Epic 法律大胜、OpenAI 版权交易、FCC 针对马斯克、言论自由的边界

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): We're going mullet this week in honor of your your closest to mullet right now, Sachs. I see you trying to tuck the lettuce in. It's not gonna work. We see it back there. David Sacks (00:00:09): Well, I need the ponytail. Jason Calacanis (00:00:11): Wow. You went full knot? David Friedberg (00:00:13): Where's this photo from there? Do you guys like a secret camera in his room? What is this? David Sacks (00:00:17): No. My my kids tuck it. Jason Calacanis (00:00:19): Oh my are you really doing a douche knot? David Sacks (00:00:21): One of my daughters is playing with my hair. She wants to see if she can make a ponytail with it. So she made a ponytail and took a photo. So we sent it in to chat GPT to ask who it looked like, and it said Thomas Jefferson. Jason Calacanis (00:00:32): Just a serious question. Did you do a fit chat with with Tucker on that? You sent him that and say, fit check? David Sacks (00:00:37): Yeah. Not everything has to do with Tucker, Jake. How? The joke's gonna Look Jason Calacanis (00:00:40): at the smile. If you guys started with a fit check, it's as your daughter's. Speaker 4 (00:00:44): Oh, wait. What what check? Jason Calacanis (00:00:45): A fit check. A fit check, it you take a picture of yourself. You send it to your friends. You say fit check, and then they tell you if you look good for the day. David Sacks (00:00:52): Oh, okay. It's kinda it's kinda like a wellness check, but Jason Calacanis (00:00:54): But for fashion. David Sacks (00:00:55): How you look for fashion. Uh-huh. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:00:57): So I do Friedberg send you, have anxiety about this. And then we do a wellness check on Friedberg so he's gonna show up for the show. David Sacks (00:01:03): Or we do a wellness check on you and Alex Jones comes back to Twitter? Jason Calacanis (00:01:07): I'm putting it out there right now. And Alex Jones is on the back half of the show just to tease it just like I'm gonna tease these photos. I pulled the archives and here I am in 1984 with my mullet. That's a Jay Cal mullet from 1984 in Staten Island on the way to a boy scout trip, but I thought you would have a little fun Sex actually has been, working. He's got his hairstylist. Oh. Yeah. Well, you the gray looks like a lord of the rings character. David Friedberg (00:01:34): Like an elfin warrior. Jason Calacanis (00:01:35): No. It looks like the Alvaro. Exactly. So when it we'll punch that up. Surprising. I can't look. It's horrible. Oh, Freeburn. You're not digging away. Here it is. Freeburn looks. Like I David Sacks (00:01:52): think we should all go this way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:54): He looks like Orlando Bloom in Lord of the Rings. Right? David Sacks (00:01:57): Actually, it looks like more like that vampire movie. What was it that? Jason Calacanis (00:02:00): He does look like interview with the vampire, or Yeah. He looks like he's teaching gender studies at Berkeley in his 9 non binary. So if you wanna take understanding non binary ethnic Gender studies 101. It's coming this spring. Friedberg to be teaching on his almamana. Well done. I'll send it to you David Friedberg (00:02:19): as my I did have a ponytail. I sported it from about age sixteen to nineteen when I spoke cigarettes too, and I've got photos with the ponytail, Jason Calacanis (00:02:27): the David Friedberg (00:02:27): trench coat, smoke, and sage. So it fits the fits the mold. Jason Calacanis (00:02:30): Alright. So, in in the spirit of mullets, let's go business first. And we will go to a party at the end. Let's get started, boys. Rainman, David Sachs. David Sacks (00:02:47): And I said, we open source it to the fans and named Jason Calacanis (00:02:56): with me again today here on the all in podcast. The king of we've retired queen of Kinwa because David Friedberg is CEO of a startup. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:05): He can still be the queen. David Sacks (00:03:06): This is the main product Freberg. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:08): No. It's Jason Calacanis (00:03:09): so he's the king of beep. David Sacks (00:03:11): He's the king of vegetables. David Friedberg (00:03:12): Off the record. David Sacks (00:03:13): Wait. Wait. Wait. Is classify what crop you're working on? Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:03:17): Absolutely. It's a SaaS comp. Like a SaaS company wants to keep it on the DL, which vertical they're going after finance or sales or whatever. He's gotta keep those could be carrots. You never know. It could be captain carrots. You never know. David Sacks (00:03:28): Just not beets. Okay. Friedberg, we don't need more beets in the world. Jason Calacanis (00:03:31): Yeah. I'm gonna say no panel. Dude, these are delicious. Beets are delicious. David Sacks (00:03:35): Yeah. You're right. David Friedberg (00:03:36): No more beets. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:37): Beets with some feta cheese, delicious. David Sacks (00:03:39): Yeah. You're Jason Calacanis (00:03:39): right. More beets when you are, David Sacks (00:03:41): brussel sprouts can be very good. Jason Calacanis (00:03:43): You know If you charge a crop. David Sacks (00:03:44): Saute them. Look, you caramelize the Jason Calacanis (00:03:47): Yes. Brussel sprouts. David Sacks (00:03:48): Very good. Let's make those cheaper, Friedberg. Jason Calacanis (00:03:51): Yeah. Bigger and cheaper and more tasty. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:53): Know, you know what people people dunk on, but it's a great vegetable is cabbage. David Friedberg (00:03:58): I like cabbage. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:00): Shred cabbage into a salad and you put a little oil, little lemon, little salt. Jason Calacanis (00:04:05): Chinese chicken salad, like, Chinchin in LA. That's nice. David Friedberg (00:04:08): Exactly. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:09): Sachs, did you like Friedberg Christmas party last week? Jason Calacanis (00:04:12): How is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:12): did you enjoy it as much as we did? Jason Calacanis (00:04:14): Oh, it was great. Oh, right. Saks didn't show up. Do I David Sacks (00:04:16): miss the party? Jason Calacanis (00:04:17): I thought it was next week. David Sacks (00:04:18): Who does a Chris's party, 1st Jason Calacanis (00:04:21): week of December. David Friedberg (00:04:21): Before you tell your story, a very kind gentleman rings the door to, my gate. I opened the gate. The guy drives in. He gets out. He's like a big guy kind of says Mr. Friedberg, and I'm like, what, am I getting served? And he goes to the back seat, and I'm like, oh my god. I'm gonna get shot. He reaches in, and he pulls out a beautifully wrapped gift. He's like, this is from Mr. Sachs, Mr. Friedberg, happy holidays. And then he gave me, like, a touch on the shoulder, or, like, he does this thing where he goes like, this, the little bow. He got back in his car. He drove away. Did a vow? Jason Calacanis (00:04:48): What is this your Butler? David Friedberg (00:04:50): It was like, when you go to an Aman report, he did the Aman thing Jason Calacanis (00:04:53): that they do. Oh, right. That, no. No. That wasn't his public. That was his valet. That's his valet. He stole the valet from the Aman. It was the David Friedberg (00:04:59): most thoughtful no show I've ever had. I will say so. Jason Calacanis (00:05:03): Okay. Well, David Sacks (00:05:03): I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad to hear that. Well, what's funny is I just checked my inbox and my invitation from you is sitting in there because I've been meaning to go. But I didn't realize it was so soon. So I'm just looking at the date. It was December 9th. I didn't realize it was 5 days ago. Sorry about that. David Friedberg (00:05:20): Someone in your household did. So we appreciate David Sacks (00:05:22): it. Thank you. Jason Calacanis (00:05:23): Yeah. I went, but this is my this is my second or third year going. So I pre I pregained it. I went and I got Okay. David Friedberg (00:05:29): I did protein. Free game. I got meat. Jason Calacanis (00:05:32): I ate a bunch of steak and a burger. And then I went, and sure enough, I talked to the staff, and the staff said, after much debate and haranging with Friedberg, He allowed cheese this year. He allowed cheese. No. Sushi. We had David Friedberg (00:05:46): a whole sushi platter Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:47): thing. No. Stop. He didn't have sushi. Okay. It's not Jason Calacanis (00:05:50): my turn Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:50): to tell the truth. Jason Calacanis (00:05:51): Go ahead. Tell the truth more. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:52): I get in the car to drive 90 minutes, 90 minutes to free 90 minutes for bad suit. David Friedberg (00:05:57): Okay. That's the poker trip for me, by the way, but yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:59): And I not text, Allison, and, and David, we're on our way. Chamath wants to know, will Jason Calacanis (00:06:06): there be meat? Cause I'm driving, so Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:06): I can't test them. And Ali says, oh, yeah. Don't worry. There'll be sushi. And then Nat texts back. Okay. We just got off the highway we were going home. David Friedberg (00:06:18): We'll see you later because we don't believe. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:20): Says there's gonna be fish. Fine. I get there. Haven't eaten a thing. I am starving. Ravin. I start, I start to work my way through the appetizers. There's like, sliced green peppers and red peppers. There's like some falafels. Then there was a Spanish omelet, all pretty decent. Okay. And I'm like, where's the sushi? And so Phil Deutsch says, a thousand bucks, there's no sushi. And I said, no, there's Friedberg texted me. He said, I've asked all the people working here, they say there's no sushi. So I I bet I'm a $1000. I go outside to where the sushi is. And you know how we used to make fun of sky for having the filler fruit Jason Calacanis (00:06:57): at the forefront? Yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:58): The cantaloupe. Like cantaloupe and honeydew, and that's all there was. There was no sushi, but there was 2 or 3 rolls with 4 pieces of salmon, strategically cut just laying over. I won the bet. I was so hungry. I was like, what do I eat? I'm starving. So I keep eating the omelet. I keep eating the vegetarian food. And then I see these brownies. And I'm like, I'll just have a brownie. Then I had 2 brownies. And then I was like, okay, I need to stop. I can't, I can't have this. I'm and I'm so hungry. I walk outside Jake Hall where I saw you. We're having a cup of coffee, and you know what? I I ate 5 Baklava And then I was like, this is disgusting. I've had no protein. I've had no carbohydrates. I've had no fiber. I've had a fucking 3000 calories of sugar I grabbed Matt and I charged him. I was so mad. Jason Calacanis (00:07:48): He did. He hired Matt. I didn't think he didn't say goodbye. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:51): Friedberg and I talked about it yesterday. We talked it out. But I was I, I must have had 6000 calories at his Christmas product. David Friedberg (00:07:59): I'm coming over to Tim Austin. I, you know, it's only gonna be tri tip the whole night. I'm sure. Not a civil vegetable insight. David Sacks (00:08:04): It sounds like Jake helped preloaded the meat. He Jason Calacanis (00:08:07): I did. David Sacks (00:08:07): He got ready. Jason Calacanis (00:08:08): I on the way, no, sir. So after last year, last year, I left that party, And I just typed in I just said to my Popeyes. Left to go to Popeyes closest in and out burger. And I literally got a double double And then I just had a second one. On the way out this time, I I literally had a steak for dinner, and then I went. And then I I too had some. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:26): Have you guys ever had Popeyes? Jason Calacanis (00:08:28): Of course. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:29): I had never had it. My son asked to get it last week, last weekend. I'd never had it. Can you believe it? Jason Calacanis (00:08:35): Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:36): It is the most incredible thing I've ever tasted. This pop by a sandwich. Wow. Jason Calacanis (00:08:40): Wait for the out of touch YouTube comments. Show up. Is that a text that applies? David Sacks (00:08:44): The problem is not the eating of it. It's, it's how you feel 2 hours later. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:48): I mean, I've had Chick fil A. You know, I've done the chicken sandwiches at other places. Never. Poplies is incredible. David Friedberg (00:08:56): What do you Incredible. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:57): So then I I I had not almost on the edge. Of convincing her to go to Popeyes on the way home, but we missed the closing time so we couldn't get it. I got go to Starbird or Banchon. Those are 2 other elite No, bro. Not not I'm not talking fancy chicken. I've had like the fancy chicken sandwiches. I'm saying Popeyes is incredible. Jason Calacanis (00:09:16): I like it. I like it, austerity. Chamath. Here we go. Have you had a flight of fish? Alright. Let's get the show started here. Of course, with me again. The king of beep, the dictator, and the rain man, let's get to work. Alright. Everybody epic the makers of Fortnite just won a huge case. With Google over the Play App Store on Android phones, for those of you who don't know, Appstores have become an absolutely huge business for Apple and Google. Google Apps generates $50,000,000,000 of revenue a year. Now that's about 17% of Google's total revenue, Apple's App Store and Services 85,000,000,000 in annual revenue. These are on top of their franchises of hardware and search majority of San Francisco, anonymously found that Google violated California's federal antitrust laws through sweetheart deals. And annoying workarounds that stifled competition, for example, Google got spooked that other game developers would follow epics lead and launch their own app stores or route people directly to their websites to avoid the 30% take rate. Some might call it a tax. Google calculated they would lose 2,000,000,000 to 3,500,000,000 in revenue annually if the other major game developers followed Epic, so they created a program. Codeenamed project hug where they basically pet out bribes or incentives to discourage large developers from building their own competitive app stores. They also gave Spotify a sweetheart deal of 0%. And Google paid activation $360,000,000 to keep in the Play Store. And the discovery in this case was absolutely wild. According to testimony in the trial, Google had deleted some employee's chat logs. And the judge told the jury to assume that the deleted information wouldn't have been favorable to Google. Jury only deliberated a few hours. And Google plans to appeal the verdict, obviously. Epic isn't seeking damages. They just want Google to change their practices. They wanna basically let people plug in their own billing system to avoid the 30% tax. We'll see what happens next. Jason Calacanis (00:11:23): Friedberg These stores clearly have monopolistic characteristics, but and Google actually allows for 3rd party app stores Maybe you can explain why you think Apple won their case against Epic, but Google lost. David Friedberg (00:11:37): These are pretty different cases. The Apple case was a judge, this one was a a jury of citizens in federal court. I think it's worth just backing up a minute and talking about the history of, like, apps on phones and how Android came to be. Prior to Google acquiring Android, you guys may remember There were a few companies that were the dominant OS providers, operating system providers to mobile phones. There was Nokia. There was Microsoft. There was Apple, and there was also Blackberry. And at the time, a lot of the telcos the Verizon's and AT and Ts of the world. Prior to this, we're trying to make money by charging for people to install apps on phones. So that was the 1st business model in the mobile internet was the telco would make money. And everyone fought against it. All the open internet providers said, this is ridiculous, and it was clear that that was not gonna be allowed. So ultimately, these operating systems became the play, and which operating system was on which mobile phone, and what did that operating system then allowed to control what apps or lab and so on. So the reason Google bought Android is they wanted to make an open source alternative to all of these closed app and closed systems. So Google bought Android 2005, made a huge investment in growing the team and allowed anyone to use the Android OS fork it, make their own versions of it, install it on their own hardware, run it however they want it. Meanwhile, Google made an internal version of Android that could be used on any mobile hand set company's phone as a preinstalled OS. Now, why did Google wanna do this? They wanted to do this number 1 to make sure that the internet was still open it wasn't gonna end up being closed from a user's perspective. And number 2, so that anyone can install any app they wanted. And the commercial interest for Google, which is number 3, is so that Google could make search Google search the default search engine on that phone and, have YouTube installed and all these other tools that Google makes money on, including their own app store. David Friedberg (00:13:33): Now, in Android, anyone can install any app they want on the phone. And so there's no restrictions unlike an Apple, in, in the iOS, if you try and download an app off the internet and install it, it has to go through the app. So it has to be Apple verified in order to be allowed on the phone. So the whole point of Android was that it could be open. Anyone could install anything. What Epic claimed in this case was that Google's Android OS gave people security warnings. So if you ever have tried this, you download an app from a website on Android. It says warning warning. This may cause a virus on your phone. Are you sure you wanna do this? This app hasn't been verified by Google, etcetera, etcetera. So it gives these warnings that scare consumers off of doing that. So Epic can ins you can install Fortnite direct on your Android phone today, and you can do it by downloading it from Epic's website in order to go through the Google Play Store. You can enter your credit card and you can pay for stuff. So the, it is, it is an open system that allows that. What these guys are claiming is that because Google can default the Google Play store on the phone. It's basically what most consumers are gonna use anyway. And so they're saying it's not fair, and because they also have influence over the OS and they're putting these security warnings, it's inappropriate because now it's scaring people from downloading stuff off the internet. So that's the big claim that Epic's making. So Google has already said they're gonna appeal this case because fundamentally, Again, if this were really true and there really was deep antitrust issues with this, you would likely have seen a federal agency come after Google not a private company suing them in a civil case. This would have been a much more significant action if there really was antitrust behavior, but it's a lot easier to win a jury trial party to party where Epic can go to a court and say, Hey, let's go after Google. They're awful. We make Fortnite and all this sort of stuff. So they do have a bias in that sense of being able to do Google's gonna appeal. They feel very strongly they'll win on appeal, and the markets obviously did a, you know, voted with the fact that Google stock didn't really move anywhere. David Friedberg (00:15:21): And the market said, Hey, this is a this is a Nothing burger. Google's 40,000,000,000 in annual play store revenue. Worst case scenario, like you said, if it gets impacted by $2,000,000,000, That's 2,000,000,000 out of 300 overall. Doesn't really matter. And likely, they're gonna win on appeal anyway. So, you know, I think the saga will continue But I think Google's got a pretty strong case on appeal, and it seems like, you know, that it's gonna be very hard to kind of see a massive change in App Store behavior as a result of this case, even though it's been hyped up to be that. That's my take on it. Jason Calacanis (00:15:49): Yeah. Yeah. Great take. Chamath, what do you think about this jury shopping and maybe the fact that this isn't Lena Khan, this isn't the FTC, know, as company to company, do you think that the claims here were valid? Do you think the jury shopping impacted this in a significant way? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:05): Probably. Guess the simple thought exercises, what do we think the outcome would have been had this trial happened in Dallas, Texas? Probably different. And so I think Friedberg right. What does it materially prove nothing with respect to the body of law? It just goes to show that if you pick the right place to convene these trials in the right format, you can give yourself a slightly better probability of winning but the question is what will you win? It's not clear to me what happens now. Is there going to be a damages portion now of this trial? Is that what happens next? Jason Calacanis (00:16:42): They're not seeking damages. They want changes to how they operate. And they're trying David Friedberg (00:16:45): to get a settlement, and they want people to settle out with changes to the app store policies. That's what they're asking for. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:51): And then what about the Epic versus Apple lawsuit? Is it being done in the same way? Jason Calacanis (00:16:55): No. They lost David Friedberg (00:16:56): They lost, and they appealed, and there's one element that's being appealed to the Supreme Court now, but basically they lost, and that's over. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:03): And that was that convened in California in a jury trial as well in San Francisco? David Friedberg (00:17:07): No. That that was not a jury trial. It was a judge. And But what California. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:13): It was a bench trial in California. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:17:15): Yeah. It was also in, cal Northern California. That's right. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:17:18): So, Sachs, let me bring you in on this. Do you think that these stores are monopolies? And do you think if they change their behavior, especially Apple, you know, allow other third party stores would impact that would that have on the startup ecosystem? Because the 30% tax is significant, and we see that every day with our startups. I mean, if you have to give away 30 percent of your revenue, to Google and Apple, it's brutal. And then you're advertising on Apple and Google and Facebook. That's another 30% of your revenue or 50% of your revenue. David Sacks (00:17:47): Yeah. No. I agree with that. So first of all, these app stores are absolutely monopolies within their ecosystem and Apple and Google Android are absolutely a duopoly within the mobile space. My experience with these types of monopolies or gatekeepers is that they exercise more and more control and extract more and more of the value over time. It's an iterative process in which they just keep, you know, extracting, keep taxing, keep keep imposing more rules on the ecosystem for their benefit, into the detriment of innovators. And so I do think they have to be controlled, and I think Epic is doing the ecosystem a favor. For example, on this 30% Rakes that you're talking about. That level of rake might have been appropriate for certain types of app like a hobbyist app where it's literally a 100% margin. Okay. You pay 30% to the app store. It doesn't work for SaaS companies. I mean, I can tell you that. I mean, this would be like half of their gross margin or something like that. It doesn't work for a lot of companies that spend a lot of money on content creation, like Epic, which spends a lot of money in R&D to create They get much Fortnite. Jason Calacanis (00:18:55): Spot 5. Break their models immediately. David Sacks (00:18:57): Or Amazon with Kindle. And so what happened is it used to be the case. That Amazon could have a link in their app, at least directing the user to go to the amazon.com website, and you could buy the book there, and you could circumvent the the the rake in the app, and it was inconvenient for the user, but at least there was a way around it, then Apple banned those links then they ban the ability for the app to even message to the user what was happening. So if, for example, if you use the Kindle app, on iOS, which I do all the time, you can't buy a book in it. And the reason why is because Amazon doesn't wanna pay the 30% rate, but they can't even tell you that. It just looks like it's broken functionality. So those of us who know go to amazon.com through the browser, and we buy the book there and then it it magically appears. In the Kindle app. We've all had that experience. So I just think that these duopolies have to be controlled. I think that it'd be good if the government could figure out better ways to do it. I don't think M and A is the right way to do it. We've talked about this before. I think that restricting anti competitive tactics is really the way to stop it. And like I said, I can't speak to the the details of Epic's case, but I do think they're doing the ecosystem a favor here by pushing back on these monopolies and helping to keep them under control. Jason Calacanis (00:20:12): A 100% agree with us, actually, your take. And I think actually other people should join them, and the industry should really force this issue because you are absolutely correct that they're boiling the frog. Now they did make some cuts under a 1,000,000. I think they charged 15% on the first million they try to be nice to the smaller developers. But I'll just pull it up. David Friedberg (00:20:28): That's not, look, it's actually the larger ones too. Pull up the, the link I just sent. So you'll see here Google charges through the play store, if you doubt, if you wanna have distribution, I mean, think about the play store as being like a retailer. You make clothing. You need to have a retail store that someone can go to stuff. The retail store has to make money. You're not gonna have a retail store that's free. So how does the retail store make money? Well, they charge 98% of apps as you can see here are free. You know, they they don't make any money on that. But then if you start to charge subscriptions, it's 15% take on automatically renewing subscriptions where it's in the year for the Jason Calacanis (00:21:00): year. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:21:01): Yeah. It's easier. No, each year. Look at the second. No. No. No. Jason Calacanis (00:21:04): No. It's for renewing. So Right. I know that's because of Calm. So in the 1st year of Calm. David Friedberg (00:21:08): It's for it's for renewing subscriptions. Subscription products. So all subscriptions that have an automatic renewal feature to them are instantly at 15%. And as a result, you know, you can think about the, what is it worth to get a user to not have to enter their credit card info? You know, plus the credit card fees, it's like 15% is not too crazy. Honestly, I'm just, you know, not trying to be a super Google advocate, but I'm just saying, like, I don't think that's too crazy. And then they've got this, like, negotiated tier where if you are a very large app developer and you wanna go and negotiate with Google, they have a biz dev team like Spotify and others get where they'll negotiate fees down, and you can actually go and, like, argue for better economics. So They've tried to be commercial, which I'm guessing is probably why Lina Khan and others haven't gone after them for antitrust and monopolistic behavior, because they've tried to find the the comfortable place where it's not gonna be too crazy. At least that's my read on what's going on because otherwise, I mean, obviously, folks would be all over them. Know, if it really wasn't monopolist. The boiling Jason Calacanis (00:22:02): of the frog issue is the one for me because then they wanna charge you now for placement in the app store and get revenue from you there. David Friedberg (00:22:09): Yeah. I mean, that's that's Amazon too. Amazon's got that. Like, everyone's gotten screwed. Every D2C company in the last 5 years has gotten obliterated. Their unit economics are upside down now. We've talked about this, both Google's taken out the margin, but Amazon forces you to buy ads in order to get proper placement. Yeah. And then they force you to pay all the extra fees for inventory, Amazon squeezed everyone way more than any of these digital app stores. Jason Calacanis (00:22:30): This is the perfect place for Unicon to get active, I think. And the settlement's super easy. The entire industry should come at them in unison, tons of lawsuits, group lawsuits until they allow when you turn on your phone, the ability to load Amazon's App Store, Epic's App Store, Epic's App Store, whoever else wants to have an App Store. That should be your right. If you buy a hardware device, it should be your right to load these and shouldn't be ankleed in any way. And that's the other thing. Android does all kinds of anchoring to make those with those pop ups and, hey, this isn't safe, etcetera. They should have a verified up store program. Amazon's App Store, Epic App Store, they should be verified or something, and maybe they pay 5% to have a verified App Store. But yeah. This is a this is gonna be an ongoing issue, and we'll see more of it, I think. So let's go on. Anybody else have thoughts on it? No. Okay. So in other news, OpenAI is starting to cut licensing deals. If you remember, we had a big debate about this back on episode 115 in February. And I was saying, hey, this content is owned and and the opportunity to create LLMs or derivative products, you know, is the right of the the people who make that content. Saks you told me I was gonna get rolled over. But here we are. David Sacks (00:23:45): I wouldn't say I said you're getting it rolled over. What I said is the ecosystem's gonna figure this out. Jason Calacanis (00:23:49): Okay. Let's play the tape. If Chamath PT takes a Yelp review and, you know, a a a comedy dance traveler review, and they represent it based on the best content that I was out that's out there that they've already ranked because they have that algorithm with page or Bing's ranking engine, and then they republish it, and then that jeopardizes those businesses that is profoundly unfair and not what we want for society. And they are interfering with their ability to leverage their own content is profoundly unfair. And those magazines and newspapers need to what's that? David Sacks (00:24:21): You're an Jason Calacanis (00:24:21): existing role. Okay. On hair. There it is. David Sacks (00:24:25): Man, is my hair worse now or then? David Friedberg (00:24:27): Yeah. Your hair was wet. I think it's back cut back then. I think you were, like, post COVID back then. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:31): Yeah. I think in between, it's much better right now. My gosh. It's not much like a toothpaste. Nick, can you can you just Jason Calacanis (00:24:36): show us a picture of that? It looks like, you're in the David Friedberg (00:24:39): common era. That was like, like an early AD. This is like the common era now. Jason Calacanis (00:24:43): You know, it's okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:44): That's a too big. That's a too big. Jason Calacanis (00:24:46): It does look like a tube. It looks like a raccoon. David Friedberg (00:24:49): Okay, Jake. Cal, I I'll get some comments on this because I think you're your fluffer Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:53): has has fluff too much on the upper parts and and unfluff the bottom part I think I Jason Calacanis (00:24:58): mean, listen. Don't criticize him when he was in an in between phase. We all go through an in between phase with our hair. It it's it's part of the process. David Sacks (00:25:04): Now I know why we're talking about this topic at Jake House because you think you it's it's it's a total non story, or it's I shouldn't say it's a non story. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:25:10): Well, let me finish. Let me let me finish it off Speaker 4 (00:25:12): our system. Jason Calacanis (00:25:13): So just so we know what's going on here, OpenAI announced a licensing deal with Axel Springer, to bring real time news from political and the fake news from business insider to chat B2T. Thank you. You literally David Friedberg (00:25:25): said like Alex Jones. I mean, oh, fucker. Jason Calacanis (00:25:27): Thank you. You complain all of your team news. Yeah. That is actually correct. David Sacks (00:25:32): He is right about that. Jason Calacanis (00:25:33): I got one thing right. As part of the deal, axle springer can use chat GPT to improve their products, includes other European sites. This is on top of the deal that OpenAI did with the associate depressed, but most importantly let me just most importantly, I'm gonna throw it to you in a second. Most importantly, when chat GPT relies on these sources, it'll include a summary and a link back Other examples of licensing are happening all over the industry. Adobe is using stop images for theirs and stable diffusion, as you know, appraisently used Getty's images are being sued. So Friedberg, you thought this was unrealistic, but here we are. No. I don't agree with your framing. And I I think David Friedberg (00:26:11): that's I think it's unrealistic for you to frame this as, validating or justifying the fact that these companies won't be able to access and utilize open data under fair use to train models. Jason Calacanis (00:26:23): So that's David Friedberg (00:26:24): what's going on historically. Right? So the open web, you know, we talked a little bit about where folks can get content from the open web. You can browse the internet and you can download all this content. It's all freely available. It's readily available. It's in It's in the open domain. And then you can train models, and then the models can ultimately make stuff based on all that training data. What this deal is is it's actually a content integration deal, and I'll read this with the partnership chat GPT users around the world will receive summaries of selected global news content from Axel Springer's media brands, including yadayada, including otherwise paid content. So what Chamath, GPT, is doing is they're accessing content behind a paywall, And they'll be able and and instead of training models on it, they're able to fetch that data as a retrieval aspect of the chat GPT service. So now you, as a user, want an update on, hey, what's going on with Donald Trump, it can search not it cannot not just use its training data, but it can recognize that, hey, there's a current event news question embedded in this, query. And I can go fetch that current event news answer from this content that I've now paid for. So it's not a training data set that's that's now being unlocked, which is what the complaint was before, that all the open web data was being used for training, but it's behind payroll data that can now be fetched and integrated. And I think it's more interesting because it really speaks to a new model for how the internet will work, which we've talked about. Which is that there may be these sort of new chat interfaces that cannot just send you to another page and link you over somewhere, but can such data for you and presented to you in an integrated way in the response it's providing. David Friedberg (00:27:56): And these services have to pay for access to that. So chat, you know, OpenAI It's a 3 year deal. They're paying tens of 1,000,000 of dollars to Axle Springer to access their closed content and present it to the user. So I think it's quite a bit different than, you know, using training data which is what, you know, the complaint was the first time around, and it's more of like a really interesting front end feature for what chat EBT is becoming. Jason Calacanis (00:28:16): Zach, you wanted to add to that? David Sacks (00:28:19): And I don't really have a lot to add to that. I think Frigbert did a great job explaining that issue. I mean, look, I think Jake Hall, you've had a little bit of a discussion with this copyright issue. Jason Calacanis (00:28:28): Well, protecting protecting rights holders, I do, believe in. I don't know if succession David Sacks (00:28:32): Friedberg makes a really great point, which is there's a difference between copying somebody's copy written work, which Speaker 4 (00:28:38): would be a violation of copyright, and using content that's available on the open web to train a model David Sacks (00:28:46): to create entirely new content. And I do think that AI models should be able to use the content that's available on the web under a fair use doctrine to train their models for the benefit of consumers. And, I don't see a reason to try tie that up in a bunch of copyright lawsuits. If chat GBT is producing a plagiarized result, then you may have grounds for a copyright infringement claim. Jason Calacanis (00:29:11): So what I would say is, you know, when you look at that fair use doctrine, I've got a lot of experience with it. Having done this in blogs and and other content companies, You know, the 4th factor test, I'm sure you're well aware of this, is the effect of the use on the potential market and the value of the work. And if you look at the lawsuits that are starting to emerge, it is Getty's right to then make derivative products based on their images. I think we would all agree stable diffusion when they use these open web, that is no excuse to use an open web crawler to avoid getting a license from the original owner of that. Just because you can technically do it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. In fact, the open web projects that provide these say explicitly We do not give you the right to use this, you have to then go read the copyright laws on each of those websites and on top of that, if somebody were to steal the copyrights of other people put it on the open web, which is happening all day long, you still, if you're building a derivative work like this, you still need to go get it. So it's no excuse that I took some site in Russia that did a bunch of copyright violation and that I index them for my training model. So I think this is Going to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:19): resolve paper. Jason Calacanis (00:30:20): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:20): Paper, can you shoot me in the face and let me know in this segment soon? Jason Calacanis (00:30:24): Okay. Alright. So the segment is now over. I was about to throw it to you, code hours. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:30): I mean, like stop at this navel gazing nonsense. We're in any one And nobody knows anything. And the most important thing is that this will get sorted out through trials. That's where you are right, Jason. It's going to go to court and it's, and I think we should just not opine on this stuff because it's esoteric at best. And it's kind of like Whatever. Jason Calacanis (00:30:53): Well, some of it will go to court. Other ones will be done in the free market. Like we see here, another day. I think David Sacks (00:30:59): how you care about this more than most people because you were a journalist. Do you think put people out of work. Jason Calacanis (00:31:03): I am a content creator. I'm also an author, as you know, and a podcaster and they create all kinds of content. I do think that you should get permission before you leverage people's work to create diver derivative products. Correct. And actually, you're starting to see this, in, Dolly and chat EBT seems to be getting ahead of this because of all the the incoming lawsuits. Check this out. I started asking Dolly to make me Star Wars characters of Bulldog's, and I said make a Jedi Bulldog. It did that. No problem. Then I asked it to make a version of this using, and make a Darth Vader. And it said, I'm unable to generate images based on your request due to our content policy, if have other ideas and concepts you'd like to blow, feel free to share. So I said, make me a sith lord cat, and it basically made me Darth Vader. And so it's very clear that the team over at OpenAI is now taking You're prompt engineering. You're like a clever prompt engineer Well, yeah, I got a round copy right here. Right? And so it's very clear. David Sacks (00:31:57): How silly, like, all of this stuff is. This is just a a drag coefficient on development of AI because and on users because now you've gotta, like, word your prompt exactly the right way. Jason Calacanis (00:32:07): Well, I think what they're doing is they know that Marvel and all the Disney characters, all the Star Wars characters. They're very protective of their IP. Disney is going to launch their own dolly type, stable diffusion product where you can do this. Put yourself on a star make a Star Wars characters. David Sacks (00:32:21): Me any good at this. Jason Calacanis (00:32:22): It doesn't matter if they're good or not. It's their IP. And so I David Sacks (00:32:25): mean, look, fans can create their own artwork that's in the vein of, like, a darth vader image. Jason Calacanis (00:32:30): They can, but they can't do it commercially. And what chat JBT and OpenAI here is commercial because I pay $20 a month to chat JBT. So that's what you're missing. A fan, of course, can make a Jedi catalog. Well, all David Sacks (00:32:41): I know is you played this, like, way back video from episode 15 or something. Okay. From episode 115 is if you Anyway, listen. I know Jason Calacanis (00:32:51): you guys never wanna take off. David Sacks (00:32:52): Right? That turns out that Frebert totally blew up your case. Jason Calacanis (00:32:55): He didn't blow up my case. I I will be right and continue to be right. Okay. Now let's go to something we can offer. We're we're David Friedberg (00:33:00): definitely not striking this segment. I liked it. Jason Calacanis (00:33:02): Let's go. No. No. No. No. Spicy. We like a little spicy here. David Sacks (00:33:05): To refute you. Friedberg just did it. It was beautiful. Jason Calacanis (00:33:07): Well, I mean, listen. Okay. David Sacks (00:33:08): You came in. You thought you had the goods. Unmit it. No. He's like playing this way back video from, like, 45 to go. I finally got him. I finally got socks. I was finally right about something. Jason Calacanis (00:33:19): If you hadn't claimed you'd never used the right steamroll, I would have never played the club David Sacks (00:33:23): Oh my god. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:24): I have some live footage. I just wanna go through it and just talk Jason Calacanis (00:33:26): about it. I should like it. David Sacks (00:33:26): I should like it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:29): Anyways, yeah. So guys, there's this copyright thing I wanna I okay. Hold on. Let me let me just refrain. Let me just start that again. Okay. You know, copyright issues are okay. Wait. Hold on a second. Well, listen. There's this thing I wanna talk about copyright, which oh, hold on. Jason Calacanis (00:33:45): What are you doing? Oh, these are Jones of Stuart's copywriting. This was held on the NBA Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:50): last year. When you do d of her. Jason Calacanis (00:33:51): Okay. Hold on. When you write something and you wanna Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:54): get okay. Hold on. Jason Calacanis (00:33:55): Hold on. Hold on. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:57): Everybody that writes gets a chance, sir. Okay. Hold on Jason Calacanis (00:33:59): a second. I mean, if I could get up that high I would miss the dunk and still be laughing about it. David Sacks (00:34:02): You can't just say content. He's about to steamroll. Jason Calacanis (00:34:09): Try everything. You can't start everything. David Sacks (00:34:11): Come on. Jake, Hal, you teed up the way back clip of yourself. You teed up the way back clip of yourself. So you brought Jason Calacanis (00:34:19): this on yourself. I knew you were gonna deny it. And I just You David Sacks (00:34:21): brought this Jason Calacanis (00:34:21): on yourself. For you to deny. Yeah. David Sacks (00:34:23): But you you try to dunk in it didn't work. Jason Calacanis (00:34:25): Okay. Okay. Okay. Every bit has to take the piss out of me. I don't know. I'm seeing a trend. No. That that was excellent. No. Don't don't read David Sacks (00:34:32): the way that's left. Unless Jason Calacanis (00:34:34): you have David Sacks (00:34:34): a clean dunk. Jason Calacanis (00:34:35): Alright. Here we go. David Sacks (00:34:36): Don't bring it to the hoop and then break it. Jason Calacanis (00:34:39): Bring it. Bring it. We had Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:41): a receipt It turned up the credit Jason Calacanis (00:34:43): card was stolen. Okay. Here we go. David Sacks (00:34:52): You know, who actually deserves credit for admitting that he was wrong? Jason Calacanis (00:34:55): Oh, we'll get to. We'll get you. David Friedberg (00:34:56): You'll get your file. David Sacks (00:34:58): Okay. Hold on. Your med Jason Calacanis (00:35:00): needs coming. Here we go. Great transition. Great transition. Here we go. Elon versus the FCC. Another government agency is now targeting Elon. This is a little bit complicated, but let me explain on Tuesday, the FCC rejected Starlink's application for 900,000,000 in subsidies for rural broadband. Starlink originally won these back in 2020. When they agreed to provide high speed internet to 640,000 rural homes across 35 States, funding would have come from the RGOF rural digital opportunity fund. I guess the government is paying for expanding broadband services in rural areas. And Starlink, obviously, is perfect for that. Actually the only solution for this, really. She can't run fiber to these locations. So the FCC found that Sterling, quote, had failed to meet its burden to be entitled to those funds. And here's the quote, FCC has a responsibility to be a good steward of limited public funds meant to expand access to rural broadband, not fund applicants that fail to meet basic program requiring and spending car. 1 of the FCC's commissioners dissented from the agency's decision, and he did not hold back. Last year, this is a quote, after Elon acquired Twitter, President Biden gave federal agencies a green light to go after him. Today's decision certainly fits the Biden Administration's pattern of regulatory harassment. This is a decision that cannot be explained by any objective application of law facts or policy, car went on to explain, how his decision was made and why it's unprecedented. Instead of applying nutritional FCC standards to the record evidence, which would have compelled the agency to confirm Starlink's $885,000,000 award. The FCC denied it on the grounds that Starlink is not providing high speed internet service to all these locations today. As noted, the FCC's milestone does not kick in until 2025. Let me toss to you, Saks. Thoughts on the Biden hit squad going after E. David Sacks (00:36:56): I mean, I can't remember anything quite like this. This is absolutely extraordinary. I mean, you have sitting member of the FCC telling us that the FCC is engaging in political retaliation. He sits on the board of the 5 commissioners of the FCC. They just canceled an $885,000,000 contract to Starlink. What was that contract for to provide rural internet service? Starlink is the only company that has that capability today. It's the only one that has that capability. If you look forward a few years, it is by far the best at providing broadband from space, which the best way to get into these rural areas. So what did the commission do? Well, they cherry picked. They took speed test snapshots from 2 cherry pick moments in time. And so even that probably was not an accurate reflection of where Starlink is today, but they then said, based on those snapshots, that Starlink would not be able to meet the standards in 3 years. So remember, the requirements that they're saying that Starlink violated don't even have to be met for 3 years. So somehow they're saying that Starlink will not get there in 3 years. They're preemptively judging the service to meet a standard that is not even required to meet today, and nobody else is even close to meeting the standard. So Elon's response to this was guys, okay, if you're gonna cancel the contract for us, like, just save the money because the competitors that you're giving it to have even less of a service than we do. Yeah. So just like save the taxpayer the money, but they're not doing that. So this is really remarkable. And what Carl said here is that The Biden administration is choosing to prioritize as political and ideological goals at the expense of connecting Americans. We can. It should reverse course. This is now part of a pattern of the federal government harassing Elon and his companies, and it all stems from Biden at that press conference saying, we gotta look at the sky, you know, like Tony Soprano, yeah, we gotta look at this guy, you know, whatever. I mean, it was like and so since the That's Jason Calacanis (00:38:56): a nice restaurant. You got there. Be terrible if anything ever happened to it. David Sacks (00:38:59): Yeah. Jake, how you do the impression? They can't do it. Any event. So Biden says in this press conference, we gotta look at this guy. And since then, they've investigated Tesla for supposedly building a glass house. Which I didn't know was a crime. That's amazing. Yeah. SpaceX, which is partially a defense contractor, was sued by the DOJ because they were hiring too many Americans and didn't they weren't hiring enough refugees into sense of national security roles that they would surely be sued for doing if that was confounded way. Yeah. And now they're they've canceled a contract for SpaceX having the best service in the space but somehow missing a goal that they're not required to meet for 3 years. This is harassment. It's Jason Calacanis (00:39:42): transparent. Yeah. David Sacks (00:39:43): And the question I have is do we wanna live in a country where the government can engage in this kind of naked political retaliation against its critics? And I have to say, you know, there was a there was a time in America where, you know, Nixon was roundly attacked for having this quote unquote enemies list. Where supposedly, you know, he had made a list of all his enemies and the IRS was auditing them. Okay? We are so far beyond that point, and the media isn't interested at all, and no one's really interested unless you like what Elon's doing. But if you don't, you know, if you're on the opposite side of political spectrum, as Elon, you don't care. And there's nobody who's willing to say in a neutral way that political retaliation should not be part of our system. Jason Calacanis (00:40:27): I mean, we, I mean, have a presidential candidate running specifically saying, I am your retribution. I mean, this is something that has to stop across all of politics. Nobody should be using their political power to do any retribution against anybody. They should be operating the government efficiently and the best interest of all Americans tomorrow. David Sacks (00:40:44): To be honest, okay. So maybe I don't like that rhetoric from Trump. I don't think it's helpful, but what did Trump ever do? That's in this league I mean, everything they accused Trump of doing, the fascism, the retribution, all that kind of stuff, seems to me that Biden administration is doing here. Jason Calacanis (00:40:59): Yeah. Well, I mean, he says he's gonna do it. He says that the first thing he's gonna do is go after journalists and David Friedberg (00:41:03): Do you think Trump did no retribution when he was in office? Jason Calacanis (00:41:07): I mean, we have to look through every single issue David Sacks (00:41:11): that we've ever done. Jason Calacanis (00:41:12): It's interesting. Correct. I mean, one doesn't come off the top of my head. I'm trying to remember if he ever said I'm gonna go after this person or that person. I I don't remember an instance of him saying David Sacks (00:41:20): He said lock her up. That was it. He never did it. Trump was all talk in this respect. He didn't actually do it. Jason Calacanis (00:41:26): Yes. This is what Peter Till said. Like, you know, his his great quote about him. Like, just look at his actions. Not at what he says. He, he saver rattles, and he says he's gonna do retribution against everybody, but, you know, and then he doesn't. So Tremont David Sacks (00:41:37): Even talking about Trump in this context is a deflection, Haikal, the action is being taken by the Biden administration. They've now weaponized multiple federal agencies to go after Elon on these cases that seem transparently trumped up a glass house, not hiring enough refugees to national security roles. David Friedberg (00:41:53): It's it's obvious what's happening. David Sacks (00:41:54): A contract for the for Starlink, which is by far the best rural internet service, how do you even justify it? These cases on their Jason Calacanis (00:42:01): space are. So I'm in a 100%. I'm in a 100% agreement. You think there's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:06): This is politically motivated harassment of Elon by the Biden administration. Jason Calacanis (00:42:10): 100%. He said it. He said it. And he didn't invite him to the EV summit. So you just take Biden at his actions. If you don't Invite by if you don't invite you on to the EV summit, it's obvious that he's got it in for this guy. And now it's obvious he's told people to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:24): you know, investigate him and harass him. It's obvious. So why do you think they don't like him? Why do you think Biden doesn't like him? Jason Calacanis (00:42:32): Why doesn't vinyl like him? Cause he's non union. It's obvious. That's the that's the beginning and end of it. I mean, I'm sure the freedom of speech things and you know, Twitter doesn't help, but this predates. Biden is a union guy, and he will not have nonunion people. He will not support 9 union people. Is bought and sold by the unions. That's a 100%. Anyone said that. David Sacks (00:42:51): That may be how it started, but I think you're underwriting the free speech aspect. Jason Calacanis (00:42:55): Oh, I I I said it could have to do with that, but it's definitely that's the number one issue. And more David Friedberg (00:43:00): importantly, Saks more importantly, you're saying enabling dissenting voices, strongly Absolutely. David Sacks (00:43:05): I think I think that from the get go, they have sought to exercise control over the Twitter, formerly Twitter now x platform, because it is the town square for political speech. Jason Calacanis (00:43:17): Oh, they succeeded. They succeeded. The FBI, everything. Well, they had David Sacks (00:43:20): to have total control of it until he wants somehow bought company, which was not in their plans. Frankly, that was just a fluke. I mean, that was something that Elon did out of the blue because he cares a lot about free speech. And he opened up the Twitter jails and you know, stop the censorship. And open up the Twitter files, we found out that this was not just a private company acting on its own. It was being directed or encouraged by Jason Calacanis (00:43:44): Yeah. They were giving them lists of tweets saying, hey. These tweets probably might make your terms of service. Yeah. David Sacks (00:43:51): You know? And the FBI acting is the quote unquote belly button of the whole federal government directing all these takedown requests totally on America. David Friedberg (00:43:58): I think that the pattern of actions more than anything mandates that Biden and his team actually have to address publicly why it is not retribution. The absence of doing that, the absence of doing that at this point is gonna be more damaging to them than just letting things go on and claiming down the road, hey, this is all part of the normal course of business. Now the guy does David Sacks (00:44:21): why why would they address it? Why do they have to address it? The media doesn't hold them accountable. The media doesn't report it. The media pretended like the Twitter files never even happened. Remember that? 0 mainstream media coverage of the Twitter files. 0 mainstream media coverage of these retaliatory lawsuits. Why would the Biden administration need to explain itself? Why would they even talk about it? The fix is in. David Friedberg (00:44:40): Well, I mean, now the question is being, I think Jason Calacanis (00:44:42): The the David Sacks (00:44:43): mainstream media are stenographers for one side of the political spectrum, which is precisely the reason. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:48): Did you guys Jason Calacanis (00:44:48): see this thing? David Sacks (00:44:49): It's precisely the reason why they're so upset with Elon with opening up free speech on Twitter. Because they had total control of the public discourse until he did that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:59): Did you see that thing this morning where somebody called out the New York Times for selectively editing what Hunter Biden said to make it more broad. Broad. Did you see that, Jason? Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:45:10): They he basically said my father has not financially been involved in my businesses. And the New York Times took out the word financially, to make it more broad to say he's not been involved in my business. He's obviously was involved in this business. David Friedberg (00:45:22): They did. Really? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:23): Yeah. And then there's a clip where they where they show the article And they show and then they show his interview. And the interview is very clear. He says it, but the New York Times headline emits the word and doesn't doesn't put it in a bracket so that it shows that it was edited. It shows that that was the quote. Jason Calacanis (00:45:38): Can you pull it off? David Friedberg (00:45:39): Do you have, do you have that thing? It's so crazy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:42): Let me find it. David Friedberg (00:45:43): That's crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:45:44): I mean, I would like to think there's a possibility. This was a mistake, but, man, it's pretty bad. I mean, this is really bad by the New York Times. And they gotta figure out who actually took that word out because it's pretty clear Biden was very involved in Hunter's businesses. And that's why he put that word financially in there because he was on I think he's on all the documents as being part of it. And he's in the emails. So David Sacks (00:46:10): He was the branch at Cow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:11): There it is. Thank you, Nick. You're very good at finding these things. There Jason Calacanis (00:46:14): it is. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:14): So if you look on the left that's the article in the New York Times. And it's clear that that was the quote, and then if you play it on the right, it's actually what he said. David Sacks (00:46:24): Let me state as clearly as I can. My father was not financially involved in my business. Wow. Jason Calacanis (00:46:32): Yeah. And then it quotes as many stay as clear as I can. My father was not involved in my business. Now if in journalism, you could put an ellipsis, after involved, you know, three dots. And and but why would you do that? This is like breaking very basic journalistic standards. This is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:49): my point. There's like format, right, when you edit out a word like that? Jason Calacanis (00:46:52): You would only edit out a word if it was superfluous and you wanted to have a tighter quote you know, if the person said, you can take that out. And if you were taking out a long quote, you put three dots and then you it would show that you cut the quote. There was something in between, and then you went to David Friedberg (00:47:07): That is correct. Jason Calacanis (00:47:07): In the case of something this important, you would never take out a keyword like that. That would this is just journalism 101. So I mean, if this happens, Man, it is it's the keyword in the sentence. By the way Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:20): It's the keyword in the sentence. Jason Calacanis (00:47:21): It is the keyword in the sentence. So If the person took it out man, who took it out? And this is the problem with the New York Times is they bury their corrections. They need to and this is back to accountability that you're saying, Friedberg, the Biden administration has to explain why they excluded Elon from the EV summits. And the New York Times needs to explain why they did this. Or else, you know, the mind wanders that there's some conspiracy going on here or targeting. And I wonder if they changed it. Well, here's the live story. Has it changed in the story? Did they they change it yet? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:51): Luke Broadwater. I mean, Luke Broadwater. Is that a name from central casting? That's not a real name, is it? Jason Calacanis (00:47:56): I don't David Sacks (00:47:56): know. Oh, let's say they post a correction. Jason Calacanis (00:47:58): Oh, here we go. Correction. An earlier version of this article, quoted Hunter Biden. You said my father was not financial. It was not my father. So the only room I have here is if the person was live transcribing it maybe, and they left it out, but this is too important to not have a fact checker go through it. And to have to get called out on it to fix it, it just shows how far this is this is the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:18): equivalent though Jay Kala putting on the front page. I did not kill that person. And then a day later, it buried in page 812. I actually did kill that person. Jason Calacanis (00:48:28): I mean, if you the question at the bottom of the story is good. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:32): Everybody sees the front page very, very people, you would agree with me, very, very few people see the correction. Jason Calacanis (00:48:36): In the old days, they would put the correction on, like, a 2, a 3, of the paper, and it would be small to be at the bottom. In the digital age, you put the correction at the bottom of the article, so it's a little bit better. But the truth is most people don't go to the bottom of the article, So there's an argument to put corrections at the top of the article, but journalists don't want to admit when they're wrong. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:55): I think the I saw I saw a list of all of the organizations investigating Elon. And what was surprising was how broad some of these organizations felt that they had a mandate to look into him. So there was like, I I I wanna say, Nick, maybe you can find this on Twitter, but they had a list of them. And it was like, the Bureau of Land Management Data Investigation. I mean, it just makes no sense. Like, it just does not smell right. Jason Calacanis (00:49:24): In fairness, Elon is involved in many, many very important projects, so there would be a lot of agencies that speaks over regulation. Then you have to drill down and say, okay, when are they actually targeting him? And so that's going to be a lot of parts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:37): Fish and wildlife, you know, health and human housing. I mean, it's a list goes on. You might You're David Sacks (00:49:42): fishing in the wrong pond or what? What's the No. Jason Calacanis (00:49:46): I think I my understanding there is You know, at starbase, there's some estuaries or something. And there is a lot of David Sacks (00:49:55): Estuary. Jason Calacanis (00:49:56): I mean, yes, we we protect animals and whatever. This is something that happens all over the the country where and California is actually probably the leader in this, but I think some crabs might have got burned, not in a barbecue, but by the rocket. I mean, literally that and and then this is this could this speaks to what risk are we willing to take to make progress as humanity. Friedberg, remember we had this discussion about self driving cars? Like, if getting to Mars and being multiplanatory kills some crabs, I think we should be okay with that. In fact, if it decimated, I mean, it's not decimated, but let's just say a hundred square miles got decimated by getting to Mars on planet Earth. But you'd make that trade off. Right? David Friedberg (00:50:37): Yeah. It's a I mean, this is the same standard. I think I feel around if there's a mouse infestation in my house, I'm not gonna let the mice live in my house even though I'm completely ethically against killing animals. Killing animals to eat when I have other options, I'm against. And I think animal testing and medical applications, I have a totally different standard than I think what is standard in the market today. So For me, it's like a a pretty sensitive topic because my ethics are don't kill animals unless absolutely necessary. And the question is what is what is the definition of necessary? And so these sorts of points that you're making about, you know, if it gets all humans to Mars, that might be a trade off worth making for some of the crabs. I don't you know, it's like Probably. David Sacks (00:51:18): How many parts of them are seeing the analogy here? Are you seeing the Elon's the mouse? Jason Calacanis (00:51:23): The rocket may have killed the mouse. David Sacks (00:51:25): The regulators own the house. Wait. What's the who's the mouse and who's the house? Jason Calacanis (00:51:29): The house is the rocket ship. Clearly, the house David Friedberg (00:51:32): is the house. The house. Right? Yeah. David Sacks (00:51:35): Let's pull up this quote from Brendan Carr as the FCC commissioner. I thought this was amazing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:39): This list is incredible. David Sacks (00:51:41): This is the FCC commissioner, he said. He said that DOJ FAA, FTC, NLRB, NLRB, SDNY, and f w s, and I guess that's Fisher Wildlife have all taken action. The FCC now joins them. Man. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:54): That's incredible. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:51:55): It's a little bit nuts. David Sacks (00:51:57): Look at that Biden quote, where I didn't actually know about the second part. I knew about the first part where he says we gotta take a look at this guy. But then he was asking how? Jason Calacanis (00:52:05): This guy David Sacks (00:52:06): President Biden responded, there's a lot of ways. There's Jason Calacanis (00:52:08): a lot of ways. There's a lot of ways to get to somebody. Okay. I can get to you. You might be able to get to me. I might be able to get to you. And, you know, maybe watch it back. You know, David Sacks (00:52:19): You know what else? Biden said there's a lot of ways is when he was talking about the the Nord Stream pipeline, And he said, that pipeline's not gonna move forward. And then they said, yeah, but the press said to him, yeah, but that's that's like a German Russian project, like how what's your involvement? David Friedberg (00:52:38): How you gonna do it? David Sacks (00:52:39): We said we got ways. There are a lot of ways we got ways. Wow. David Friedberg (00:52:43): Ouch. Okay. So on the counter pole, obviously Elon has several pretty sprawling businesses. He has self driving cars. Right. And they push the right. They push the envelope on you know, where there's an existing regulatory framework, same with going to Mars, right, same with transmitting internet services, wireless communications. Like, you know, there is a regulatory framework for all of these businesses, and he's on the bleeding edge and typically beyond the framework to some degree. I think it's, like, worth acknowledging at least that there's a necessity of scrutiny and involvement in these agencies given that they do have regulatory authority and and responsibility over these various businesses, and he's well beyond where anyone else is in each of them. So I just wanna acknowledge that. David Sacks (00:53:23): Hold on. Let me respond to that. Yeah. He's well beyond where other people are in his industry in terms of innovation. He's the first to acknowledge, because I've heard him say this many times that he's in highly regulated industries, and they've got, you know, massive compliance programs at Tesla And SpaceX and all these different companies. What we're judging these regulatory agencies on is not that there's a need to regulate Elon's companies within the framework of their industries, but rather the specific actions that are being brought. Remember DOJ Sewing SpaceX are not hiring enough refugees. Right. Tesla being sued on this glasshouse business, whatever that is. Right. Jason Calacanis (00:54:05): Those are David Friedberg (00:54:05): those are voluntary actions in a sense. David Sacks (00:54:07): FCC canceling a contract Jason Calacanis (00:54:09): Yeah. 3 years. Speak volumes. David Sacks (00:54:11): See, actually, 3 years before the they even need to judge that contract, whether that contract's been met. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:18): 100% of things that happened, this week, which I think is important along this vein, is that the IRS is in charge of making sure that you can claim the $75100 EV tax credit cars. And a lot of us that have been looking at this issue, the way that they break the EV tax credit is in half And part of it is about where the material is sourced, and part of it has to do with the total sum of certain components of the car and how much of those are made in the US, etcetera. Okay. And it was presumed just based on the trend that Tesla would lose half the credit, keep half the credit. And in a bit of a surprising move, they the IRS came out and said the whole thing, we're not going to acknowledge anymore. So Tesla had to go and put on the website that the credit ends as of December 31st. So I would add the IRS to this to this list as well. David Sacks (00:55:11): That's so crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:55:12): So I gotta be investigated. I like Friedberg suggestion that prove to us that you're not doing this at this point because it's pretty clear that it is happening. And it's Yeah. David Sacks (00:55:23): Well, good luck. Jason Calacanis (00:55:24): Good luck getting David Sacks (00:55:25): them to do that. Just on the, on that EV subsidy, you know, one of the perverse things about this is that the administration is putting the thumb on the scales against Elon in favor of these less innovative competitors who have worse products. So like Elon said, if you wanna cancel our contract for Starlink to provide this rural broadband, that's fine to save taxpayers the money. But by all means, don't then give the money to these other services. I can't deliver. What's the point of that? And same thing on the electric cars. I mean, the subsidy is going to these other car companies that make worse products. David Friedberg (00:56:00): Yeah. Totally. Jason Calacanis (00:56:01): This is the key point. The the fact is all of those people who just had their Starling canceled through the government I guarantee you they will buy Starling because it's the best product. So irony of ironies, they're just gonna go spend 60, 70, 80 bucks a month to put their own Starlinks in. Like everybody else around the world who lives orally, I have Starlink. One more thing Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:22): to add. They under pressure from regulators, they announced a recall on Tuesday of 2,000,000 cars to to fix some of the autopilot software. Jason Calacanis (00:56:31): But that's an over the air update. So the press went crazy about that. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:35): No. No. No. What I'm saying is if you read the if you read the article, that over the air update is specifically because of Again, how it's written, regulatory pressure to change how the software behaves, some tuning and some edge cases. My point is that one could guess that there is an attempt here to kind of do the death by a 1000 cuts approach, right? The drip drip water torture of just like a thing over here, a thing over here, a thing over here, a thing over here, eventually companies can get distracted and misfire And so the question I do think is, like, you know, does it make us better off if all of these little tiki tacky foot faults are Enforced by the government? I think I think we all know what the answer is. Jason Calacanis (00:57:20): No. We have an example that Microsoft got so distracted by their court cases that the company went sideways for a decade. David Sacks (00:57:26): Well, but that, I mean, I think there was a lot of good basis for that particular anti that was an antitrust case, and Microsoft clearly had a monopoly. Just on the recall thing, I did see that story at the top of drudge or whatever last week, whereas it said, every Tesla has to be recalled. And when I see the word recall Jason Calacanis (00:57:44): Yes. David Sacks (00:57:44): I think that means you gotta bring it to the dealership and get like some part swapped out. But that's not what happened. Jason Calacanis (00:57:50): No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:50): Well, so what's so interesting is they refuse in these articles. I can show you the New York Times version of it. They refuse to write that it's actually an OTA update. Jason Calacanis (00:57:57): You're breaking news. I don't know if you guys saw this, but a 1,000,000,000 5 iPhones were just recalled for the 17.2 update. So ever everybody's gonna have to bring their Iphones in. 1,500,000,000 Iphones recall. You're gonna David Sacks (00:58:08): bring it to the store? Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:58:10): You gotta bring it to the store, then they give you this new journal app. I don't know if you got it in the latest date, but Apple made a journaling app so that you can have the record. Yeah. That's the recall. Yeah. It's total recall. Alright. Listen. Now we keep the red me going. Sachs is cooking with oil. Alex Jones, the controversial conspiracy commentator of Infowars fame is back on Twitter after Elon did a poll, He got 2,000,000 people to respond asking if he should be reinstated. 70% said yes. Of course, Jones encouraged his fans to vote in this poll, so I'm not sure how scientific it is. For background, Twitter permanently banned Jones in 2018 after accusing him of posting direct threats of violence and hate speech. It already received bans from Apple, Facebook, and YouTube is pretty much the the number one person to be deplatformed. As you know, Jones was ordered to pay $1,500,000,000 of the families of 8 Sandy Hook victims. This is across two cases in Texas and Connecticut. And here is Jones in his own words on the Sandy Hook parents. Speaker 4 (00:59:11): Sandy Hook, it's got inside job written all over it. Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors in my view manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. The Newtown Kids. Oh, They take them, put them in our face, tell us their names, who they were. I heard an ad this Jason Calacanis (00:59:31): morning on the radio. Bloomberg paid for Speaker 4 (00:59:31): it locally. Going, I dropped Billy off and watched him go around the corner, and he never came back all because of the guns. Won't you just turn your guns in from a son? Why'd you do it to him, gun owners? David Friedberg (00:59:48): Forgive my language, but that guy. Jason Calacanis (00:59:51): Okay. There it is, folks. We have a that guy, but let me Does that David Sacks (00:59:55): make sense for him? David Friedberg (00:59:56): Unfortunately, not, but I absolutely cannot stand back. That is just like heart wrenching, like, evil, awful spewing out of his mouth. And he still, you know, should have a right to speak, but man that guy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:11): I was never a big prior. Part of it was just my defense mechanism. And I remember Sandy Hook because I had just become a parent. I had, I think, 2 kids by that point. And I was uncontrollably crying when Jason Calacanis (01:00:28): that happened. And it was the first Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:28): time I realized how you change as a parent and you just develop this empathy, and then you realize how precious kids' lives are. And I've become more and more of a cryer as my kids have grown older. And I really appreciate that what my kids have done for me. So when I hear him talk like that, I guess he has a right to say what he wants, but he is a complete piece of Jason Calacanis (01:01:00): Yeah. Okay. So let's get into this very difficult question. In fact, I don't want to force you to defend you know, one of those horrible humans, I think we can all agree. David Sacks (01:01:10): Well, my my position is pretty similar to what the other guys said, which is what he said was Odeus. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he should be censored. We have standards. We have first amendment standards around the stuff. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:20): I agree with that. David Sacks (01:01:21): So first of all, me back up. I mean, I didn't even really know who Alex Jones was. I mean, I only knew him because of the controversy. I've never actually listened to a show. I'm not really interested in what he has to say. I do think that if you're gonna play this clip of his mistake going back many years, you should supplement it by playing a clip of what he says now. And what he says now is he's apologized. He's admitted that he made a mistake. He basically bought into a conspiracy theory. But it wasn't just him saying it. Apparently, he had some people on the show who I don't know if they were purported experts or what, but they were making a case that the whole sandy hook thing was a hoax and and was being done to basically, you know, get people's guns. I mean, It's nutty stuff. I'm not defending in any way, but he explained that he bought into that into that theory or hoax or whatever. And he thinks it's a terrible mistake, and he's apologized for it. And the question is, are you gonna have a lifetime ban on somebody for saying things that were wrong and erroneous when they have now apologized. And for me, it's not about Alex Jones. It's about censorship. Remember, when this case happened way back in 2018, it was really hard to defend keeping this guy on the platform in light of what he had said and done because everyone's reacting very emotionally to it. And it was people like defenders of free speech like Glenn Greenwald who said that, listen, if you take Alex Jones out now, if you have a permanent van, it will basically be a slippery slope, and it will create a precedent, and other people will get banned. And sure enough, just 2 years later, Twitter was banning people like Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor for saying dissonant things about COVID that turned out to be completely correct, Marie authored the Great Barrington Declaration, talk about how lockdowns wouldn't work and and so on. David Sacks (01:03:14): And so even within 2 years of this decision around Alex Jones, the censorship was totally out of control. And so I think the people who warned us that Alex Jones would become a slippery slip ended up being completely correct. To me, that's the symbolism of the restoration of Alex Jones's account. It's not endorsing what he did. It's not saying that what he said wasn't odious. I mean, look, again, I have zero interest even listening to the guy. But the point is that free speech does require us to put up with people who are wrong, people who are even Hateful sometimes. David Friedberg (01:03:53): And stating misinformation. David Sacks (01:03:54): People who put out info misinformation, That's what free speech requires us to do. And if you want a different standard, it's gonna become a precedent for a lot of censorship you don't like. David Friedberg (01:04:05): I agree with Saks. The the only place where I disagree with Saks is on Twitter not having a right to do this as a private enterprise. I think Twitter had a decision to make on what kind of editorialization they wanted to do with the content on their platform on their product, and they made a choice. I don't think that I think it was the wrong choice personally. And we've talked about this in the past. I think, you know, it's it's great that Elon's making a different choice and create catering to a, you know, a different audience, perhaps. With a different product that has more open speech, but that's not, you know, a government free speech mandate. That's a private enterprise mandate, and I do believe in the right to free speech. I think it's a little bit ironic to say that it's inappropriate when someone says something that is misinformation because it's incorrect or unprovable when we have an entire group of people that believe in something called religion, and much of religion is based on this concept of faith and belief without necessarily hard proof or evidence, and we allow religion, religious speech, you know, in in many forums without saying, hey. That's misinformation or, hey. It's not true or, hey. It doesn't meet the standards of X or Y or Z's scientific assessment or understanding. And so I think it's just worth acknowledging that this whole concept that someone has to ultimately be the police of the truth and the police of fact and the police of information is gonna lead to a bad place, and I'd rather have more free speech with people saying misinformation and saying awful putrid things than one where a few people get to decide what everyone gets to hear. So as much as I absolutely despise this country. David Sacks (01:05:43): You you you may be right that Twitter as a private company had the the right as our law currently exists to decide who they were gonna suspend and ban from the site. However, once that censorship power was created, it attracted powerful entities from our government who wanted to co opt and use that power. That's what we saw on the Twitter files David Friedberg (01:06:03): Right. With David Sacks (01:06:03): the 80 FBI agent sending take down request. That's what happens is when you create the censorship power Jason Calacanis (01:06:09): People will abuse it. David Sacks (01:06:10): It people abuse it, but but more to the point It's such a tempting power to use by people in authority, right? It's like the ring of power. Those tools that Twitter created, it's like they released a fair amount or something that attracted all these powerful shadowy actors from the federal government in the FBI and all these agencies. And so that that is why I think it's just very dangerous for even private companies to create these censorship regimes is that they can be co opted and and abused. David Friedberg (01:06:42): Being co opted and abused is the issue. I don't think that the issue is their choice in what kind of content they wanna put out. You can go to the Netflix kid's version of Netflix and kids. They they control what content is on Netflix, and they provide a different version than what they provide to adults. And I think like editorializing the content platform that you're making available, whether it's user generated or paid for or whatever, is a totally reasonable like approach to running a business, a content business, the the point you're making is the right one, which is the point at which you allow government agencies to intervene and and have control a manipulation over private citizens, user generated content is where I think it crossed the line. So I I don't disagree with you on that point. May I Jason Calacanis (01:07:23): ask 2 clarifying questions here? Cause I'm I'm curious how you would handle this. If you were the CEO of X, formerly known as Twitter, would you have reinstated Alex Jones, yes or no. And then number 2, if Alex Jones, then as a new member of the community who's been reinstated and forgiven, because Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:40): he apologized, And then he did this again. Jason Calacanis (01:07:43): This exact same thing again. For the another school shooting with parents, would you remove him for the platform? David Sacks (01:07:50): Don't know that these are yes or no questions. What I would say is that I've written what I think should be a speech policy for social media platforms in a blog post I did several years ago. And what I said is that I would take First Amendment case law and operationalize it for social media platforms. There are 9 categories of speech that the Supreme Court has said are not protected speech. Because they're dangerous in some way. So, for example, incitement of violence is one of them. You know, harassment is one of So I would use Jason Calacanis (01:08:23): Well, this clearly falls under those 2. David Sacks (01:08:26): Well Jason Calacanis (01:08:26): Real people his fans went and knocked on the door. His fan's dead David Sacks (01:08:29): his fan's dead. So as I understand the whole Sandy Hook thing, what happened is he said the whole thing was a hoax. That obviously wasn't true. He paid a huge price for that. His fans then some of his crazy fans went and harassed the parents, which obviously is not right, but according to him, he didn't and I I don't know that anyone's shown that he did that. I don't think he encouraged that. It just happened. Jason Calacanis (01:08:53): K. By the name his fans. Well, of course he does. It's a conspiracy show. So knowing it's a conspiracy show, knowing that incitement of violence is one of your criteria, If his fans, after him saying it's fake, then went to the house, knocked on the door, and asked the parent to see little Susie because you know she's alive. Would you kick him off the platform? David Sacks (01:09:16): Listen. The Barrington declaration on the the Barrington Declaration was declared to be a conspiracy show. The idea that COVID originated in the lab was considered a conspiracy show. I don't think you can prejudge in advance that a show is quote, unquote, David Friedberg (01:09:33): you know, David Sacks (01:09:35): factually wrong conspiracies. As I understand it, again, I haven't watched the show, but I did watch a clip by Joe Rogan, who provided something of a character reference for Alex Jones. Don't know if Nick can find that and play that. It was actually quite good. What Rogan said is, look, I've known Alice Jones for, like, 30 years, he's had problems with alcohol abuse, substance abuse, whatever. He's had, mental health issues that he's acknowledged, and sometimes he goes off the rails. At the same time, he's also been way ahead of the curve on certain things. For example, he told me about the Epstein Island like 10 years before the story broke. I don't know how he figured that out, but somehow he did. Now that was a conspiracy theory until it was proven true. And it probably wouldn't have been a good thing for the public if that story had come out a lot sooner so that it could have been shut down a lot sooner. So I don't think you can just judge in advance that somebody is a conspiracy theorist and basically blackball them from the internet. One other data point I wanna bring up is that it's something that Elon mentioned is that he looked at the Twitter tools, the admin tools, to seek to look at Alex Jones's account. And the 3rd strike he received that that caused him to be banned from the Twitter platform by the former management was he actually insulted a reporter, which was a very borderline case. So you know, the things that you're saying that he was banned for war and even the reason he was banned. Jason Calacanis (01:10:58): Yeah. No. That's true. I I think yeah. So that's why I was framing it to you as You know, and and this is the issue that I think and maybe what some people are missing here. A mentally ill person like himself, if he's admitted to mental illness and substance abuse, When they do this real when they when they go on these tyrants or they go off their meds or whatever it is, or they're just evil, and they do this for ratings to make money, It starts to cause real world harm. People start showing up on these people's, doorsteps. And so then are you gonna wait 10 years for the courts to do this $1,500,000,000 judgment and then make the decision while real world harm is occurring. And if you own the platform, my belief is you have a higher standard, obviously, believe in freedom of speech, he can make his own website. But if you own the platform and the platform enables him to reach a large number of people, and those people are being harmed. And parents' doors are being knocked on demanding to see their children because Alex Jones said that child is still alive, and they're trying to take our guns. And he knows his fans are crazy. There's responsibility that comes from it, and there's responsibility that comes with owning a platform like this. I know Elon's going full freedom of speech, but I would be very careful about this. David Sacks (01:12:02): Steve scalise, the House Republican WIP, was shot by a crazy Bernie Sanders supporter. Does that blame go to Bernie Sanders? I think they have to separate you. There is hold on. There there is a legal standard for incitement. Right. There's a legal standard for judging that. You're saying that these crazy people were incited, but there is actually a legal way of determining that. I don't think that's been proven. Jason Calacanis (01:12:25): I would do a common sense one, which is do we see real world happening? I would just use common sense. Do we see real world happening? Okay, real world is happening. We own the platform. We need to stop this, which is what happened at times. David Friedberg (01:12:37): That's a judgment standard, right? I would Jason Calacanis (01:12:39): I would make the judgment. If I was the CEO, I'd make the judgment. And I would make the judgment based on, you know, the courts are gonna take years to to adjudicate this, and it's my platform. I don't want this happening? David Sacks (01:12:49): I would operationalize a content moderation policy based on first amendment case law. You're right that you can't always wait for the courts to adjudicate it. There's gonna be judgment calls. I would have been fine, I think, with the suspension of Alex Jones in that context because it does seem pretty egregious and he's apologized for it. The question is whether there should be lifetime bans. And I'm pretty much I think I'm against lifetime bans. I'm okay with time outs. I'm okay with suspensions for egregious behavior. When somebody has apologized, they've, I mean, had to pay mean, I think he's been bankrupted. He's had to pay all these fines. I think he's paid his price to society, so to speak, and he's admitted he was wrong. The question is do you still have the lifetime ban? It seems to me he's acknowledged his mistake. If he doesn't like this again, then you can suspend them. Maybe you do the band. But I do believe in giving people second chances, and I'm just sort of viscerally against lifetime banning people. Jason Calacanis (01:13:47): I David Friedberg (01:13:48): don't like the standard of what can be deemed dangerous speech because I think that As Saks said, there's a clear way to measure whether someone's inciting violence or inciting harm versus saying speech that can be deemed dangerous in some contexts and then not be deemed dangerous after the fact. COVID vaccine conversations are the perfect example. Telling people that there's health risks associated with taking a vaccine, in the period when everyone was worried about a pandemic, killing us all was deemed too dangerous to allow. And after the fact, it wasn't dangerous because there was suddenly clear evidence that there may be some costs and benefits associated with the vaccines. And so I really don't like the standard of dangerous speech. In fact, I think that the biggest changes that are necessary in society initially start this dangerous speech and then they eventually become true, and then they become a standard, and then things change. My my repeated calls for reduction in fiscal spending at the federal level and lack of accountability in fiscal spending at the federal level. By some measure, could be deemed dangerous speech, and an incitement against the government. But really, my point is to call out the importance of this, like, issue. And after the fact, I may be right. I may be wrong, and I need to be able to say that. I think it's critically important to say those sorts of things, and I think that other people in their own domains will find other things that are critically important to say, And that would be deemed by some standard to be dangerous at the time. So as much as I have great disdain for you know, certain people and certain things that they may say, I do think that what might be deemed dangerous speech is a critical element of the the kind of Progressiveism that allowed the United States to prosper. David Sacks (01:15:30): I think it was dangerous speech to promulgate the false conspiracy theory that Trump was an agent of Putin. Mean, that was in the steel dossier. They basically said that Putin had Compromat on Trump, and Trump was basically working for the Kremlin. I mean, he was a traitor. I mean, what if there are people out there who try to assassinate the president on the grounds that we can't have a traitor in the White House? Jason Calacanis (01:15:54): That was a private document. Right? That wasn't like a public talk. David Sacks (01:15:56): I was absolutely leaked during the campaign. Jason Calacanis (01:15:59): You're making my point. Exactly. It's leaked. Right? So there's like a private document by somebody But David Sacks (01:16:03): then it was printed by Buzzfeed. And then once it was in the echo chamber, it was endlessly repeated by the mainstream media. So the idea that, like, only people like Alex Jones promote conspiracy theories. The mainstream media promotes a lot of conspiracy theories, and some of those theories, if acted upon by crazy people, would be just as dangerous as the things that Alex Jones has said. Jason Calacanis (01:16:25): Yeah. We're in hypothetically. But actually, I think you and I are not too far apart. You wanting to take these harms and operationalize them is sort of what I'm saying. And in each of these cases, it's a judgment call. And this is where I think, you know, I in in many ways, I'm proud of what Elon is doing and saying like freedom of speech is an absolute thing. And that's what the platform's gonna be. His right to do it. It's his platform. And so I'm fine with that. I would I would do something different if it was my platform. Everybody's different. You know, everybody can can take their stance. I would have some basic humanity as my stance. And I I'll be willing to give up a little freedom of speech in my restaurant in in my cafe in order to have it be more delightful for everybody there. I wouldn't go as far as banning people talking about COVID, but, yeah, if somebody was trying to claim that parents of murdered children were liars and actors, that would be fine for me to say, yeah. No good. And then, of course, there's Kanye. So, you know, Elon banned Kanye. That was under his realm, and and this is what Kanye said. And I think this falls into hate speech real world harm. I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going death, death con 3 on Jewish people. The funny thing is I actually can't be anti Semitic because black people are actually due. Also, you guys have toy with me and Friedberg black ball anyone who ever opposes your agenda. So when you see this tweet, Would you have banned him sex, or is that very much age? David Sacks (01:17:42): I might have given him a time out. I think his family wanted him to get a time out because it he was having an episode. Certainly wouldn't give him a lifetime ban. Jason Calacanis (01:17:49): Give me a year or something. David Sacks (01:17:51): Look, I don't really know this Alex Jones guy. Jason Calacanis (01:17:53): I David Sacks (01:17:53): certainly don't know him in person. I don't even listen to him. It's not a show I'm interested in. Even now. Jason Calacanis (01:17:58): I only know this is controversial. Conspiracy theory. Yeah. David Sacks (01:18:01): I like knowing the truth. I like hearing facts, and I don't believe that factual information, like the lably theory should be censored by labeling it a conspiracy theory. Yep. For example, but What I would say about Alex Jones is there is some humanity in allowing him a forum to apologize for what he did, an ecologist's mistake and explain why he thought what he did and why he was wrong. And that's what he did on x. Jason Calacanis (01:18:31): And I went on the Twitter spaces, and I asked him a follow-up question, which he wouldn't I said, how have you changed your behavior? David Sacks (01:18:37): Yeah. But, honestly, Jake, that's Jason Calacanis (01:18:38): because you can't answer it. David Sacks (01:18:39): You came bounding in in the last five minutes. Jason Calacanis (01:18:42): I didn't go back. David Sacks (01:18:42): Him a bunch of questions about what he did when it had already been covered at the top of the pod. Jason Calacanis (01:18:46): And I've listened to it, and he had not answered the question, how is your behavior changed? And so he doesn't want to talk David Sacks (01:18:52): about that. He's not the 1st half hour relitigating Sandy Hook, and you weren't aware of that. Jason Calacanis (01:18:56): He won't go over David Sacks (01:18:57): it again. Jason Calacanis (01:18:58): 10 minutes. But he he won't answer questions on how he would change his behavior. And so I think that's one of the things I would wanna see from him. How have you changed your behavior and how you you know, do shows. And I don't think he's answered that question. Anyway, we're gonna disagree on this one. Any final thoughts, Jamapp as we wrap here on this on this issue? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:16): The free speech litmus test is is very simple. It's this exact thing. It's when the person that you dislike says the thing that you find very displeasing. What do you do? And I am a free speech absolutist on this. I just think it's a very slippery slope, and I don't think we're very capable of making these delineations. And so I agree the right solution or time outs. But lifetime bans, I think, again, go down this path where human judgment gets involved, and then it's about the person in charge. And then it becomes a power and then it eventually always gets corrupted. So I can hold 2 thoughts in my head. 1, Alex Jones should be able to say what he thinks and 2, it was disgusting, and, he should be ashamed of what he said. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:20:01): You know, the band's doubling every time is probably a good precedent as well. So I mean, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:06): we should do it like we do at our poker game. The fines go up. Yeah. Phone penalty doubles. David Sacks (01:20:11): Exponential back off. Jason Calacanis (01:20:13): I mean, you're gonna you're gonna put your phone down and play the goddamn game if it gets to 800 or 1600 because that's things a little bit. So there it is. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:20): Yeah. Totally. It does. But maybe that's the right solution, Jason. It's like you have a finding mechanism somehow, and it just like it increases. And so there's a financial penalty of nothing else as well as a time out. When you violate these laws. At least that's a scalable way to solve the problem in a way that's hard to corrupt and gain. But if it goes down to the person to an individual or a group of people's judgments as we saw with the previous management, Twitter, I think it's gonna be a very difficult problem. I don't think that those were bad people, but I think that they were led astray. David Sacks (01:20:51): Yeah. I mean, Nick, do you have that clip from Rogan? When I listened to this clip from Rogan, it did have an impact on what I thought because it Jason Calacanis (01:21:00): friends for, like, 20 years. Yeah. David Sacks (01:21:02): It does show the human complex city. And, again, you're judging him based on the worst thing he ever did, and Rogan presents a more balanced viewpoint about this guy. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't really care about Alex Jones, but I'm just saying that if we're gonna sit in judgment of people, I think maybe we should have a more balanced view because, I mean, it does bias the conversation to play at the clip at the worst thing you ever did. But this this play rogue a second. I think it's interesting. Speaker 6 (01:21:28): Look at the way people look at Alex Jones now because Alex Jones has been on my podcast a few times. The people that have watched those podcasts Yeah. Think he's hilarious. And they think that he definitely up with that whole sandy hook thing. But he's right more than he's wrong. And he's not an evil guy. He's just a guy who's had some psychotic breaks in his life. He's had some genuine mental health issues that he's addressed. He's had some serious bouts of alcoholism, some serious bouts of, you know, substance abuse, and they've contributed to some very poor thinking. But if you know the guy, if you get to know him, like, I have I've known him for more than 20 years. And if you know him on podcast, you realize, like, He is genuinely trying to unearth some things that are genuinely disturbing for most people. Like, is this a guy that was telling me about Epstein's, island a decade ago, at least. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:22:30): I mean, this platforming mentally ill people during an episode is a whole another can of worms. I mean, I I told this to Lex Freeman when when he had Kanye on during that episode, said, I think it's a very bad idea to spend 2 hours with somebody who's bombing an episode. And sure enough, what did he do? More anti Semitic insanity on his podcast. And I just told Lax, like, leave the guy alone. It's not worth it. Let him get help. David Sacks (01:22:53): But, look, I think I think you have a point there. But, you know, that that would be an temporary suspension auto ban, in my opinion. Jason Calacanis (01:22:59): Yeah. Alright, Sachs. In other news, something insane has happened on the internet. It's never happened before. But somebody has apologized for getting something wrong. This is breaking news. We're in year 34 of the internet. And somebody says that, hey, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:14): is it my wife? Is it my wife? Did she? I mean, David Friedberg (01:23:16): she did something. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:23:17): She's never gotten anything wrong. I've listened. I've been there for this whole relationship. She has waited. A hundred out of a hundred times correct. So frustrating Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:26): and so frustrating. Jason Calacanis (01:23:27): I mean, yeah, she makes a mistake. We'll know, but it hasn't happened yet. Actually paradoxically same with my wife. She's been right for 22 years. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:33): No. My wife has been wrong four times, and I've gotten 3 on voice memo. I taped them. I pulled out the phone, and I'm like, hold on. I need you to say it again. Yeah. So I've gotten 3 on voice, but that's because it's been only 3. Jason Calacanis (01:23:46): Did those 3 have something to do with deciding to marry you or to move in with you and make children and start a life together? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:53): It's so frustrating. How can one person be so wrong, I, e, me all the time? Jason Calacanis (01:23:58): Well, I mean, at least you're self aware. Everybody loves self aware chalk. It is. Oh god. It's so frustrating we're on. But, yes, Naseem Talab publicly admitted gonna pull it up here, Saks. Here we go. He publicly admitted that techno watermelon. That's your name, Saks. David Sacks (01:24:15): That was his I don't really understand the insult. David Friedberg (01:24:17): I never said it either. Jason Calacanis (01:24:18): I think he's saying your head is the size of a watermelon and that you're involved in technology. That's my it was my interpreter. I don't think you have a melon head, but David Sacks (01:24:25): Does it mean like I'm green on the outside and red on the inside or something like somehow I'm supporting how many of them are? I don't I don't really understand it, but Jason Calacanis (01:24:32): That has come up. Well, listen, it's better than mine. I'm a psychotic ignoramus. So he he's named David Sacks (01:24:37): retracted that for some reason. Jason Calacanis (01:24:39): Not yet. Not yet. But I it wouldn't have, at some point, I'm sure he would. But here it is, folks. David Sacks (01:24:44): Well, he just said I can see that David Sachs is correct about the relative strength of the parties in the Ukraine war, and I was wrong. All caps. Russia is not as weak as it seemed it has staying power. This means the settlement is likely outcome. Anyway, it's so rare on the internet for anyone to admit they were wrong. And what they usually do is just memory hole at, which is why, you know, I always like to produce receipts. I only do that for the people who strongly denounce me about something, Jason Calacanis (01:25:13): and David Sacks (01:25:13): then I end up being right. They never can see. It's not just about the fact that I was right. It was about the fact that they attacked me personally, and they never come back and apologize or or correct the record. And Talab did that. So kudos to him. I mean, I meant when I read this. I was like, you know, like a stranger. Yeah. I'm like, okay. What's the gotcha? It's coming. Jason Calacanis (01:25:35): Wait for it between follow-up treat. David Sacks (01:25:38): I thought a trapdoor is gonna open under my feet. I thought a cartoon piano was gonna fall on my head. I just I thought this can't be it. And, but, no, that was it. So That was it. Jason Calacanis (01:25:48): Well, there it is. Kudos David Sacks (01:25:49): to you. By the way, just, I mean, The reason why I understood what was gonna happen in this you know, counteroffensive and why the war is not gonna go as well as people thought. It's not because I purport to be some sort of Ukraine expert or foreign affairs I mainly just spent the time to figure out who the real experts were. And the real experts are never the people who the media tells you. You actually have to spend the time to look at people's track records. What they said in the past, did it come true or not? You know, it's it's basically a falsifiability standard. Look at what they predicted, look at what actually happened, and you can figure out who the real experts are, and that's what I did in the case of Ukraine. It was possible to figure out who are the foreign policy scholars who got this right, who are the military bloggers, who are accurately reporting information, and who are the ones who are basically putting out propaganda. If you spend the time to do that on virtually any issue, you can effectively become an expert. David Friedberg (01:26:48): It's a great point, Seth. Really good point. Jason Calacanis (01:26:51): Well, you have to you have to find your own process of finding the truth today because I don't think you can trust the journalists out there to do it. David Sacks (01:26:56): It's also bias. 100%. And and by the way, as a VC, people say, well, what is a VC thing? You know, in a way, like, what VCs do is when you get interested in a topic, you kinda go deep. You're trying to assimilate a lot of information. You try to figure out who are the real experts in the space so that those are the people I should listen to and then you develop a take. It's not the worst skill set in the world. For doing a pod or, tweeting out hot takes on on Twitter. Again, I'm not saying I'm an expert. I'm just somebody who is independent minded enough to the bottom of an issue without disrelying on what I'm supposed to believe, and I just try to figure out who the real experts are. Jason Calacanis (01:27:32): Alright. Producer, Nick, are you there? You did a tweet about questions that people might wanna have to ask the besties here as we wrap up this episode. We'll take 2. Your 2 favorite questions, producer, Speaker 7 (01:27:41): thoughts on the Harvard board standing behind president Gaye despite her transgressions. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:44): Okay. That's a good question. Jason Calacanis (01:27:45): That's a good question. That's a David Friedberg (01:27:46): good one for Timov. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:48): Here's what I'll say. I think that The Harvard board was probably in a really difficult position in the following way. You know, when you hire somebody and you realize that that person has some faults. You have 3 choices, right? 1 is to fire them. 2 is to be unequivocal in their support and 3 is to basically give a milk toast CYA kind of a statement to give yourself time. The reason why I think that president Gay wasn't fired was probably because the board for whatever reason didn't wanna seem like they were cawtowing to Bill Ackman and all the other people that were asking for her resignation. But what they didn't do is equally important. They may not have fired her, but what they also didn't do was come out with an unequivocal statement of support. I think it was kind of a little bit wishy washy and acknowledging her mistakes, which seems to be a setup to allow her to basically make couple more mistakes so that then they can fire her and they can all seem like they did the right thing. So I suspect that that's what happens. She probably won't be in that job any year from now. Or, you know, she kind of muddles along and in 2 or 3 years, she quote unquote retires to spend more time with her family. Jason Calacanis (01:29:15): Anyone else you wanna get in on this sex? David Sacks (01:29:16): Yeah. I mean, I think this university presence debate's been a little bit of a rorschalk test. And I've seen people that I generally agree with fall into 1 of 2 camps. Some see it as a free speech issue. Other people see it as a kind of woke double standards or DEI issue. I think for those who see as a free speech issue, they're emphasizing the motivations of people like Elise Stefanik, the person who asked the universal presence a question in saying when she said, basically, the the question was, does your code of conduct allow calls for genocide of Jews? And their argument is that's a loaded question. Because there is not an epidemic on campus of people calling for genocide of juice. And so this is basically all kind of an invented hysteria and the purpose of it is to suppress debate about this Israel Hamas war in Gaza. And it's designed to expand campus speech codes so that it's harder for Palestinian supporters to protest in favor of their cause. So that's one way of looking at it. My view on that is if it ends up being the case that campus speech codes get expanded in that way. That'd be a bad thing. I don't think we need to restrict speech on campus. So I agree with them on that point. However, there is a different way of looking at this, which is the motivations of the university presidents in answering that question. And, yes, it was a loaded question, but they flubbed the answer. And the question is why? Because as we talked about last week, if they were asked about calls for the murder of any other group, a racial group, or transportation or something like that. Jason Calacanis (01:30:59): Asian Again, I don't David Sacks (01:31:00): think their answer would have been the same. And I do think that that comes back to the fact that they have a preconceived notion of which groups deserve protection and which ones don't, and that is a double standard. And I think anything we can do to get rid of that poisonous ideology that wants to treat people differently on campus, I think is a good thing. And so I support what Bill Ackland is doing on that basis. But if Bill Ackman goes too far and demands restrictions on the ability of students to protest, then I think it would be a bad thing and that's going too far. So this would be a great thing to ask him, like, what his motivations are, the, you know, if he comes on the pot. Jason Calacanis (01:31:38): The thing that crazy is just the crazy hypocrisy. Like, these are the same people who were firing people or not letting them speak on campus if they had a, you know, a microaggression where they didn't they misgendered somebody, or they used a different pronoun, or they had a different feeling about what defines a woman versus a man, or know, gender differences, whatever. The the their massive intolerance and the crazy hypocrisy, which you're alluding to here, Saks, is the thing that I think is broken everybody's brain. Like, this is bizarre. And the DI stuff is a road to know where I tweeted today about the absolute, gift that was going on in tech not long ago, which was call out a company, venture firm, whatever it is, for their DEI sense, then quietly contact them, after you've done this, bring a dooning of them, and say, Hey, we can solve your problem, hire us as consultants and speakers to come in and fix your DEI and tell you what you've done wrong, and then publicly come out, and I saw this happen, publicly come out, and then tell the same group, Hey, this person's now an ally. Rinson repeat. It was a crazy gift, and it's all coming out now. And there's a Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:32:44): That that deal acumen thing, Jake, how that you retweeted is crazy. That story. Jason Calacanis (01:32:48): Yeah. So we could just go down this rabbit hole forever, but I think you call it a cul de sac. I call it a road to nowhere or dead end. Identity politics and DEI, it's just a dead end when you start judging people based on, you know, any criteria other than their character and performance in the world, Do Chamath Palihapitiya (01:33:04): we know if there was a response by Jason Calacanis (01:33:08): MIT is this 1? MIT. Yeah. Yeah. I don't I don't think yet there has been. So anyway, what cover that story next week for sure. David Sacks (01:33:15): I know what Billocks Jason Calacanis (01:33:16): is doing David Sacks (01:33:17): is brave because he is taking on DEI, and that is or historically, that's been one of the most dangerous things you can do. I mean, that is what people get canceled for. Now I know there are there are people who I am fans of, like, like, Lang Reinwald, he's been very critical of Ackman because he thinks that Ackman's trying to restrict free speech, and prevent, again, the pro Palestinian cause from protesting or saying its peace. And I guess Bill can clarify that. But I think this issue is less about foreign policy and more about domestic policy, these DEI policies. And Finally, we have someone who's willing to take it on and challenge it, challenge it at an ideological level and then challenge it at like a just Grif level. Jason Calacanis (01:34:03): Yeah. Shout out to Brian Armstrong. He got this right and and he went right up the hill and took the arrows for it. And I think we've turned a corner. If you, the tweet I did today, I would not have done 2 years ago because I just didn't want to, you know, risk my firm or the companies I work with. You know, to kind of expose that rift because it could blow back on people. So but now I feel totally comfortable doing it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:25): So Uber's at 70. Well, that all sound. Uber doesn't Jason Calacanis (01:34:29): go to 76 puts me in high on air mode. That's for sure. David Sacks (01:34:32): He's got a few money Chamath Palihapitiya (01:34:34): Acquence got a lot of firepower, you know, that bond call was totally right. You know, the 10 years now sub 4%. Jason Calacanis (01:34:40): I will say. Yeah. I will say that does your your bank account does give you the ability to. Okay. Final question. Please, we have what we must wrap. We must have a final question, and please throw it to Friedberg. First, I got Friedberg involved early on offense today. It's a great show. Speaker 7 (01:34:55): From mom cooks fast and slow on x, for freeburg, I guess. What is the correct way to hire kids out of school now that an elite university degree tells you very little about the applicant and will you follow this path at your own companies? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:08): Oh, I have a great answer for that. David Friedberg (01:35:10): Kim, go ahead. Jason Calacanis (01:35:11): No. Co op. Co op. Co op. David Friedberg (01:35:13): You gotta Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:14): go to the schools with co op. Why? Because it allows you to evaluate these kids in C2 on a real time basis without an obligation to hire. You can find the ones that can really do the work, have the energy, Jason Calacanis (01:35:26): Explain COAP programs, please. It's pretty well done. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:35:29): I went to a co op school, university of Waterloo in Canada. The way that it works there, not not everywhere, but there, at least, is you go to school for the 1st 8 months, and then you never get a break. You're either in working for 4 months or you're in school for 4 months. And you go back and forth until you graduate. So instead of graduating in 4 years, you graduate in 5, but you graduate with with basically 2 full years of work experience. And depending on the employers that you work at, you typically get 2 to 3 job offers from those folks if you do a good job. When I was helping to build Facebook, we went there We had never hired an intern before, and we started to hire people. And I think now it happened in Microsoft. It happened at Google. I think it's happened to Facebook. If you look at the number of kids that work at those schools now from co op schools, they're higher than any other school. There's a bunch of schools in the United States that have co op But I would go and find those schools and hire those kids. Jason Calacanis (01:36:32): Friedberg any thoughts. You're now running a company. You're back in the saddle. How are you gonna hire people? And and tell everybody the name of the company again? It's called O'Hollow. O'Hollow. Not Mahalo. O'Hollow. And, you're Hollow David Friedberg (01:36:47): was taken. Who owns that domain name now? Jason Calacanis (01:36:49): I still have it. Yeah. If somebody wants to, you have it. I have Mahalo and I have Kukua. Happy to sell it to somebody if they want it. But tell tell us how are you what you're hiring criteria and how do you think about this now? Just like to start Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:00): an enterprise software business called Kukua. Jason Calacanis (01:37:03): It means to help, or to guide in, Hawaiian. So probably the 3rd or 4th most important word. Yeah. Go ahead. Friedberg, please. David Friedberg (01:37:11): I have criteria around raw horsepower, skills, or experience, and then motivation. And I have systems for how we try and assess those and then matching our principles is kind of the 4th bucket of things. Horsepower you can test skills is based on experience and fits the role and the need. But motivation is one that there's a lot of question marks around because this person have they demonstrated that they've had a not just a desire, but an action that they've taken that has pushed them beyond the limits of the systems that they've operated in. And that's what I would typically look for regardless of the the the schooling background the education background is is some demonstration of that because that's necessary in in business building. So those that's that's my framework for hirings. We call it you know, smarts or horsepower, skills, motivation, and then principles. And we score each one of those and then try and come up with, hiring. Jason Calacanis (01:38:06): You started to do that with the CEO candidates, got that email from you and I was very intrigued. So I like that. Alright, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the All in podcast for The king of beep and the dictator and the rain man himself. I'm your boy, Jay Cal. We'll see you in love Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:24): you guys. Jason Calacanis (01:38:25): Bye bye. We'll let your winter ride. Rainman, David, sides. David Sacks (01:38:34): And it said We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties are Chamath Palihapitiya (01:38:57): We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension, but they just need to release them out. David Friedberg (01:39:06): You're the beat me. What? You're a beat. What? That's good to be it. Where did you get