All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

E107: The Twitter Files Parts 1-2: shadow banning, story suppression, interference & more

E107: The Twitter Files Parts 1-2: shadow banning, story suppression, interference & more

Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:29

(0:00) Bestie gut health!

(2:17) Twitter Files Part 2: shadow banning and blacklisting entire accounts and topics; how content moderation was handled at other tech giants

(33:09) Twitter Files Part 1: Suppressing the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story

(47:30) China effectively ends Zero-Covid policies, Iran, China, and Japan demographics

(58:27) Kevin O'Leary defends FTX on CNBC, was paid $15M as a spokesperson; Sinema flips to Independent

Follow the besties:

Follow the pod:

Intro Music Credit:

Intro Video Credit:

Referenced in the show:

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

You were bloated last night. What else is now? It's not bloated. My god. You really are though. You look bloated. Listen, that's coming from you You started to look like Bert and now you're back to Ernie your face is getting round again All I have to say is hold on a second guys. I got to get a drink. Is it okay? You guys got a minute for me to get a drink? Yeah, yeah, I definitely do. I definitely do go ahead hold on a second here No, no, I'm actually you know, I've been working on my weight So I'm just gonna pick here. I think I have the mocha latte from super god And I also have the chocolate shake. Do you have a recommendation here for me Friedberg? Because I'm gonna put it in my coffees mocha on a mocha. Is that wrong? You can't go wrong. Thank you double mocha's a win Just on a completely unrelated topic. Did you happen to invest in super god checkout? No, no, no I haven't invested yet, but use the promo code Okay, it's been a big part of my weight loss journey It's also been a big part of me and Friedberg Becoming besties and creating a unified block for all in summit 2023. So I've got two solid votes I'll be very honest with you guys give me a credible plan Where we can maintain the If you two idiots I'm not involved yes, you clearly are involved with it with this fucking great important vote hold on No, I'm writing this in a running attempt if you two idiots the two you have to do this together because otherwise I'm with David and there's a Got it you two idiots It's to come up with a plan Where we can each make Make four million bucks each net then I'll do it four million net. Okay great look at jckel writing that down as as if he respects a contract Okay, got this guy. Did I sign the fucking car? I signed the contract for jckel the negotiate should begin at the point where there's a sign contract Yes Okay, now negotiate with you All right everybody the show has started the four of us are still here By some miracle we're still going after a hundred seven episodes and it's better than ever last week. We're at number 12 So main tree media hmm We'll see you in the top 10 Here we go Twitter files part one and right despite your oppressive conditions. Yes, they go. We're not Making you sure what time yeah, if I was getting five but paid five bucks for this I'd be on strike right now Guys not only are you getting five bucks? You're getting a bill for the production. Okay, here we go By the way, how beautiful is it that the same reporters who couldn't stop writing about the oppressive working conditions that Elon Musk was supposedly creating Because he simply wanted the employees to go back to the office and work hard And if they didn't he'd give him a generous three months severance package. Yeah, those same reporters are now on strike Because the soulsburgers are running a clickbait farm over there with oppressive working conditions the intellectual dishonesty has never been higher in the world Yeah, I would like to actually honesty. Yes, will the publisher of the New York Times agree that anybody who isn't happy There can have a voluntary three month severance package. Yeah, I clicked this link and do you want to work hard or do you want three month severance? If the New York Times publisher did that you know it would happen 800 of 1200 people would take the severance Of course All right, here we go Twitter files have dropped part one dropped with the legendary Award-winning highly respected journalist Matt Taibi if you don't know who he is He is a left-leaning journalist who worked at Rolling Stone and did the best coverage hands down of the financial crisis and the shenanigans and he held truth to power to that group This is important to note The second drop was given to Barry Weiss who is a right-leaning independent journalists These are both independent journalists she previously worked at the New York Times itself now I think we should work backwards From two to one do you agree? Yes, for sure. Let's start with the drop that has happened last night. Yes, so last night a drop happened so Here's what happens in Twitter files part two I'm gonna give a basic summary and then I'm gonna give it to sax because he's chomping at the bit We now have confirmation that What the right thought was happening all along which is a secret silencing system built into the software of Black lists was tagging right wing conservative voices in the system and These included people like Dan Bungino is that your pronounce it? Yes He was tagged with being on a search black list What that means is you're a fan of of Dan's who is a former secret service agent who is now a right wing conservative I could just say conservative instead of wing a conservative radio host podcast host He was not allowed to be found in search engines for some reason Charlie Kirk who is a conservative commentator he was tagged with do not amplify. I guess that means you can't trend into people's feeds even if they follow you and then There were people who were banned from the trends black list including a Stanford professor Jay bought to Charia did I get it right? Yes, Jay about a charia beta. Okay. I got it right doctor at Stanford school medicine and he was Not allowed on the trends black list because he had a dissenting opinion a Stanford professor had a dissenting opinion on COVID that's turned out to be true And this is where the danger comes in because all of these actions were taken without any transparency and They were taken on one side of the aisle by people inside of Twitter Essentially covertly no ownership of who did it and they never told the people they guess lit them They could see their own tweets They could use the service, but they couldn't be seen even by their own fans in many cases here Sachs when you look at that let's just start with that first piece The shadow banning as it's called in our industry where you can participate in a community, but you can't be seen Are any is there any circumstance under which this tool would make sense for you to deploy and then what your general take on what has been discovered last night? Okay, look what was question. Yes, let me start with what's been discovered here. Let me boil it down for you This is an FTX level fraud Except that what was stolen here was not customer funds. It was their free speech rights Not just the rights of people like Jay Bonnacharya and Dan Bongino to speak But the right of the public to hear them in the way that they expected okay, and you had statement after statement by Twitter executives like Jack Dorsey like Vagiyaggadi like You know, you know well and others saying we do not shadow ban and then they also said we certainly this is their emphasis Do not shadow ban on the base of political viewpoint and what the Twitter file show is that is exactly what they were doing They in the same way that SBF was using FTX and customer funds is a personal piggy bank they were using Twitter as their personal Ideological piggy bank they were going in to the tools and using the content moderation system these big brother-like tools that were designed To basically put their thumb on the scale of American democracy and Suppress viewpoints that they did not agree with and they did not like even when Even when they could not justify Removing content based on their own rules so there are conversations in the slack that Barry wise exposed where for example Libs of TikTok they admit in the slack that we can't suppress Libs of tip talk based on our hate policy Libs of TikTok hasn't violated it. We're gonna suppress that account anyway Now it's important to note what Libs of TikTok does. This is a great talking point Libs of TikTok finds people who are trans people who are you know, maybe not LGBTQ and And they feature their TikToks and they mock them on Twitter now. This certainly is free speech and The argument from the safety team was by putting all of these together You're inciting violence towards those people and they said they haven't broken a rule but collectively They could be in some way Targeting those people is there anything fair freeberg to that statement Let they targeted them by collecting their let's say views that are I'm asking this question for discussion purposes I'm not giving my take out hold on I want freeberg I can't finish I'm gonna go back to you spoke for two minutes. That's why Friedberg you turned down moderating today sacks you could Everybody else is just as long as they want I get interrupted you got two minutes Let me just finish the SPF let me just finish the SPF analogy, okay? Then you can then you can both sides this is no more a sacks while you're speaking with one or two words on you and then yeah Good. Why did people like God and you'll well deny that they were engaged in shadow banning even though That's clearly what they were doing because they knew that they had an obligation To be stewards of the public trust they were custodians of public trust They knew they were violating that trust the same way that SPF had a duty to be custodians of his customers funds They did not implement their own policy that they said they were implementing why because they were Suppressing accounts that personally offended them that personally they disagreed with and they wanted to deprive the public of the right to hear Okay, so now the way that they're justifying this one on the way that the media is today Justifying it is they're pointing to obscure provisions in the terms of use around spam accounts things like that saying Oh well the terms of you show that they had the right to do this This is like the margin account. Okay, they did not have the right to use these tools in this way Okay, Jay Balocharya was not posting spam Professor It doesn't yes, and You know you've been proven correct completely you was opposed to lockdowns That was the great Burrington Declaration and they suppressed it. What is the justification for now? You have to answer my question then sacks Since you want to talk so much hold on. I want you to answer the question then since you are so interested in talking I want him to answer one question then it's going to you free bird sacks should lives of TikTok be able to collect Trans people Living their life making TikToks put them into a group feed mock them and If those people experience harassment because of it is that something that Twitter should allow I'm asking you this without giving my opinion I'm curious your opinion specifically for the lives of TikTok since you open that door and you wanted to bring up that very thorny issue go Listen, so on lives of TikTok my understanding of that account is that they only take videos that have already been made public by another account They're all public they're all in the public domain and then they repost them sometimes they make a snarky comment But usually they just let them stand on their own that is not a violation of free speech now the way that I think these Twitter executives Have interpreted it is that they live in such a bubble and they live in with such privilege and entitlement that they think that when Their point of view gets criticized or challenged that that in and of itself is harassment that's not that is public debate And they want to make themselves and their points of view immune to public debate and the way that they do that is that they claim that any criticism is harassment it's not If an aggregate final final follow up if an aggregate those people report being harassed and have evidence of being harassed what you Twitter do Listen, if somebody is harassed I'm fine with taking that down, but being publicly criticized or simply retweeted is not harassment Okay, harassment needs to be targeted and it needs to be more than just public criticism or even a snarky comment here or there And so you don't consider a not you know a Dally feed of trans people being mocked you don't consider that target harassment got it Don't listen to me about it listen to Twitter's own slack files about it Yeah, they knew that the account that lives of Tik Tok was not violating the rules yet They suppressed that they suspended it six times. They knew they were on shaky ground. They wanted to do it anyway Why because they know because they're poor Recreasing harassment. That's why they did it, but it is a thorny freedom of speech. I agree with you I think I think I think sacks has Articulated a vision for the product he wanted Twitter to be but I don't think that's necessarily the product that they wanted to create It's not that Twitter set out at the time or stated clearly that they were gonna be the harbinger of truth and the free speech platform for all I think they were really clear and they have been in their behavior and as you know demonstrated through this stuff that came out Which to me feels a lot like we already knew all this stuff. This is a bit of a nothing burger that they were curating and they were Editing and they were editorializing other people's content and the ranking of content in the same way that many other internet platforms do to create what they believe to be their best user experience For the users that they want to appeal to and I'll say like there's been this long debate And it goes back 20 years at this point on how Google does ranking right? I mean you guys may remember Jeremy Staubelman went to DC and he complained about how Google was using his content and he wasn't being ranked high enough as Google's own content that was being Shove in the wrong place and there's a guy who ran kind of he was a spokesperson for the SEO the search engine optimization rules At Google and it was always the secret at Google How do the search results get ranked and I can tell you it's not just a pure algorithm that there was a lot of manual intervention a lot of manual work In fact the manual work gets to be the to the point that they said there's so much stuff that we know is a is the best content and the best Form of content for the user experience that they ranked it all the way at the top and they called it the one box It's the stuff that sits above the primary search results and that editorialization ultimately led to a product that they intended to make because they believed It was a better user experience for the users that they wanted to service and I don't think that that this is any different than what's happened at Twitter Twitter is not a government agency. They're not a free speech. They're not the internet They're a product and the product managers and the people that run that that product team Ultimately made some editorial decisions that said this is the content we do want to show and this is the content We don't want to show and they certainly did wrap up You know a bunch of rules that had a lot of leeway for what they could or couldn't do or they gave themselves a lot of different excuses on how to do it I don't agree with it. It's not the product. I want it's not the product. I think I think I should exist I think Elon also saw that and clearly he stepped in and said I want to make a product that is a different product than what is being created today So none of this feels to me like these guys were the guardians of the internet and they came along and they were distrustful They did exactly what they what a lot of other companies have done exactly what they set out to do and they editorialized a product for a certain youth Or group and by the way they never blocked they never edited people's tweets They changed how people's results were showing up in rankings They showed how viral they would get in the trend box those were in-app features and in-app services This was not about taking someone's tweet and changing it and people may feel ashamed and they may feel You know upset about the fact that they were D ranked or they were kind of quote shadow band but ultimately That's the product they chose to make and people have the choice and the option of going elsewhere And I don't agree with it and it's not the product I want and it's not a product I want to use and I certainly don't feel happy seeing it But so you want to see the product in you want free work to to summarize it you want to see the free market do its job Chimath you worked at Facebook Facebook seems to have done I would say an excellent job with content moderation I think in large part correct me if I'm wrong because of the real names policy But you tell us what you think you know when you look at this and the 15 year history of social media and moderation I think moderation is incredibly difficult and typically what happens is Early on in a company's life cycle and I I'm gonna guess that Twitter and YouTube were very similar to what we did at Facebook and it's very similar to probably what TikTok had to do in the early days which is You have this massive tidal wave of usage and so you're always on a little bit of a hamster wheel And so you build these very basic tools and you uncover problems along the way and so I think it's important to Humanize the people that are a Twitter because I'm not sure that they're these super nefarious actors per se I do think that they were conflicted. I do think that they made some very corrupting decisions But I don't think that they were these evil actors, okay? I think that they were folks who Against the tidal wave of usage Build some brittle tools built on top of them built on top of it some more and tried to find a way of coping and as scale Increased They didn't have an opportunity to take a step back and reset and I think that that's true for all of these companies And so you're just seeing it out in the light What's happening at Twitter? But don't for a second think that any other company behaved any differently Google Facebook Twitter Byte dance and TikTok. They're all the same. They're all dealing with this problem and they're all probably trying to do A decent job of it as best as they know how so what do we do from here is the question, okay? The reason somebody needs to do something about this is Summarized really elegantly in this J. Bhattacharya tweet So please Nick just throw it up here so that we can just talk about this This is why I think that this issue is important Critically, there's a perfect way still trying to process my emotions on learning that Twitter blacklisted me Okay, who cares about that? Here's what matters the thought that will keep me up tonight censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures and And a generation of children were hurt now just think about that in a nutshell What was J. Bhattacharya to do maybe he was supposed to go on TikTok and try to sound the alarm bells through a TikTok Maybe he was supposed to go on YouTube and create a video maybe he was supposed to go on Facebook and You know post into a Facebook group or or do a newsfeed post The the problem is that and the odds are reasonably likely that a lot of these companies had very similar policies in this example around COVID misinformation because it was the CDC and You know governmental organizations directing you know Information and rules reaching out to all of these companies, right? So we're just seeing an insight into Twitter, but the point is it happened everywhere The implication of suppressing information like this is that a credible individual like that can't spark a public debate and In not being able to spark the debate you have this building up of errors in the system and then who gets hurt in this example Which is true is like you couldn't even talk about school closures and masking Up front and early in the system if you had scientists actually debate it Maybe what would have happened is we would have kept the schools open and you would have had less learning loss and you'd have less depression and Less over prescription of you know riddle in an adder all because those are all factual things we can measure today So I think the important thing to take away from all of this is we've got confirmatory evidence that whether they're you know these folks under a tidal wave of pressure made some really bad decisions And the implications are pretty broad reaching and now I do think governments have to step in and create better guardrails So this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I don't buy the whole it's a you know private company they can do what they want I think that that is 2 naive of an expectation for how important these three companies literally are To how Americans consume and process information to make decisions incredibly well said sacked your reaction to your besties I largely agree with what Jamal said, but let's go back to what freeberg's sex I think what freeberg's point of view is is really what you're hearing out from the mainstream media today Which is oh nothing to see here You know that they told us all along what was happening This was just content moderation they the right to do this you're making a big deal over nothing No, that's not true go back and look at the media coverage starting in 2018 Article after article said that this idea of shadow banning was a right wing conspiracy theory That's what they said furthermore jack Dorsey denied that shadow banning was happening including at a congressional hearing I believe under oath so either he lied or he was lied to by his subordinates I actually believe that the latter is possible I think I don't think it's true with sbf It might be true with jack because he's so checked out furthermore You had people again like Vigia Gotti again tweeting and repeatedly stating we do not shadow ban And we certainly don't shadow ban on the basis of political viewpoint So these people were denying exactly what their critics were saying they were accusing their critics of being conspiracy theorists Now that the thing is proven the mountain of evidence has dropped. They're saying oh, well, this is old news This was known a long time ago. No, it was not known a long time ago. It was disputed by you And now finally it's proven and you're trying to say it's not a big deal It is a big deal. It's a violation of the public trust and if you are so proud of your content moderation policies Why didn't you admit what you were doing in the first place? It's like that you feel good that Elon's running this business now I mean like the things that you're concerned about as a user as someone who cares about The public's access to knowledge to opinions to free speech This has got to be a good change right like this has come to light. It's clearly gonna get resolved Everyone's gonna move forward. I mean you think that there's penalties needed for the people that work there like what what's the anger because no one like I think I look I think we got I think we basically got extremely lucky Yeah, that Elon Musk happened to care about free speech and decided to do something about it and actually had the means to do something about it He's just about the only Millionaire who has that level of means who actually cared enough to take on this battle But are you saying that this is a hard dessert for other people? I'm pleased for that but I mean unless Elon can buy every single tech company which he clearly can't I think you guys are right This is happening a lot of other tech companies. We're about to rewrite the government the United States government is going to make an attempt To rewrite section 230 I think that what this does is put a very fine point on a comment that Elon actually tweeted out and Nick if you could find that Please that's a very good tweet where he said going forward you will be able to see if you were shadow band You were able to see if you were debusted why and be able to appeal and I think that that concept To be very honest with you should be enshrined in law and I think that should be part of the section 230 rewrite And all of these media companies and all of these social media companies should be subject to it and the reason is because it ties a lot of these concepts together and says look You can build a service your private company make as much money as you want But we're going to have some connective tissue back to the fundamental underpinnings of a constitution Which is the framework under which we all live and we're going to transparently allow you to understand it And I think that's really reasonable make that a legal expectation of all these organizations And by the way, the companies the companies will love it because I think it's super hard for you to be in these companies And they probably are like take this responsibility off my plate. It's very simple This is a there's really four problems that occurred here number one There was no transparency The people who Were shadow band taken out of search etc They did not know if they were told and it was clear to users We could have a discussion about was that a fair judgment or not in the cases We've seen so far from barriweiss is reporting in the Twitter files part D it's very clear that these were not justifiable number two These were not evenly enforced. It's very clear that one side We see because we don't have one example of a person on the left Being censored when we if we do then we could put Balls and strikes together and we could say how many people on one side versus how many people on the other it's pretty clear what happened here Because these all occurred with a group of people working at Twitter which is 96 or 97 percent left leaning the statistics are clear number three The shadow banning and the search banning and I think this is something we talked about previously Chimath It feels very underhanded. This was your point If we're going to block people they should be blocked and they should know why the fourth piece of this which is absolutely Infuriating and this is a discussion that myself sax and Chimath and Elon have had many times about this moderation And I'm not speaking out of school now because he's now very public with his position and you know his position He came to on his own. It's not like This is sax and I you know coming up this position. This is why Elon bought the business If you really want to intellectually test your thinking on this and I am a Moderate who's left leaning I can tell you there's a simple way for anybody who is debating the validity of the concerns here Imagine Rachel Maddo or Ezra Klein or whoever your favorite left leaning pun to this was shadow banned By a group of right wing moderators who were acting covertly and without any transparency How would you feel if Maddo reporting on you know all the Russian Coordination with Trump's campaign did this or Ezra Klein with whatever topics he covers and you will very quickly find yourself Infuriated and you should then intellectually as we say on this program steel manning if you argue the other side It's infuriating for either side to experience in this and that is what the 230 changed needs to be Chimath. You're exactly correct If you make an action it should be listed on the person's profile page and on the tweet And if you click on the question mark you should see when the action was taken by who you know which department maybe even out The person so they they get a person attacked and then what the resolution to it is this has been banned because it's targeted harassment this can be resolved in this way then everybody's behavior which steer Towards whatever the stated purpose of that social network is you can get better behavior by making the rules Clear by making the rules unclear and making it unfair you create this insane Situation go ahead Chimath and that's why I'm if you're a date about it I think you have to take it one step further to really do justice to why this should be important to everybody And I do think this school example it really matters to me like We have like I don't know now we know what the counterfactual is which which is that we have I Mean we've relegated our children to a bunch of years of Really complicated relearning and learning that they never had to go through because of all the learning loss they gave them but What if Jay Bhattacharya who's I mean like you can't be you know have a higher sort of role in society in terms of you know population Pretty good credentials. I mean imagine if if you know there was a platform where he could have actually said this and then you know People would have clamored and said you know what you and Fauci need to get to the bottom of this or where legislators could have seen it and said you know What before we make a decision like this? Maybe hey Fauci go talk to Jay because he's a Stanford prof He's probably not an idiot. Why does he think that or maybe let's convene you know an actual group of 20 or 30 scientists And the fact that this one version of thinking about things was Deem so heterodoxical. It is just such a good example. They shut down an important conversation You know that the decision was so wrong and the damage was so severe Yes, so we know what happened by suppressing that speech and that's one example Well, it's in in my in my estimation It is the silver bullet example that cleans through all of this other stuff because you know I don't really care if Rachel Maddo has reclined who the hell cares This is important stuff because it affects everybody irrespective of your political persuasion and what editorial you want to read Shamaff what if the investigation into the Catholic Church and the abuses that occurred there So we said oh this person it needs to be shut down And then children are molested for another decade by the way we have an example of that She need O'Connor came out on SNL you can look it up for if you're under 40 years old and said fight the real enemy She ripped up a picture of the Pope because of the scandals there She was ex-communicated. She was canceled at that time one of the first people to be canceled Because she spoke truth to power What if somebody an investigative journalist at the New York Times the Boston Globes are in the movie spotlight Those are the people who broke the story of the Catholic Church if somebody came in and the Catholic Church put pressure on a social network He said hey, you can't put this stuff up here. You can't have this discussion of yours Here's another example some fear why are we shutting down discussions in America? Remember the Vietnam because because Jake Al the media the media does not value transparency anymore If you go back and look at the way the media portrays itself like in the movie the post Which is about the revelations about the Catholic Church or you go back to all the presidents men with the media prized and what they congratulate themselves on was first of all Transparency and exposing lies of powerful people well that is exactly what has happened here The lies of the powerful group of people who were running Twitter policy and suppressing one side of the debate Has been exposed and the media is treating it with a yon like there's nothing to see here Why because they were complicit in this they were complicit in Suppressing the views of people like Jay Boutta charia they were complicit in choosing the views of Fauci and the elite on Covet and so they have no interest now in bringing just in making in making what's happened here at Twitter fully transparent I have to only I think by the way just a just a quick correction there I think sax when you said the post washing to post watergate spotlight exactly I'm even thinking about spotlight. Sorry. It was may have been small. I said the post yeah, okay But like but the post is another example that that movie was about another event like this Which could have been easily suppressed in today's world much harder there which was depending on papers And in that world, you know There was an immense amount of pressure that the government put on the Washington post But then they said you know what we're going with it and they still published it And it created a groundsfall of support to really re-examine the Vietnam war and it had a huge impact But could you imagine this time around which is like hey guys? There's gonna be some kind of misinformation You know these Pentagon papers are not real. It's it's coming from the Russians suppress it And nobody could make so much easier now to run this play what journalists need to realize Is that today's conspiracy theories are tomorrow's pull its surprises Onto you sac not in the current media environment they work for these uh corporations and they don't get rewarded for telling the truth Oh, no they they're going for Pulitzer's trust me. They are But what they need to do is stop thinking short term and think long term anytime. There's a conspiracy theory You must give it some validity and say is there any truth here? Because it could in fact be a scandal that's being covered up Take out there. They're involved in the cover up right now. They're involved in the cover up right now This is a cover up. I agree I'm in agreement with you. Let's bring the first Batch of Twitter files into the conversation the one that Matt Taibe exposed What he did was confirm that a completely true story by the New York Post about 100 Biden that came out a month before the election Was suppressed by Twitter executives including at the behest of You know of of FBI agents and former security state officials So this has now been exposed there was no legitimate basis for suppressing that story It was true. It was a respective publication. They did it anyway. This is election interference You know the same people who pride themselves on strengthening democracy Are engaged in this wide-scale censorship of one side of the political debate Including of true stories before an election And then they puff out their chest and say we're protecting democracy. They're not protecting democracy They're interfering with democracy. They're interfering with the public's right to know And then we look at a country like China and we say we're so much better than them because they've got this problem over there Where the state and big tech are colluding yeah to create a big brother-like system Well, what is this? What are these tools that have been exposed? This is a big brother-like system Okay, yeah, but just you have to I know you want to make it like an equivalency It's less than a 1% equivalency because in our society we can have moments like this and we can have investigation So just to put it in perspective. Yeah, I don't look I take out. I don't think we're equivalent But what I'm saying is that this is very much like a big brother social credit system. Yes We should be a alarm bell should be going off This should be an alarm. If the alarm didn't decide Just we had this one Ideos and credit billionaire who believes in free speech if he didn't decide to take this on we would never have known this stuff Okay, tell me what happened in between these two things. There is an attorney at Uh Twitter and I know the details of this Uh, okay, so this is interesting. I do not work for the Twitter corporation I do not speak for the Twitter corporation sacks does not work for the Twitter corporation and does not speak for it Yes, there was in between these two drops something that happened. Yes. So basically what was discovered And this is all just publicly reported is that former FBI lawyer named Jim Baker had now become deputy general counsel Um at Twitter and this guy Jim Baker is like the zealog of the whole Russian collusion hoax He was involved in the um in the FISA warrants that were a plot that the FBI applied to the FISA courts that had had all the errors and emissions He was involved in the alpha bank hoax. He was the guy that that Perkins uh coey lawyer assessment was feeding this like uh phony uh the phony scam too and He I don't think he was officially sanctioned but basically he was asked to leave the FBI And then lo and behold where does he land at Twitter And he is involved in their content moderation policies. I think what it shows is how deeply intertwined Our big tech companies have become with the security state Now how did this get exposed? Well Barry Weiss was basically uh putting forward document requests for the for the latest batch of Twitter files And she wasn't getting anything back And she's like what's going on here? And the guy who's giving her the files is his name is Jim And she's like well wait like wait Jim Jim who And she finds out wait Jim Baker wait that Jim Baker That in a New York Post had a long story about this guy And so it was discovered that the guy who was curating the Twitter files Was this former operative of the FBI who was involved in the Russian collusion hoax and then was involved in their Their blacklist decisions So in any event once this came out Twitter fired him and then you know So Barry apparently received all these files that are now the the second batch of the Twitter files and just to be clear That's not James Baker if you're you know thinking is the Former Reagan cabinet member not James Baker This is Jim Baker who's a different person right but a lot of people are wondering well how could this have been missed listen He's an FBI ex FBI I mean they they this is some people call it you know the permanent Washington establishment some people call it the deep state the administrations come and go the people who work in Washington stay there forever And they can simply effectuate policy by outlasting everybody else and Klan decently implementing what they believe and they've become a constituency of their own that exercises power Like a proitorian guard in Washington. So in any event this guy is an expert at Bolivian himself into the bureaucracy great Praetorian guard bully you're When they finally read it when they finally rooted this this mole out of the FBI He boi evils himself into another powerful bureaucracy. What does that word Twitter? People bully evil like burrows Like burrows like that So Oh, he he digs his way into the Twitter bureaucracy to the point where he isn't even found and then somehow He has put himself in the position To be intermediating the Twitter files. Can you believe this? So once it was discovered a unit at the Obscural Roman Army that served as personal party guards Intelligence agents the Praetorian guard. Okay. Got it. Well you understand what happened is is that the Praetorian guard originated because they were to defend the life of the emperor and that what happened That then they became so powerful that That whoever bribed the Praetorians would become emperor and then finally the last step is that the Praetorian Some selves would pick the emperor and whoever basically led the Praetorian guard would be the next emperor And an event. I mean, we're not we're not at that point yet, but the point it look the point is that these security state officials Have power that they should not have. Okay, that's the bottom line. They should not be Involved in our elections in this way. They should be completely nonpartisan and non-political They should just do their jobs as law enforcement officials But we know from the Hunter Biden story that a very important piece of this was the pre-bunking that the FBI Went to Facebook and Twitter and social networks and said be on the lookout for a story about Hunter Biden It is Russian's information and they primed these social networks to suppress that story when it came out That was something they never should have done and they knew they knew the story was not fake The new is not Russian's information because they had the laptop in their possession since 2019 Well, okay, that has not the the providence of the Laptop is still being reviewed in fairness and there's still a new hold on you're wrong And there is an investigation going on of Hunter Biden You also have to put the context in here and please let me finish There is a context here of there was massive election interference going on both sides of the aisle Republicans Democrats all wanted to see the Russian interference and the Ukrainian Interference and Trumps Encouraging the Ukraine and the Republican the the Russians to interfere in elections Everybody was on high alert and that happened to drop Like it was announced 30 days before and it dropped 10 days per election So everybody was on high alert and I agree was not done properly hold on that's why it was the perfect excuse Should have been done it should have been done properly They should have said they should have come out public and say we don't know the providence of this We could be hacked it might not be hacked Jason. They knew Let's wait and see we have to reserve judgment. No, listen. Let me tell you what happened. Let me just tell you what happened Okay, so they make sure your source this I will so Look, it's all in the New York Post. Okay, they've done great. No, it nobody has refuted it. Nobody has refuted it It's a super far-lappin. No, let me just get let me just get this on the record here So from the post The FBI was given the laptop in 2019 by the laps store store owner those guys have forensics They have cyber experts. They knew the laptop was real. We know it's real now. Nobody questions that in fact The FBI has admitted that the laptop was real and that the the 100 buying files are real Nobody disputes that okay, but what they did before the election is they use this excuse of Russian disvermation to discredit the story before it even came out But they had no business getting involved in the story that way they simply didn't they should have stayed out of it completely I don't I don't understand how you can possibly justify that Yeah, I mean, I think we do have to look at the context of that time period when Hillary's emails were hacked and we had a That's why it's an appropriate excuse Well, I didn't finish the sentence and we had a president Which you will agree our presidents and presidential candidates should not be encouraging foreign powers to hack their They're adversaries you agree with that do you agree with that answer my question do you agree that president? Answer the question. Why do you have to do? You would have personally attacked me. No, I'm not personally attacked me. Just answer the question Should press your election denial of for 2016 you're still wrapped up on this you can't let it go again You personally attack me. You don't answer the question. That's fine. We'll move on You can't be intellectually honest. Listen the audience knows you're not being intellectually honest You know that you're talking about if you could answer the simple question should Presidents encourage foreign powers to hack their adversaries then you would be being intellectually dishonest I am absolutely disappointed that you will not answer that simple question. It's an obvious. Yes It's an obviously yes Of course, but I don't believe that happened. I don't really believe that happens You know trumps gonna win the primary let's keep going China Listen, I don't I've said so many times in the show that he's not my candidate. I don't know what you're talking about You're going to win What you're doing right now is like delusional you're going back to some throwaway comment He made it a rally in 2016. It's got nothing Absolutely nothing to do with the story and the fact you even bring it up is like pure TDS And I don't know what way Call me instead of answering a question. That's your technique. I want to finish isn't call me names Instead of answering the question. I want to I'm muddy the waters. I want to make one more point about Is another technique that I'm mudding the water. So I'm not putting the word you are I don't know Answering the question. Let's move on. Let's move on. I want to make one final point. Okay. I'll make a final point There was a letter listen. There was a letter with the center Biden thing. Mm-hmm. This is 2020 Election a Jason. We're not going back two elections ago. I want to talk about the most recent one. Okay fun You had Clapper you had come here 50 of these security state officials They write a letter saying that the Hunter Biden story has all the Hallmarks of Russian disinformation They claimed that it was Russian disinformation when it wasn't they knew it wasn't And it was the same story that the FBI was telling a Twitter And it was the same story that these Twitter executives were indulging it even though they all knew or had reasons to know it wasn't true And they suppress the newer post story anyway I don't know why you're bringing up this Trump stuff It has nothing to do with the real issue here the hold on a second the real issue is this Does social media have the right to suppress True stories put out by our media before the month before an election yes or no I'll ask you to send that I will answer your question yes or no and you will not answer mine because you're being intellectually dishonest Yes, we should know we should not suppress new stories if it was and I will argue both sides if it was snowed in If it was the Pentagon papers if it's Hunter Biden's laptop taking out the sex stuff which we both agree on or if it is uh Russia and Ukraine where your presidential candidate at the time Trump asked Selensky to find dirt on Biden before the election and he asked the Russians to hack hilliers email and they did that and they released It 10 days before the election that is facts that happened and that is I was not that's not what this was you said you would let me speak And you will let me see your money in the waters. No stop interrupting me and stop insulting me I will say my part you said yours and then we will move on the fact is Trump encouraged hacking of other candidates and he did it twice in a four-year period back-to-back elections We need to be on higher alert when you have a Republican candidate Trump doing something so absolutely treasonous This was a perfect cover story. This is why it was a perfect cover story is because But you would like to use the treasonous behavior. Let's listen. I don't think it was a perfect phone call I think it was there were lots of shenanigans. There were lots of shenanigans. Okay, I'm not defending hold on I'm not defending anything trumped it. Okay, I don't feel the need. Okay. I never defended it But here but the deal is that you're letting your TDS. I don't testify he's treason. You're letting you're you're allowing this russian disformation to be a cover story No, I said I don't think post should have been blocked You're you're mischievous. You're not even bringing this up. It was no The concept under which the the reason I'm bringing it. I agree that the context made a great cover story That's your interpretation the context also is everybody was on high alert Waiting for a hack to drop and in fact a hack drop 10 days before you have That was not a hundred Okay, we found out subsequently was a hack That's why at the time it's like point they knew at the point twitter and facebook did not know twitter and facebook didn't know That's the point Taiyibi and that you go back to the twitter files the first drop Jim Baker hold on second Jim Baker and Vagia Gaudi said Okay, that there were in a lot of internal questions about whether That that hunter-bind story could be justified under the hacked Yes, I'll see okay and There were many legitimate questions raised internally about whether they could maintain that party line And the emerging view was that they could no longer maintain that line and still a Gaudi and Jim Baker said no We will maintain the idea that this was hacked information until proven otherwise Even though it was not hacked it was a New York post story Okay, let's agree to just agree. Let's move on why are you bringing up all this like a real Stance the audience and the other besties want us to move on so let's move on China ends most zero COVID rules And Iran might be abolishing its morality police news broke In the past week on Wednesday China's health the authorities overhauled it's zero COVID policy and announced a 10 point national plan That's crap most health code tracking and Also, they're rolling back their mass testing and this allowed many Positive cases to just simply quarantine at home like we were doing I guess a year ago now and They're limiting some of these lockdowns This all comes from a Foxconn letter Which We don't know the cost causation here does does it does it but we don't know that's why I just said we don't know cost and correlation here Give give us some perspective here. Shama well I just think it's kind of ridiculous to assume that the second largest economy in the world Pivot's Based on one letter from one CEO. So I know that that's how the western writer. Please. Yeah, well apparently what happened was Terry Gua Who's colloquially known as uncle Terry who's a CEO Foxconn Roto letter that essentially said, you know if we don't figure out a way to get out of these panda this this lockdown process we're going to lose um You know our leadership in the global supply chain And apparently that jolted the central planning commission to realize that they needed to you know get out of these lockdown I think it's something different which is I think this has been part and parcel Of a very focused and dedicated plan by G phase one was to consolidate power phase two was to get through November and And to basically get reappointed for life and dispel any other, you know rivals that he actually had And now phase three is just to reopen the economy again so this guy can basically sit on top of The second largest economy in the world. So I think this is sort of a natural uh flow of things The other part of it which I think is being under reported is I think that the way in which they did it was less responsive in my opinion to a letter from uncle Terry But was more responsive to the fact that there are people on the ground and I think that these guys are getting Very sophisticated and understanding how to give the Chinese people some part of what they want So that they're roughly happy enough to keep moving forward and I'm not gonna morally judge whether it's right or wrong But it's just a comment on what the gameplay and the game theory seems to be coming from the leadership of China So it's just I think this is it's it's it's it's good for the Chinese people And the real question is what will it mean for the US economy if these guys get their um Get their Economy going again we talked about this previously, but this is a good example of the Autocrat Not necessarily being absolute uh in in their um authority And uh the sense that I think we get at this point coming out of China Is that there was enough dissent From the populace on the lockdown and the experience of the lockdowns and we can all go online and see the videos of Steel bars being put on doors to keep people in their apartment buildings and people screaming and buildings being on fire People can't escape the buildings how much of that was true or not and and riots in the screen people fighting with the covid testers How much of it is true or not we don't really know But it certainly seems to indicate that there was enough dissent and enough unrest That in order to stay in power The CCP had to take action and they had to shift their position and shift their tone And I think it's a really important moment to observe that sometimes the CCP And you know perhaps even we can extend this into other Autocratic regimes that we think are absolute in their authority and their in power and their power Perhaps are necessarily influenced by the people that they are there to govern and that they are You know ruling over and that While we don't think about these places as democracies Perhaps they're not entirely The traditionally defined autocracy that there is an influence that the people can have and maybe we see the same change happening in Iran With young people and a population that's more modern that's growing and swelling and size that doesn't want to accept some of the traditional norms and the traditional laws and you know, maybe that will kind of start to resonate around the world that the internet is starting to do what everyone Hoped and wanted it to do which is the democratization of information the democratization of seeing other people's conditions And seeing what the rest of the world is and is like gives the populist the ability To rise up and to say this is what we want because we know that there are better things out there And these autocratic regimes have to start to shift slightly and over time. Maybe that has a real impact Here's a specific statistic in chart for everybody the demographics of Iran are incredibly Notable if you look at this chart For those of you listening it just shows people by age and how many what percentage of the population they are or actually the wrong numbers of the population as you can see It's basically like a pair You have very few old people and you have a lot of people in their 20s and younger and so young people No, Jason. It's really 40s and 30s is really good. Yeah, okay, so 40s 30s You don't have the geriatric population that you see in other countries like Japan And so the demographics of Iran are extremely weighted towards younger people Millennials gen-exers and younger and they have VPNs virtual private networks. They can see everything happening in the free world Versus let's say close societies and so I think that's what gives me a lot of hope is that these countries are going to have to evolve because young people are seeing how the rest of the world lives And I think that's a big part of the change. Tremoth. What are you're though? About Iran specifically I think demographic change and then China and demographic change I've said this before and I've been tweeting about this for years But people so poorly understand demographics everybody thinks that we have a surplus of people and we don't And we need to have a positive birth rate in order to kind of continue to support the expansion of the world and GDP and we need that and right now we're not in that situation If you look at a country by country basis a lot of these countries are facing that In a pretty cataclysmic way the most sensitive country to this is China. I mean their population get current course in speed I think the last number is it's going to have by 2100 there'll be about 600 million people in China Which is unbelievably disruptive in a very negative way for them right because you will have a lot of people who are entering the workforce having to support An entire cohort of people above them in terms of age right who are retired etc So the state's going to have to get much much more actively involved over the next 50 years in China And then you look at other countries like Nigeria or India who are in You know at the beginning of what could be a multi-decade boom Because you have 20 year olds that will be entering the workforce You know they'll effectively work for less than their older counterparts right? So then it will be an incentive then to bring work on chore into those countries And so it's going to have huge impacts because then you have rising GDP you'll have rising expectations of living quality You'll have rising expectations of how governments treat those people So it's all kind of positive in general, but the world needs more people Let's just be clear especially in western countries. We are going to be not we're not as badly off as China But we're not far behind. Yeah, here's a quick view of China and Japan Which is really same kind of I don't know what they exactly call these charts are kind of like vertical histograms But you do start and again, you know data is hard to come by in some countries, but you know China's starting to get top heavy When compared to Iran and then if you look at Japan Quite stunning. There's just no young people left and they live very Too much older ages in Japan. It's as longevity is one of their great strengths as a population as a country And so these demographics can't be fought. You're going to have a constricting Constricting economy in Japan and their place in the world is going to be very very different Okay, where do we want to go to next? I never asked my opinion. I'm on was Usually you just talk so go ahead. I didn't know I just talk now. I usually have to fight to give my opinion Oh, here we go Listen, have your agent call my agent. We'll talk about it. Okay. We'll talk about it. I have a slightly different view of what's happening in China Jason, which is you know, I think that the people there need to stop harassing the CCP You see the Chinese Communist Party. They're the elites. They've set things up for the benefit of the people They're not engaged in shadow banning. They're just thinking they have a system there to you know to engage in censorship To prevent abuse and harm. Yeah, right? That's the system. They've set up right and the people just need to understand that that when they say things like You know when they oppose things like COVID lockdowns like Jay Bonnetchariah did they need to understand that that is engaging in abuse and harm You see exactly yes, and you know what they they've re-education camps for citizens who you need you know to Maybe rethink their positions on freedom and their wages the hours they work and their and their social conditions You're you're absolutely correct China really has built a perfect model for a society. Well well said sex Great now we can move forward. Let's go now. We're going for it. We are in finally ready Exactly. By the way, you know that's gonna get clipped out and go viral You understand According to our elites according to our elites Some elites EOL Roth or Taylor Lorenz to criticize them is a form of harassment You understand that right so therefore what the people in China are doing specifically by opposing lockdowns You know they're taking the Jay Bonnetchariah point of view they're engaging in harm and abuse and harassment of their betters of their release why won't they just submit to the social credit system that has been So set up for them For their benefit. It's for their benefit. Why question? Yeah, just accept accept your fate and work hard for the good of the people great great points Let's move forward. So I talk about sales. No, I think it's actually a pretty it's a pretty good satire. I agree All right, I think we have to talk about FTX. I I don't know if you saw and I the people covering for sbf It continues to be an absolute joke the number of interviews that sbf is doing is absurd But the people carrying water for him is is even more offensive The I mean if you're a criminal trying to cover up your crime. Okay, we get it. You're trying to cover up and stay out of jail but Kevin O'Leary who Calls himself mr. Wonderful Was on cmbc trying to defend the fact that he was given This is stunning by the way 15 fucking million dollars to be a spokesperson for FTX. So the grift Not only went to the press politicians But now commentators on cmbc 15 million dollars to put that in context. I mean you're talking what an elite NBA player gets from Nike This does not exist in the world Uh, you know Kevin O'Leary might get you know 50 to 200k for speaking gigs But nobody gets 15 million dollars to show here's a 75 second clip that I don't know if you've all have seen But is unbelievably stunning see on the other side of 75 seconds If you're a defense attorney that represents someone that you know is guilty You got to say yeah, well, they're innocent, but you may know they're guilty You may know they're guilty if you find someone if you watch someone kill someone Yeah, they're innocent. I don't think there's only the murder of my money in this case. Okay, it's it's murder of Of FTX's money everybody's look Joe if you You money that you got I don't think you should be singing the blues right now at all. Oh, yes I'm singing the blues why because your 15 million didn't pay out that you that's a lot of money A paid spokesperson. It's a lot of money. You didn't have to do much for that. That's per that's found Different decision. That's a different discussion. I Okay, you know you can make that decision on your own, but I'm going to this point I'm money if you want to say he's guilty before he's tried. I just don't understand it But it may end up causing you 15 for reputation or and everything else that's the problem That's why I stayed on this pursuit. I'm very transparent about it. I've disclosed everything I know about it. I will find out more information if I make the credit committee I will act as a fiduciary for everybody involved. I will testify. I am an advocate for this industry and this changes nothing Just look at the numbers that came out of circle today. I'm an investor there too You've got the I lost it all in FTX and we have a fantastic print on circle the promise of crypto remains This will not change it Pretty crazy 15 million bucks any thoughts on the continuing sbf saga sac Well, I don't know why we should care so much about him. I mean Kevin Lero, but But look at it right. It's indicative of all these guys that got money from this guy. Who is he? Who is he? And he's on shark tank. He's a lot of what he's on shark tank And he's a contributor to CNBC who's on multiple times a week the point is like you've got The the grift I'm just trying to point out 15 million dollars to a CNBC commentator is just an extraordinary payoff I've never heard of anything like I don't I don't think it's fair to pick on Kevin O'Leary per se Because there is a bunch of those guys that took money from him, you know a bunch of athletes did So the other two movie stars You know Yeah, like everybody got paid Just like in the just like in the Twitter example I think it's important in this case to generalize Because the generalized thing is the real problem look if you want to focus on the crux of this You have a concept in law that sacks knows better than the rest of us called fraudulent conveyance And we have example after example where it does not matter whether it was in the Bernie made-off example Or for example Jason we talked about it the guy in LA that lost all the money client funds playing poker Yep, you have to give the money back Especially if it was fraudulently conveyed to you explain can you explain this in detail for a second? So the audience understands well on my understanding which is very basic and I think David can probably do a much better job is the following which is if you get money some way But it comes from Somebody who fraud fraudulently acquired that money you have to give the money back So in this example what it would mean is if that they can show that that 15 million dollars of this guy got Came from sbf basically rating the piggy bank of user accounts He's gonna have to pay the money back just like for example in the made-off fraud the The the folks that went to find the money were able to go back to folks that actually redeemed even the beginning early ones and said I understand that you didn't know any better, but this was fraudulently conveyed to you So we need the money back and they got the money back In that case if they had put a million in and it grew to three million They got their million principal back but the two million in gains which were ill gotten had to be returned returned returned exactly as I as I understand it based on just what I've read that there's a 90-day rule around contributions Meaning that if I think this has to do with the bankruptcy that that if he donated money within 90 days Then that can be unwound so 98 yeah Yeah, but I do think it creates potentially a powerful incentive here by politicians and various political groups Oh for him not to be convicted of fraud for him to be able to plead the sound into some sort of negligence Because they don't want to give the money back. They keep the bag. What an incredible insight Well, this is what I think so interesting about the Cavanaughleary thing It's not about Kevin O'Leary But it's about the fact that the money was spread around so widely and into such like deep trenches of The regulatory society society like into the blood blue insurers Yeah, and basically I think the guy like cemented This the he thought that like which which I think by the way is a really interesting product of The crypto ecosystem and the model that so many kind of crypto businesses have engaged in over the years Which is if you can fester the belief then there is a business if you cannot fester the belief There is no business that there isn't a fundamental productivity driver It's about building a belief system and you can buy a belief system If you can take money that people have given you you can embed it in influencers and celebrities and politicians and regulators and if you give it to enough of these people And you give enough of it to them Maybe that belief system solidifies and your thing becomes real Which is a classic riff technique by like in the grifters. Oh tell us all about it. Jake. Yeah Yeah The master no no it's the patina and it's this You know you look like you're incredibly rich You know you're you're going to fancy restaurants you're wearing expensive suit You're getting in a sports car and then you own some palazza or whatever And then some other rich person comes and you get them to invest in something and then you have scone with the money But they see all the accrued tramons you check all the boxes your parents were suffered you went to MIT And you are donating large sums of money and you got this big table at the club and you got a penthouse Everybody starts to feel well Might is right you got the wealth there might be You guys like how would you guys feel about honestly honestly? No backing a CEO Of a growth stage company that you put your firms money into Who lives in a hundred and thirty million dollar house and has not yet exited the business Yeah, absolute alarm bells everywhere. I mean, this is why I'm not a fan of never would do it Let me ask you guys a question. Oh, you're a secondary sales. Yeah, let me ask you guys a question Do you think that a billion dollars of dark money could stop a red wave just asking for a friend? billion dollar It's a democratic sex no honestly. Do you think it's over waited the money? Yes, his mother was a huge democratic bundler Yeah, and moreover the the specific politicians he needed to influence there Yes, there were some Republicans, but by and large it was the SEC You the first person to make this claim. I want to say did you hear it here first on the only pod? Must cry David sex David sex making the declaration that the real on the wrong side was stopped because of well Let me ask you a few of us a follow-up question. What do you think would have more impact on our election? Anormous amounts of dark money going to Democrats or extensive shadow banning Of conservative influencers Yeah, which one you know would have a bigger impact And and and and and in the 50 50 country where I mean the scales are like balance where these elections are just a few thousand votes Yeah, what do you think the result is gonna be if we actually have a level playing field together to this Swindler's dark money. Yeah, that's an interesting question. Let me let me add a I think to that What would have a bigger impact this Super great Except for when you guys on your fight like or Yeah, taking away a woman's right to choose after 50 years of giving it to the which would have a bigger impact on the red wave I did have a big impact, but I think we're gonna move across that I think we're gonna pass that yeah, all right great. Yeah great great great strategic What do you think about the cinema Kristen cinema Kiersten cinema flipping to independent? Do you think that's a big deal or I think I think it's really interesting? I think it's actually a very shrewd move on her part well She's got first of all. I think she's great. You know, yeah, just tell us tell us about her sex No, he well she's she is the center from Arizona of formerly democrat now independent who is in the mold of you know John McCain who is a former center from Arizona sort of this maverick independent and she does not Caltown to her party orthodoxy and When Biden wanted to pass three and a half trillion of build-back better spending She along with Manchin opposed it and I think saved the administration From this gigantic boondoggle that would have been inflation much much worse now Manchin got all the credit But she was equally responsible for putting a hold on that and then as a result They only did the 750 billion inflation reduction act so she's willing to buck her own party now as a result of that I think they were planning on she was gonna get primaryed that the progressive wing of the party was planning on primarying her and By moving to an independent in a sense she preamps that Because what she's now saying is she's now sort of like you know Bernie Sanders is an independent or this guy Angus King from from Maine. They still caucus with the democrats But they're independence and the and the democrats don't run candidates against them because they know That if they do you'll have a republican a democrat independent and the democrats and the independence will split the vote and their Public and will win. So basically she's now daring the democrats Hey, if you want to run a candidate against me. I'm not gonna sit around and get primaryed by them You go ahead and run somebody but then we're both gonna lose to their republican That's what's smart about it is I think she's daring Schumer to run somebody against her It's also interesting. She's she's the only member of congress I've read that's non-theist Which is kind of like atheist she doesn't talk about god or doesn't believe in god And I think she's the first openly bisexual member of congress. She's a maverick Certainly sex do you think she held up on making this decision till after that Georgia Senate runoff election Finished and do you think that it influenced the decision? I don't know But I think that the Well, imagine if she doesn't make this move now, okay? And then in two years well, I guess really next year she gets primaryed Okay, and then what if she loses the primary it's gonna be very hard for her to run as a independent at that point It'll look like sour grapes or loser, right? But if she goes independent now And she's saying listen, I'm running as an independent amount of what the question you have to make is what the democratic party Is whether to support me or basically take this election to throw it? Will we see more of this purple approach? I was just gonna ask you. What does this mean for Joe mentioned? Well, I don't think Joe Manchin has this problem and I'll tell you why because um West Virginia on like Arizona is like a plus 22 red state Joe Manchin is the only politician in that state who could win that seat for the democrats When Joe Manchin retires that seat is going to republican and Schumer knows is the democrats know this they think they're lucky stars every day that they got Joe Manchin Because otherwise that would be a republican seat and so look all this stuff about how the progressives were upset with mansion and all that Pappability he got that may be you know the sort of progressive wing is gonna say that publicly But the smart democrats know that they're very lucky to have a politician like Joe Manchin on their side of the aisle I could ask a question to you Chimoff why Do democrats Why why are they It seems to be so anti moderate democrats Why are they so resistant to The concept of a moderate democrat when obviously moderate democrats seem to have an advantage in these elections Well, no, I think david described it well, which is that in many of the seats This is both true for republicans and for democrats You're not really competing in a general election. You're competing in a primary and if you win a primary You're probably gonna win so like you know if you're in Mississippi for example You just have to win the republican primary nothing else matters And then you're just gonna skate to victory And so the real question is who votes and those are different oftentimes in who votes in the general And this is why you get this Dispersion that's happening where folks seem to be getting more and more extreme It's reflecting the sound bites that those primary voters want to hear and this is the big problem that we have and that's why like if you have A bunch of this you know ranked choice voting or you know These other kinds of methods it starts to clean that up so that you move people More into the moderate middle But that's what that's why you have this crazy stuff happening. All right everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the all-em podcast for the dictator The Sultan of science and david sacks hi, and jk. I'll see you next time bye. Bye We'll let your winners ride Bring man david sacks And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just got crazy with The I'll just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release that out you