'm just saying from my perspective, I just think that if you have clear sensible taxation, that's ninety percent of what this industry needs. And I don't think IT will IT will change anybody's real motivation to work inside the eco system, just like entrepreneurship doesn't change when capital rates.

capital gains I paid I paid taxes um know on micro pto sales like I was an other investment. This is the beginning.

Know that issue. The issue is when your company and raising money, should you be allowed to not follow security law because you say it's a token freeze. Berg, uh, when you look at this, A N N F T company came out last this past week that was selling shadow shares in startups.

And anyone in the world could buy a shadow share in a private company like stripe, settle in this fantasy football league. They want up setting IT down, uh, or changing IT because they didn't want to trade on other people's intellectual property. They were concerned about that.

But just looking at IT the public in america, ninety six percent of them who are not a credit cannot buy shares of strike in the secondary market. But you can buy nfs and IT and speculate on the nfs, which are accelerating from you know one thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars in these different clubs. Um how is IT fair that crypto to companies get to not obey basic security laws.

football, but it's not a security. There's no underlying .

asset but .

it's collectable and nf t is clearly a collectable. J K.

uh, okay.

And when you put of them .

and have a marketplace for people to sell them and they are appreciating .

and I do something different.

yeah, you can go draw piece of picture of strike and put on a piece of paper on a security.

but they are acting security in relation to the fund raising of these projects.

So I think that's that not everything is a security.

Yeah there's no security. You don't have any secured interest. Literally just a uh uh like an image of figure.

I was just offered a job etic sculpture, but I turned to them.

How much sixty million? If they going .

to comment on the Price?

Yeah guy to say no. Was Stephen co. And selling IT .

not commenting on the cell?

Er, I think Stephen coin was selling IT. That was the record deal. Uh, Stephen coin bought that jet die sculpture for years ago, like the highest .

a Price ever pated auction for piece of I. I took the Price and I divided IT by the height in centimeters, and I just tilted .

me is Price for school of metric.

And IT is in my head in my .

ad twenty six fifteen Stephen n coin pig, one hundred and forty one million dollars for the joke's ti sculpture loan or do or do IT pretty, uh, incredible. And I think you're write IT about twelve inches talk or .

something like you do look at culture.

Looks like IT was done by a twelve .

year old oh my god this is a little equivalent cyp dan nf total .

I don't know what's in but that looks like anyone can .

raise their .

hand and say I have an independent .

objective assessment of the value of anything in the world um and you can look at IT from higher low and this is all effective culture .

books like IT was a culpa that was in a giant fire and that somebody pulled out of the ashes.

It's a beautiful peace if you want to read a little bit of our history yeah you can understand a little bit come's work but um it's a seventy and p is not twelve ture sorry and um yeah his work is all about kind of like how do you capture the essence of the form anyway? This is .

a super ridiculous.

I have a very funny dev coin story so this is like ten years ago with our bozzle in miami and uh the day before the art fair opens, it's called the phones and so, uh you know uh it's like a day where you can go and see the the stuff the day in advance and you can, you know kind of buy stuff, water and uh, it's very funny.

It's kind of like even when walmart is like a black friday thing, like everybody lines up and then they open the doors and we all run in and I was standing side by side, we are ready at the front of the line. And I noticed that he had this, uh, and this is my first time that he had new baLance running shoes on. And I thought, what is he doing? But then when the doors went open, they just took off and started running. And I was walking, wearing Normal loafers. And then I realized, runnings.

you are own Normal loafers. You're wearing italian loafers.

I miss like the balloon dog guy.

and it's like the running of the balls I .

had on my feet. Brut guys .

know we haven't started .

our now FIFA a fuck .

moderating three two .

i'm sure everybody .

by now has seen a Francis hogan um on sixty minutes .

and testifying uh SHE seemed incredibly credible um well spoken .

and had very common sense non extreme views about what should be happen what should happen with the research that facebook has been funding um that shows like other media forms uh instagram and facebook have A A really terrible effect on Young people, specifically Young girls. And a body is orpha ah which seems to be the one thing that is landing pretty well. Her suggestions we're not to break up facebook. Hers was to have a regulatory body and to do soft interventions.

If you are soft and suggestions were worth and breaking this book.

soft interventions, let's get to that include things like in order to retweet the story on twitter, you probably should read IT first he thinks he wants to reform, or she's an advocate for reforming. Section to third in relation, I think to the algorithms. And the idea here would be that the algorithms are making, uh, an actual editorial decision, uh, which is something that I remember red the youtube early days they said we will not feature your videos, uh, that you're making, but we will have the algorithm pick them because that keeps our safe harbor.

H zuck berg came back and h wrote a spirit defense, uh, basically saying, why would we do this research if we didn't care the people of this company care uh a ton sax and the um uh entire Peter tio cobo of you know actually lights and friends are coming on strong as a pro facebook. I'll have him uh talk about that. He thinks it's a facebook, uh, it's a laugh hable that people are addicted to facebook, yada. So, uh, who wants to go first? You tomato acx.

Well look let me let me see a couple things I think that um I think sucks the title of sucks a internal uh company post could have been title now ah ah which basic we say this is ridiculous and I don't believe IT the the thing that you ask for in substance is a little different than what the D O J did with microsoft in two thousand.

But inform is actually quite similar, which basically is like gummed up how the internal product development would work inside the company. And you know, the most damaging thing you already saw, which is that they had a bunch of plan product releases and then they put them on ice. And I think this is really where, unfortunately.

The most damage gets done because engineers won't really tolerate that for some amount of time, right? They'll put up with IT initially. But you know you've had, uh I don't know, I think like a twenty percent reduction in stock Price.

So you know you lost two hundred billion dollars of market cap. There's probably going to be more turbulence in the company. You can sustain and get through all of IT as long as the engineers hold the line.

But if you basically slow down and put a pin in variability to generate code and to put out features on the margins, enough people I think will get frustrated and leave. And I think the waited SHE, you know what he is asking for was standing out to that. And I think that's the really destructive part of um of what could go on here. So they need to get this pin down quickly, get in front of regulators, get some laws passed whether it's section two thirty or whatever. That's the path to solvent for facebook facts.

What do you what do you think I see you are basically saying this is like ridiculous and silly on twitter. Max elon is saying that, uh, obviously, Peter tiles .

on the board of facebook and I .

affect this story because you that this is.

there's nothing to this. Let's understand what this really was. Okay, you have this so called whistleblower who is working with the staff the senators should committee giving documents to the wall street journal, then appears on sixty minutes in this great unveiling.

Thirty six hours later, she's testifying on capital hill. That does not happen. The senate committees do not Operate that fast.

This was coordinated. She's got a demoted, a well know, a democratic Operative name, bill bert, in working for her. She's got a team of lawyers. She's got A P, R, T.

This by.

this is a coordinated hit, okay, by anti facebook forces, starting with the senate committee who want to regulate. She's working with the staff. J I intercepting.

J you, who you I M hear.

okay. What is the purpose of this testimony? First of all, we can go over the details of what he said. I don't think there was anything new here.

This is all the same arguments you've been hearing from these same sort of forces who want to regulate facebook whether it's the um whether it's the center is on the committee who have hold up zuker g do fewer than four times to elect him about the need for more censorship uh or at these forces in the media who basically want facebook it's all about you know having more censorship uh but event there was nothing really new there um what this really was was CoOperation and of of of the same talking points have been hearing three years and we're in what is all leading up to is there is a very important part of her testimony which is this is really the crux of IT, is that that SHE proposed and what bloom mathew wants sees the chair that just a committee is a dedicated oversight body this is in this clip, okay with a power to oversee social media platform. So what we have here is the government is now going to have a new agency. They're saying, like the ftc.

Then he said, a regulating home where somebody like me could do a tour of duty after working in a place like this. And hog said, right now, the only people the world are trying to analyze these experiments to understand what's happening side of facebook are people who group inside of facebook or entries of other social media company, basically people with her experience. I mean, I have to admire the hut ba, I mean, she's basically proposing that should be made zuker berg's boss, okay, that a new oversight board be created by the government, which he would be appointed to, which he presumedly would run.

And this board is not going to prescribe regulations and rules for social networks in terms of how the news view is going to run. That is what was proposed on capital hill. That is what this Operation is all about.

So it's about her getting a job and being lording over facebook, as you're claim.

No think I think the purpose of all of this to create new regulatory, oversize social networks, I simply would note that he has proposed erself as somebody who would beyond the sport, which is pretty amazing. But what this is really about is that new oversight power.

And is that a republican? Are you insitutional its democrats who want to regulate this? Or all politicians want to regulate this because they're scared of facebook having too much power, which I think we all agree with. Facebook has too much power in in the public.

You had the leve had the leaders on the senate, 就是 committee now for months， calling up zakaria and dorsey and other social media leaders and basically lecturing them on the need to sensor more, to take down more material. That is a objective. This is not a conspiracy theory on my part. This is expressly what they've said. Okay, now until now.

is the right or both.

We come to that, I think little bit confused on this session, but we get to that. So what you've heard until now is, is that is, is attacks on the supply side of the platform. So what they've advocated is d platforming people with heard ox head dox use dissenting voices.

And they have been deep platform in large numbers. Obviously, IT started even before trump, but certainly the sitting president days was deep platform. Youtube just took down a million COVID videos s because they disagree with official position on covered.

So until now, the censorship has been on the supply side of the platform. What they're advocating for now is censorship on the demand side of the platform, which is we're going to rewrite these new feed rules, okay? We're going to rewrite them because we can't give people what they want.

They're making these algorithms sound like they are these incredibly evil minister things. All the algorithms do at the end of the day is give the user more of what they're looking for. okay? That is not good enough for these politicians. They want to rewrite these rules. They want to rewrite these rules to determine what people see.

No, no. What they said about the algorithm was that the algorithm had a multiplier on IT and that this multiple er of people reshef IT reengaged the content would lead people. And this was statistically proven in facebook's own research that things that were either misinformation or that were supercharged uh you uh polar ized issues, they would rise quicker, which then gave people not what they wanted in their feed. They gave people what would increase the length of a stay on facebook or on youtube or on twitter for that matter. And they think the antidote for this is to maybe not allow things in the algorithm to go viral because what you're doing is saying things that are either misinformation or polarizing um or will make .

things go to the top list and maybe not that as a society of the to me, I don't think actually speaks towards really going on IT. Sounds like there's some sinister architecture here that's driving this outcome if you that you well, I mean, it's implied because it's like they are multiplying citizen stuff.

What do i'm saying? They're just care about lengths to stay on the site. Model believes they just wanted to care about revenue. Guess that's my exactly my point.

They care about what consumers want to consume, and consumers demand what they want to consume. So think about media. The old dates, right?

We used to have books that an author would put out every year, and so the author would get feedback on the book. And so that would be one year on that feedback cycle. Then magazines would come out.

Magazines would come out every month. And so every month the magazine would get feedback on what sales were, and they would make decisions at a toyo decisions, and they would interact. TV shows came out every week, newspapers came out every day.

Cable T. V. Came out every hour. And they could adjust their content accordingly. In the internet age, the media is getting a much more cut, of instance, tanee feedbacks, ycl.

And the call IT publisher or editor or curator of that media ultimately ends up putting in front of the consumer more and more of what they want as a function of what they're choosing to watch and what we're calling kind of these algorithms, quote on quote, are really just the same thing that editors and publishers and others have done in the past, which is looking at what the consumer votes by what they choose, making decisions to put more of the things that they want in front of them. The consumer consumes more of that. And here's what's mess up.

We're getting a very ugly look in the mirror and what humanity and what citizens and what individuals actually want to consume and choose to consume and get turned on by. And that is what's making this also ugly. And when we see that, we don't like to accept the fact that maybe that is just what humans are attracted to him, what humans want to consume, scale, and we end up wanting to blame someone. And I could argue, and I think others could argue, that these algorithms that are effectively just recursive optimization functions that recursively trying to figure out what do people want to consume and then giving them more of what they ep solving for those very specific needs and and use cases. And and I don't think of those other thus.

are this good to up? Why is that not want acting? The I everything .

facebook says is absolutely right. But it's not the word want. It's not what they want. It's what they will react to the most and sometimes what they react to the most. And I don't know, but my point is that there's there's A I guess I don't I don't use facebook, but they went from thumbs up and throw down. I was there to like this nuances, like there's likes there's tears, there's angry shares .

data on engagement, right? Like on how some watching a video .

or what I saw there was that there is an amplification of things that were more extreme emotional reactions right now. And and the point is that I think everything you said is absolutely right. The algorithms are amplifying. I think of all I would say, I would restate what you think is these algorithms tend to amplify the things that are the most extreme and illicit itor reaction. Yeah, those reactions aren't necessarily the things that you want, those of the things that you will react to the most.

And that, by the way.

aletha s that's why you see that the top ten things that are required, the most often tends to be very extreme.

right? Fundamental emotional responses are typically associated what things that I think we call hedonism, and the things that you can ignore your emotional responses and take another course of action we typically call alterum ism or what have you. This is a, uh, kind of a common reason why people would want to watch a committee or watch a horror film because there is some emotional response.

It's not a universal response, and people aren't rushing to the feather to watch documentaries. They're not rushing to the movie theory to be like, go. I want to be informed and educated on something that's factual and interesting. They want to go and have emotional experiences and attack. Humans are biologically wired, and the same is happening in these short forms of media, these little tweet.

Or do you understand that they won't show murders and poor on facebook? So though making an editor decision to say, hey.

we're not going to night on the local news, if IT blead IT leads that, how long has that been the model in media? So i'm listening i'm listening to hoggin on sixty minutes. I'm hearing her described a corporate profit making machine that tries to get more reach, more ratings by fueling polar ization division.

And i'm thinking she's talking about cable news. That's what she's talking about. Isn't SHE? Is he talking about the new york times? Is he talking about distal media? Because every single thing he said about how social media feels, corporation and division applies to the media.

And yet the same voices in the social media, the first ones hawing about facebook and calling for its regulation IT, is completely hypo critical. Because the real purpose here is not to reduce divisive ness, polarization or society. The regulations on facebook will not do that.

IT is to cease control and influence over the machinery of social networking. why? Because the news feed now controls the flow of information in our society.

Don't you think the damage has been done though? Meaning in the sense that if you cripple facebooks product velocity and you shrink the surface area of the areas in which they can Operate, isn't that more damaging than any regulation?

No, people will just stop using IT and then .

they will find another place to get me. I've already stop using facebook. okay?

I don't find IT compelling at all. I'm not really an instagram either. I do find twitter rather compelling, and i'm probably .

more jx than other things.

Yeah, of the rails find .

out very good for me. Okay, but here's a thing. I think I think all of us on the show right now, none of us find facebook quickly addictive in our own behavior.

okay? I think we understand in our own behavior that facebook is sort of like a mildly diverting amusement that occasionally yields information. Sometimes it's useful, okay? We understand that it's sort of like a new city with a lot of noise, okay, in our own usage.

But somehow we've bought into this larger narrative that in everybody else's usage, that somehow this is a brain washing machine that is pumping people full of disinformation and watering they are thinking, in other words, there's a sharped eec omy between how we perceive our own usage and other people's usage. And what I would submit is our own usage is what we know and what we know to be true. And what we believe about other people's usage is simply a narrative that's been fed to us over and over again by the traditional media who hate facebook because is this remediating them? That is what's really going on.

Here you be right. I'm saying something different, which is getting apart from all of that stuff, what's happening practically on the ground right now is that is a company who has to now slow way down. And what i'm saying is that's not the similar to what microsoft had to do, which was there was a ten year period, microsoft, where they really couldn't innovate.

And that's really how the government solve the microsoft problem. Yet they made them less aggressive, right? They gummed up the internal machinery so that microsoft couldn't really be there for the next few major. So for example, the which spent we just spent forty minutes talking about critter, what do you think the chances are that you know facebook now .

can land a really compelling crypto project? I know after it's too old .

for to watch that after what with their behavior in other arenas.

I think that like microsoft back in the the late nineties, I think there are a real legitimate concerns about the power of these big tech companies, about how power, how big and powerful they're become, about their ability to crush competitors. I think those are all legitimate. And in a weird way, if this government screw tiny, slows those companies down, that's not altogether bad thing.

But I am concerned about that. I'd say separately, just because these companies do deserve to be scrutinised more, I do think that we have to see that the people who are engaged in this really coordinated hit campaign against facebook, they have other, they have another agenda, and that is control the flow of information online. IT is to control online discourse. It's already been happening over the past year with censorship on the supply side of the news feed, and now they are trying to control the demand side. I think we have to be extremely worry about this.

Well, David isn't you've been on the other side of this because on previous pocket, you've talked about facebook being too having too many users. And now you're saying, well, these tiny little news networks that get a couple of low million.

he has he has an issue action with the way in which they're going after facebook.

Okay, I get that he thinks it's a coordinated hit, fine, but you also have had an issue with facebook having too much power to take somebody off the platform or to promote certain ideas. So which is IT IT seems like you're A A little .

bit more can be true.

It's perfect, consistent. I've expressed concerns about the way in which facebook is is deep platforming people. It's similarly silencing them and ghosting them. IT is engaged in censorship. I've expressed concern about that, but we should understand that the people in the senate jewish committee who hold up who who had this hearing, who featured in spotlighted hogan and turned her into this great hero, their agenda is even more censorship. They are complaining about the fact that facebook is not censoring enough and that is what their reliance da is.

I do think IT should have been disclosed that hogan does stand gain financially from whatever happened you.

I don't know that that's been confirmed that there is a whistle blower reward here. So we'll have to wait and see about that. I haven't heard there. No.

until there's a fine, but craft is right that SHE qualify if she's a whistle, lower SHE qualifies for what thirty percent for .

you be here that what would fine be? How would that be framed?

Just getting started. There are going to they're going to government actions and there will be settings from those government actions. And and facebook, as you all know, we will pay any kind of fine to put this .

behind you are the one that said, jon, they spent five billion just so that they wouldn't. Sepa can. Shero, right?

That's what you said last week. We talked about last week. So I yes, I think there's a fine coming.

But be honest, I do not think lena uh, or gary against are any of these other folks are going to be in the business of making a quick decision. Nor the D O J, nor any these other folks. You're gonna to really take their time to figure this out.

But what i'm saying is it's not the ultimate result of IT because again, I go back to that, if you look at what happened in two thousand and microsoft, the substance of what microsoft had to agree to was was ultimately not as bad as the way in which was implemented, which is that, you know, my understanding was like microsoft had to submit feature reviews to lawyers at the D. O. J, who would then approve, you know, updates an upgrade to their code base for things like windows.

That's what caused them to miss an entire wave of compute. And so this is the this is the point, which is, I think, practically speaking, the beginning of what microsoft went through facebook is gonna to navigate. And so the faster they can try to say, all right folks, you're right, you caught us who let us tell us what to do, may be actually that the Better path because IT allows them to get past that because longer this this this period of like grey stretches out, I think is is actually the worst outcome.

Well, let's go through what we each think would be a possible solution here to allowing free speech to occur on facebook, but maybe not having the things that, you know fake news, uh, you know, misinformation, you know, maybe lowing down the rhetoric and the charge nature of the algorithm freeboard. You have any common sense solution here that might address both sides of the issue, freedom of speech, and maybe things being amplified to one hundred million people that are fake.

just simply have talked a lot about this notion of like decentralized social network somewhere. We haven't talked a lot. We talk a little bit about IT.

But um if you end up putting a regulatory hammer down on facebook and twitter and telling them what consumers, and remember, these guides aren't media creators. There are platforms effectively for search, discovery and access. So you as an individual can discover third party content on their platform.

If they start putting the regulatory hammer down on these cotton core platform, telling them what they can and cannot make available to their users, there will be another platform that will emerge. And that platform end up being in this kind of decentralized model. And in that decentralized model, you're not going to a have the same degree of regulatory, and that system will end up solving the same use case.

Eventually, consumers will get what they want, which is, you know what your mother called kind of this emotional response. Listening this emotional reaction, they will consume IT until they, you know, achieve one of the kind of seven deadly scenes objective, which is what striving, the emotion, underscoring their decisions on what to watch, what to consume and, uh, and there will be an alternative. So, you know, go ahead and play vocable all.

You'll play walking all for a few years, maybe a few decades. But at the end of the day, digital technology in a connected world will drive consumers to exactly where they will naturally find themselves, which is consuming even more of the things that create the most response to them. My consequence ces are unfortunate.

Um you know I don't know what the right solution is. The we've to some degree put a regulating hammer down on things like uh, smoking and uh uh in some places, things like sugar, things that have kind of a, you know an obvious effect on our physical uh, health. Uh, these other things that we're seeing now, we're having an effect, our mental health and H, I think that there may be kind of an emerging regulatory a regime around mental health standards and how much of things can be consumed.

And I think what we're seeing as the leading indicator of this is what's gone on in china because china is the nation that I would say is probably at the forefront of research and understanding of what the consequences are of consuming more or more of media content that causes an emotional response to you and what happens down the road. isolation. Only this suicide rates go up, unhappiness eeta, it's certainly is the consequence.

But it's not a function of any individual companies um this convention of content to consumers. It's just a function of where these systems end up going because of the way humans are biologically wired. Um and so I guess my my first concern is maybe we end up in A D central system that ends up replacing all of these tools and this just doesn't end or you and the passing IT could be worse or .

you having these kind of regulatory and a solution that Better in one no, it's Better in one key way, which is that it's fundamentally harder to create the exact same neuroptera density that you can have with one monolithic system. So you you're much more likely to actually have a very fragmented ecosystem of hundreds of different solutions depending on what of the scenes you want to feed or you know what of the feelings you want to feel at any one time.

I think it's a big assumption that IT would be a fragment in network if you did replicate facebook on a decentish zed platform. And then some piece of misinformation came out and I trended all the way in. Number one, like say, the january six interaction in internal to that is not network. There's not one one if one network became so large and there is nobody who could turn off something, what if people said, hey, there's a ride going on at the capital and more people showed up with more guns, right? You have nobody sit there and say, hey, don't go to the capital, turn those trending post office had sex.

okay. So let's let's time about this problem of this information. Okay, I think there's an old mark twin quote saying that the alien travell around the world faster than the truth can put on its shoes.

okay? There is a problem of false wood spreading online. I agree with you there. The question is what you do about IT and the problem we have right now is that is that truth isn't that by either the holder there is no truth API.

And so at the end of the day, it's the people in power who get to decide what is true and what is false if you give them the power to sense or misinformation. Example, we just saw we talk about this program, the rolling turn. Iver m provably false story.

And he, yet Rachel metal still had IT up on her post. SHE was not sanctioned by emb. C twitter never told her to take IT down and he was not factor ked.

However, the hundred by and laptop scandal or story, which came out the new york post to publish for the election, turned out for approval. True story. And yet IT was taken down by facebook and twitter. At the end of the day, this term of misinformation is just another vector for partisan attack, and they will be used by whoever we give the power to to decide what this information is.

So what is the answer then, to this point of false ge spreading online? Well, at the end of the day, the answer to that speeches, more speech, you try to create a free marketplace of ideas to let, to let the good speech ultimately drive out the best feature proves that it's wrong. That's the best you can do, that the best you can do in a free society.

yes. But, uh, this is the first time of free society has had social networks that can reach a billion people instantly, you know, an hour. So I think there is one differentiator there are that we must think of.

If somebody defines you want a social network, they are absolutely liable. I mean, you can sue them, okay? But I think and you should.

And I think we talked about cancel culture. People are just before they even get their day in court.

I think I think that's destroy for different. I think if somebody because IT trends.

if he didn't, if he couldn't trend to so many people, IT wouldn't leave lead to the cancellable ation and destruction of somebody y's life. If you've talked about that many times yourself, if somebody labels you.

I think they should be you should be able to sue them. I think I think we could actually, we could have a libel gy, more like the U. K.

Where is easier to prove these cases in court. And people are much more careful about the seeing other people. I would be very much in favor of that, okay, because deformation is not free speech.

But the question really is about really we're talking about non defamed tory statement that somebody in a positive power is excited is not true. Many of these statements are subjective. Dave porter oy got labeled for his subjective opinion about aoc's dress.

Why did that happen? And why is that kind of labelling only use to protect one side of the political spectrum? So I mean, that was really going on here.

Let's with this. Has anybody watch appelles? The closer I did.

incredible.

I, I, I watched IT.

Pretty incredible. I mean, fearless.

Fearless is a word I was really um I think that he slightly messed because I think he could have really actually called about cancer culture and voguish more I think he kindly left IT a little bit to me where I was like a little I don't know I I just didn't think there was good as as other ones that I felt like he didn't really make the point he wanted to make IT was a little comply somebody who can actually stand up and and and actually you know be more certificate and tell the story of why all this cancer culture and defamed tory statements and judging people doesn't make sense but he seem he didn't he didn't get the job on IT follow but well.

did I see this about the performance? Did he seem quality timely, different than you in that the other times he seemed very light on his feet, you know, having a good time, being a comedian, and this time he felt like he was personally hurt, or he was, wasn't comedy, he was less. He felt less.

Committee, I agree. I felt like he had an agenda. He was heard, he wanted to get some stuff off his chest.

And there were some jokes in between, which is very different, like the percentage of jokes. And this is like twenty percent in the like, heavy on max max. And then the other ones were eighty percent jokes, twenty percent social commentary.

This felt like he, he was actually really hurt. And like, I do not say bitter, but just fed up, maybe frustrated. He had a chip which made IT interesting to me.

you know, in the, in the early two thousand shapes, for me was really important, because he was an advocate for minorities. And I felt scene and protected bush peel and and I thought that was really important. And then his his comedy was just so sharp.

Oh yeah.

And I said, I just think that I was a little bit of an opportunity last. yeah. I I think if he had really actually taken you know IT to its conclusion, he would have actually there are just too many uncomfortable .

moments in nothing IT was super uncomfortable at times and I really would like to see you again um because you know if you just think about his career, you know him talking about police brutality, him talking about race in a very fearless, you know entertaining but also informative way and just being a truth teller yeah this was a so uncomfortable times I agree with that.

I need to watch IT again and I need to let that sit because I was just on that flix. It's the last in this track. I mean, this could be I almost felt like he was trying to break netflix because he does seem to have a he does seem to have a streak in him where he's like, okay, i'm gonna walk away from comedy central and he does seem to burn the boats.

They felt like he was burn in the boats with netflix to me. I don't know if you got that vibe where he was like, this is the last one and being cancelled after this fuck you all am out um and he has that I mean, he torched IT sacks. I mean, you are going to watch this thing.

Definitely watching. I not seen that, yes, but I am definitely watching.

I watch IT tonight. I give you a fifty percent chance that netflix takes IT down this .

watch IT quickly.

Everybody was screaming for him to be deplorable. M, everybody was streaming. Well, I like IT even more.

You know, one of the ironic things about these warning labels, I ve noticed if they arted become a badge of honor, where, you know, if if the, if the hall one is a twitter trying to label your tweet as as you being in Cindy ury, maybe it's just interesting.

right?

It's yeah exactly. So you know, I was listening to, uh, interior Garcia Martinez interview, a comment on on calling and they labelled that I mean, just the post that they were going to have a conversation.

You're saying the link to IT was even flagged as, like all my lord, I think there needs to be uh, a netflix for a comedy where it's only subscription and it's owned by the comedians like if dc pal were to create his own netflix, I think IT gets ten million pates of ribs over the overnight. Now, overnight, overnight. Okay, we second I S on this, we go to help.

And this, here's twenty five million dollars will set up the tech team, he said. All the all last k heart at last for this weekend. I think that yeah you get k heart, you get chapel, you get sign file. Do you get, um now do you get luli C, K and there or C K from?

I got funny. I got for me what I mean, you know, funny, you know funny. Have you got any application?

Guy roney, he's on, uh, there's a great netflix special on him. He is fucked and funny and a joe coy. Joe coy is very funny.

Yeah I think the special .

his legit but I mean.

I this would be a great way for them to just control their destiny and not have to worry about cancer culture because I think a lot of .

the folks who are on they are probably the the last line of people that actually will be the defenders of free speech.

Yeah, it's pretty scary. As much as I think facebook should be more thoughts about their algorithm, uh, you know, back to, you know circling netflix and censorship back to the facebook issues, I just think facebook should say he, listen, we've thrown the algorithm so that any one piece of content can only reach this many people over this period of time. And yeah, sure, that's gonna lower our time outside of whatever.

But we want things to have a little bit of time to spread and get fact. Does anybody think that that's a good idea to say just you know, if you're trying to cancel somebody instead of a going to number one on trending topics before the persons of trial? The algorithm just take a little bit of time to propagate content.

Here's what I can tell you conclusively. If facebook wanted to solve these issues in the ways that the government expects in their head with these problems to be solved, facebook mark cap will be two hundred and fifty billion dollars, and the'd have a million people working there, the company. So this is not an issue of whether it's possible.

The question is, zip, right? And does IT actually getting the solution, or does IT, just as freedom said, create, walk come, some play sales? And so, you know, I don't know what obliterating three quarters of a trillion dollars of market cap will do, but I suspect that the government is gonna want to find out sex.

You think that throttle the the velocity of the algorithm so that news doesn't spread as fast and violent, which could be misinformation, could be valid information. Do you think that's a possible solution?

I think just closing .

the algorithm maybe with both .

facebook and twitter, you only see stuff from people who you're following or your friends with. It's actually not sure what you mean if things .

they will insert stuff into your twitter algorithm. Now that's a Jason to you and facebook and well.

may be maybe if people respond to someone who you're following. But i've never seen anything my twitter feed other than an add that's not from somebody I follow.

So the trending topics.

no, you the .

explore feed, okay, no, put you the more fees right there and they are surfacing things in your feed now that are not people who follow.

But and what they're really doing, okay, is there's a university people who you're following or your friends with and you could to see all that content in a reverse cholos ical feed, but that would be too much to be.

oh, work. Yeah.

exactly. I get IT. That was fine. I didn't. I like IT. okay. But as you're following thousands of people now, there's too much content.

And so they will simply surface the tweet that you are most likely to one interact with. I don't believe, by the way, that those tweet are necessarily the ones that make you angry. I think I think for some people, IT is clearly, but it's not certainly not the case in my case.

What I would say is it's more to find them. That is the tweet that you think are interesting is the tweet that perhaps express a sense of outrage. That agrees with your sense of outrage is a little different than anger, but it's basically the subsidy content that you, through your reveal preferences have shown facebook or twitter that, that you care about the most.

And that's basically what they're doing. They're giving the consumer more of what they want. And I think that we've blown this thing so far up proportion.

I mean, yeah, there's an analogy that is addictive, but I think that has been blown so far. proportion. We've exaggerated the fear beyond any reasonable recognition.

By the way, I think the I think the reason that that tweet was flagged, i'm guessing, is that in the tweet, a camel says he's going to talk about critical race theory and that may be why the conversations like this can be intense. That I says that are coming .

off and looks like two people fighting or whatever. I just think it's sort of ridiculous um you know this is worth like .

the world a little yes, it's a little .

condescending .

and expert inly me I got the APP i'm not done the here is. A very and out for me here is my. Brother said, I am smart.

not what they say. No to you.

freeburg and sax, that .

you won't make the .

journey down to the game. This is like some sort of, David, uh.

protest here for no limit.

The rules are protesting.

I will come back. I will, I will start playing again. If we, if we get the game going on like a, what's the focus on yo?

You nothing going on.

Yeah, you have nothing going on. Sex.

family.

stay in the come.

See your fucking friends. Place some cars for some money. We're not playing B, L, O. No, no. I mean, we did at the end just to get sky's money, but just keeps sky there for another thirty minutes .

since he was flying.

When you crumble, I see the new, uh, i'm really excited to see the new Daniel crag double. So I can't believe that.

And you still rent the entire movie theater .

for like fifty box.

three hundred box pending mic was three hundred and hundred done at the .

last two times. I went with the girls because he was first .

run movies in the theatres. Pretty .

empty.

The taxi data.

he's got sexy data is Better because you have a chef there will make food. But you and for those of you asking about the all in summit sex and I are leading the charge for a february or April, we ve got a couple of locations. Thank you.

Everybody sent us location ideas. Two days, uh, two hundred fifty people, two hundred pay tickets, fifty by scholarship. And you go to the all in website. When we have information, we will post IT there.

But we're just in the planning phase right now, but we're thinking two days, right? Yeah two days, throon summer and then five hours of content. So like that a day, we each interview people yeah and then we're done, okay?

Miami is the holst city and will draw high card for who picks the next city to moth. You said you're picking something in italy to probably pick my romanus roman Venus. I'm gna probably pick new york for mine or Austin and then freeze. Where would you pick napper or something?

Marine county.

Oh, wow, what's everybody wants to go? Great and go to anti va time.

Fuck you. Free per now wow.

what a destination.

a free gram would you pick?

Um so who I would do in miami first is right?

Miami y's first. Then we draw a high card for the next city who gets a pec nexi. Each party pets for four years, each party pets. And if we go twice ce a year, even Better.

I mean, i'd probably split IT between london and london and somewhere in hawaii 耶。

How why is an inspired choice? Can you imagine two hundred fifty to generate london's iconic classic? But london, we we will take over over miami is freaking out .

over animals, boys, i've bring you out anibal's. That's incredible. That that member's problem is I think the most over the top thing i've ever see you.

you're referencing something that no one knows .

what you're talking, nobody know you the members .

because because you can't drink .

alcohol after like nine P M, I must it's a private club.

Ah alright, we will see you all next time on the all in page as here to another fifty. Everybody, first fifty done. Love guys, let's get another .

fifty in the book.

Rain man, give IT.

We open sources to the fans and .

just got crazy with.

We should all just get a room, just have one big huge org because like sexual attention. 想到。

B.