00:00:00
hey everybody hey everybody welcome
besties are back besties are back
00:00:03
it's another all-in podcast dropping it to
you uh unexpectedly because there's just so
00:00:09
much news surprise bestie pods but dropping a
bestie it's not a code 313 we're not dropping
00:00:18
any snickers bars today just dropping
the bestie oh no he's got a megaphone
00:00:43
because we hit a new law in terms of
people needing to be heard oh my god
00:00:47
by the way um and his chief of staff called
me he felt like he only got 62 of the minutes
00:00:54
in the last two podcasts versus the rest of us
and so i'm dealing with his agent a little bit
00:01:00
it's like the uh the debates where
they count the number of minutes into
00:01:04
daniel is daniel grinding you for more than
just grinding no i go for i go for quality over
00:01:09
quantity absolutely okay uh well this week's going
to be i mean what a complete disaster of a week
00:01:16
um it's the other way to explain what
is it every day is a dumpster fire it's
00:01:29
so here we are we're three weeks out from the
election and somebody's emails have a democrats
00:01:36
emails have been leaked again potentially but
last time we had an investigation by the fbi
00:01:46
and then that might have infected impacted the
election this time we have a whole different
00:01:53
brouhaha apparently hunter biden who loves
to smoke crack and has a serious drug problem
00:02:01
this this is you know he's a seriously obviously
troubled individual um but he brought three
00:02:06
laptops to get them fixed and never picked them
up according to this story in the new york post
00:02:13
so the new york post runs a
story with an author who is
00:02:17
kind of unknown um and this these laptops were
somehow the hard drives me he never picked them
00:02:25
up that's a little suspicious the hard drives wind
up with rudy giuliani and the fbi uh and anyway
00:02:32
what they say is that hunter biden which we kind
of know is a grifter who traded on his last name
00:02:38
to get big consulting deals i don't know what
board anybody here has been on that pays 50 000
00:02:43
a month but it's obviously gnarly stuff but the
the fallout from it was the big story i went to
00:02:50
tweet the story and it wouldn't let me tweet the
story uh so the literal new york post was banned
00:02:56
by twitter at the same time facebook put a warning
on it so let's just put it out there um you know
00:03:03
sax your guys losing pretty badly in this election
and so we'll go to our token geo peer what do you
00:03:09
think is this let's let's take this in two parts
one what do you do what do they think the chances
00:03:15
that this is fake news or real news or something
in between and then let's get into twitter's
00:03:20
insane decision to block the url yeah i mean so
so first of all so i i think this whole thing
00:03:26
is a tragedy of errors on the part of sort of
everyone involved i think the new york post story
00:03:33
stinks i don't think it uh it it meets
sort of standards of journalistic
00:03:39
integrity we can talk about that but then i
think you know twitter and facebook overreacted
00:03:45
and i think that the story was well in the process
of being debunked by the internet and it was like
00:03:50
twitter and facebook didn't trust that process
to happen and so they intervened and now i think
00:03:56
there's going to be a third mistake which is that
conservatives are looking to repeal section 230
00:04:03
we should talk about that and so each one
there's been a cascade of of disasters that
00:04:08
have led to this this dumpster fire but
starting with the story it is it is um
00:04:14
very suspicious first of all these disclosures
about hunter biden's personal life they
00:04:20
didn't have to go there was completely
gratuitous to the article it was sleazy
00:04:24
and then of course the story about how the hard
drive ends up with the reporters makes no sense
00:04:29
even today uh giuliani was was making
up new explanations for how it got there
00:04:34
um it's now being widely speculated that this was
the the content came from the results of a hack
00:04:41
maybe involving foreign actors that
this whole idea that it came from
00:04:44
this sort of hard drive that he left
at a repair shop and forgot to pick up
00:04:49
um i mean so that that's now you know i
think that would have been the story today
00:04:54
if it weren't for um facebook and twitter making
censorship the story and then the final thing
00:05:00
is you know this story wasn't a smoking gun to
begin with i mean the worst thing it showed was
00:05:05
that there was a single email between a barisma
exec and joe biden and um the buying campaign is
00:05:13
denied that that joe biden never met with this
guy and so it wasn't ever this smoking gun and
00:05:19
um and and that makes it all the more um apparent
why facebook and twitter sort of overreacted
00:05:27
it was almost like they were trying to overprotect
their candidate that's the thing that obviously
00:05:33
looks crazy like they now have given the gop
the right the extreme right the belief that the
00:05:42
the technology companies are now on the side of
the left whereas last time they were on the side
00:05:48
of the right i think right facebook was supposed
to be on the side of the right last time so chabot
00:05:52
you worked at facebook famously for many years
what are your thoughts well jack came out last
00:05:56
night and basically said that the reason that they
that they shut down distribution was that it came
00:06:02
from hacking and doxxing or some i think that was
basically the combination yes a combination um
00:06:08
and then facebook today came out and said you
know before we could take it down it had been
00:06:12
distributed or read 300 000 times um i mean
look if we just take a step back and think about
00:06:20
what's happening here there are more and more and
more examples that are telling i think all of us
00:06:27
what we kind of already knew which is that this
fig leaf that the online internet companies have
00:06:34
used to shield themselves from any responsibility
those days are probably numbered because now
00:06:40
exactly as david said what you have is the left
and the right looking to repeal section 230 and
00:06:47
so and by the way two days ago i think it was
clarence thomas basically put out the entire
00:06:51
road map of how to repeal it and if you assume
that amy coney barrett gets you know put into
00:06:57
the high court in a matter of days or whatever
um it's only a matter of time until the right
00:07:04
case is thoughtfully prepared along those
guard rails that that clarence thomas defined
00:07:09
and it'll get you know fast-tracked through
to the supreme court but if i was a betting
00:07:16
man which i am i think that section 230 is
their days are numbered and facebook twitter
00:07:22
google all these companies are going to have to
look more like newspapers and television stations
00:07:27
okay so before we go to your freedberg i'm just
going to read what section 230 is this is part of
00:07:34
a law basically designed to protect common
carriers web hosters of legal claims
00:07:41
that come from hosting third party information
uh here's what it reads no provider a user of
00:07:47
an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any
00:07:51
information provided by another information
content provider so what this basically means
00:07:58
is if you put a blog post up and people comment
on it you're not responsible for their comments
00:08:04
or if you're medium and you host the blog you're
not responsible for the comments of that person
00:08:08
is that person it makes complete logical sense
the entire internet was based off of this that
00:08:14
platforms are not responsible for what people
contribute to those platforms that's how
00:08:20
publishing works now look at the internet's paper
but again let's build on this when that law was
00:08:25
originally written we had no conception of social
distribution and algorithmic feeds that basically
00:08:31
pumped content and and increased the volume on
those things so what you have now is really no
00:08:37
different than if you know you created a show
um on netflix or hbo or cbs and put it out there
00:08:44
if that stuff contained you know something that
was really offensive those companies are on the
00:08:49
hook did they make it no did they distribute it
yes and it's the in here but here's the difference
00:08:56
but it's the active act of distributing it
you cannot look at these companies and say
00:09:01
they are basically holding their hands back they
have written active code and there is technical
00:09:06
procedures that they are in control of that are
both the amplifier and the kill switch but isn't
00:09:12
this a bad analogy netflix shouldn't it the
analogy be the person who makes film stock
00:09:17
or the person who makes the camera or the
person who develops the film not the person who
00:09:22
distributes it no because that a limited amount of
shows on netflix you can police all of you can't
00:09:26
police everything written netflix is making
editorial decisions about which shows to publish
00:09:33
just like you know a magazine makes editorial
decisions about which articles to publish
00:09:39
they are clearly publishers um but the the
communications dcx section 230 the original
00:09:46
distinction i mean if you want to think about like
in offline terms for a second you've got you've
00:09:50
got this idea of publishers and distributors right
that's a fundamental dichotomy a magazine would be
00:09:56
a publisher the newsstand on which it appears is
a distributor it shouldn't be liable if there's
00:10:02
if there's a a a a libelous article contained
in that magazine you shouldn't be able to sue
00:10:07
every single newsstand in the country
that made that magazine available for sale
00:10:11
that was that was the original offline law that
was then kind of ported over into section 230.
00:10:17
it made a lot of sense without this i mean i think
it was a really visionary provision it was passed
00:10:22
in 1996 without that every time that somebody
sends an email that you know potentially created
00:10:31
a legal issue you know gmail could have been
liable freedberg is it what's the right analogy
00:10:38
when people post to the internet is that the is
the analogy or film stock is it the newsstand or
00:10:44
is it the publisher so remember like what saks is
pointing out is this was passed in 1996 so think
00:10:50
back to 1996 when you would um create some content
right in the term around that time with user
00:10:57
generated content right you guys remember this
like the early days it was like the big switch
00:11:02
ugc and it was like the big sweeping trend was
like oh my god all this content is being created
00:11:06
by the users we don't have to go find content
creators uh to create you know a reason for other
00:11:12
consumers to want to come to our websites so users
could create content you know blogger was an early
00:11:17
kind of user generated content service you could
create a blog post you could post it and people
00:11:21
would show up the problem with blogger or the
challenge was distribution or syndication right
00:11:27
how do i now i've posted my content how do i as
that content creator get people to read my content
00:11:33
and you'd have to send people like a link to
a website a link to a web page and you click
00:11:37
on that link and then you could read it what
chamath is pointing out is that today twitter
00:11:42
and facebook make a choice about and and
youtube make a choice about what content to show
00:11:48
and so you know i think the analogy in the offline
sense via the algorithm is what you're saying to
00:11:52
be via the algorithm and uh you know youtube
realized that if they showed you videos that
00:11:57
they think that you'll click on they'll keep you
on youtube longer and make more money from ads
00:12:01
so it keeps the cycle going and so they optimize
con and it turns out that the content that
00:12:05
you need to optimize for to get people to keep
clicking is content that is somewhat activating
00:12:10
to the amygdala in your brain it's like stuff that
makes you angry or makes you super pleasured and
00:12:15
not just boring ordinary stuff and so this sort
of content which the new york post sells a lot of
00:12:21
um is the sort of stuff that rises to the top of
those algorithms naturally because of the way they
00:12:26
operate now if a magazine stand were to put those
newspapers using the offline analogy on the front
00:12:31
of their magazine stand and told people walking
down the street hey you guys should check these
00:12:34
out you know top of the news is hunter biden
spoken crack with a hooker people would you
00:12:39
know probably stop but i think the question is
should they be liable now in in i think 2000 uh
00:12:45
the digital millennium copyright act was passed
and um that act basically created a process by
00:12:52
which folks who felt like and it was related
to copyright but i think the analogy is similar
00:12:57
if you thought that your content was copyrighted
and was being put up falsely or put up without
00:13:02
your permission you could make a claim to
one of those platforms to get your content
00:13:06
pulled down and i think the question is is there
some sort of analogy around uh libel content
00:13:12
or false or misleading content um that maybe
this evolves into law where there's a process
00:13:17
by which platforms can kind of be challenged on
what they're showing um much like they are with
00:13:22
the dmca take down notices so the problem the
problem comes back to the code if you explicitly
00:13:28
write code that fundamentally makes it murky
whether you are the publisher or the distributor
00:13:37
i think that you have to basically take the
approach that you are both and then you should be
00:13:42
subject to the laws of both if for example twitter
did not have any algorithmic redistribution
00:13:49
amplification there were the only way you
could get content was in a real-time feed that
00:13:55
was everything that your friends posted and they
stayed silent you could make a very credible claim
00:14:01
that they are a publisher and not a distributor
which by the way is the way it originally worked
00:14:06
and it was why they were falling behind facebook
as you well know because you worked on the
00:14:10
you can algorithm actually you cannot click but
you're you're not a distributor when you literally
00:14:15
have a bunch of people that sit beside you writing
code that decides what is important and what
00:14:20
is not you can debate but you can debate which
signals they decide to use but it is their choice
00:14:26
well but but if the signals are the user's own
clicks then i would argue that's still just user
00:14:32
generated content no no it is a it is a signal
david but that's not the only signal for example
00:14:37
i can tell you very clearly that we would choose
a priority stuff that we knew you would click on
00:14:42
it wasn't necessarily the most heavily clicked
we could make things that were lightly clicked
00:14:47
more clicked we could make things that were
more click less clicked but my point is there
00:14:51
are people inside the bowels of these companies
that are deciding what you and your children
00:14:56
see and to the extent that that's okay that's
okay maybe we've actually solved this problem
00:15:03
saks in that if we said if you deploy an algorithm
that is not disclosing how this is going then you
00:15:11
are ergo a publisher and if you uh are just
showing it reverse chronological archron as we
00:15:18
used to call back in the day with the newest thing
up top that would be uh just so maybe we should be
00:15:24
not getting rid of 230 we should be talking
to these politicians about algorithms equal
00:15:29
publisher so the publisher at the new york post is
the same as the algorithm i like this as a better
00:15:35
framework well yeah so so senator tom cotton you
know who's a republican he tweeted in response to
00:15:41
the new york post censorship look if you guys are
going to act like publishers we're going to treat
00:15:46
you like publishers so that that's not modifying
section 230 that's just saying you're not going
00:15:50
to qualify for section 230 protection anymore if
you're going to make all these editorial decisions
00:15:55
i would argue that these decisions they're
making about censoring specific articles and
00:16:00
by the way it's a total double standard because
you know when when trump's tax returns came out
00:16:05
a week or two ago uh where was the censorship of
that that was wasn't that hacked material i mean
00:16:09
that was material that found its way to the new
york times without trump's consent by the way so
00:16:14
were the pentagon papers i mean you cannot apply
this standard this this idea that we're gonna
00:16:19
prohibit links to articles yeah but you're
proving the point these people are no no i know
00:16:23
i know well well hold on i'm saying i'm saying if
they make editorial decisions they're publishers
00:16:30
i think there's a way for them to employ
speech neutral rules and remain distributors
00:16:37
so i would be i would i'd have a little
bit of of an issue with you i would say
00:16:41
the reason why they're going to fall into this
trap becoming publishers is because of their own
00:16:46
desire to censor their own biases they
can't i don't think that's what it is
00:16:50
i think it's purely market cap driven
if you go from an algorithmic feed to
00:16:55
a reverse chronological feed only i can tell you
what will happen in my opinion which is that the
00:17:01
revenue monetization on a per page per impression
basis will go off by ninety percent ninety percent
00:17:07
for sure people wouldn't people that is the only
reason why these guys won't switch because they
00:17:12
know that for every billion dollars they make
today it would go to a hundred million in a
00:17:17
reverse chronological feed because you would not
be able to place ads in any coherent valuable way
00:17:22
there would be zero click-throughs and the ads
would be just worthless otherwise they should
00:17:28
do it now if you could keep all the revenue
and you could be reverse chronological right
00:17:32
and have the same market cap just do it and be
under safe harbor so that you're not attacked
00:17:37
every day how fun is it to be sitting there and
being attacked every single day by both sides
00:17:45
and by all the libertarians in the middle the
reason they don't do it is because of money
00:17:49
let's just be honest that's the only reason
they don't do it but it's all market cap driven
00:17:54
maybe they should go back to this kind of
the straight reverse crown feed and maybe
00:17:57
you're right that the algo i mean i think
you probably are right that the algorithms
00:18:00
um are make the situation worse because
they kind of trap people in these bubbles
00:18:06
of like reinforcement and they just keeping
fed more ideological purity and it and it
00:18:11
definitely is fueling the polarization of our
society so i'm not trying to defend i mean
00:18:17
i think maybe you have a point that we should
get rid of these algorithms but but just to think
00:18:20
about like the publisher aspect of it going back
to the newsstand example let's say that the guy
00:18:24
who works at the newsstand knows his customers
and pulls aside every month the magazines
00:18:31
that he knows that his clientele wants and in
fact sometimes he even makes recommendations
00:18:36
knowing that oh okay you know chamath likes
you know these three magazines here's a new
00:18:41
one maybe he'll like this and he pulls it aside
for you that would not subject him to publish
00:18:45
reliability even though he's doing some curation
he's not involved in the content curation uh i i
00:18:52
would argue that if the the algorithms proceed in
a speech-neutral way which is just to say they're
00:18:58
going to look at your clicks and then based
on your own revealed preferences suggest other
00:19:02
things for you to look at i don't think that makes
you a publisher necessarily and i think if it was
00:19:07
but if you if you do if you do put your finger
if these engineers are putting their thumb
00:19:11
on the scale and and pushing the algorithm towards
certain specific kinds of content that may cross
00:19:17
over no no no you're being you're being too
specific and it's it's not that extreme and
00:19:22
it's not as simple as you're saying the reality
is there are incredibly intricate models on a per
00:19:28
person basis that these companies use to figure
out what you're likely going to click on not what
00:19:34
you should not what is exposed to you not what you
shouldn't but what you likely will and that's part
00:19:40
of a much broader maximization function that
includes revenue as a huge driver yeah so the
00:19:46
reality is that these guys are making publishing
decisions and right you are right david you know
00:19:52
the law back in the day it didn't scale to the
newspaper owner but you know what in 1796 you know
00:19:58
colored people were three-fifths of a human and we
figured out a way to change the law so i'm pretty
00:20:02
sure we can change the law here too and i think
what's going to happen is you should be allowed to
00:20:08
be algorithmic but then you should live and die by
the same rules as everybody else otherwise that is
00:20:14
what's really anti-competitive is to essentially
lie your way to a market advantage that isn't true
00:20:20
just because people don't understand what
an algorithm is that's not sufficient to me
00:20:26
but they're not actually in the content creation
business right and so what's the uh what's the the
00:20:31
definition of a term publisher in that context
because in all other cases publishers pay for
00:20:36
and guide and direct the editorial creation the
content versus being a kind of discriminatory
00:20:43
function of that context here's the problem
let's take for example uh instagram reels
00:20:48
can you manipulate content through reels yes
now as the person that provides that tool
00:20:57
to create content that theoretically could
be violating other people's copyright or you
00:21:03
know offensive or wrong or whatever and then you
yourself distribute it to other people knowingly
00:21:10
the reality is that the laws need to address in
a mature way the reality of what is happening
00:21:18
today versus trying to hearken back to the 1860s
and the 1930s because things are just different
00:21:24
and we're smart enough as humans to figure out
these nuances and that sometimes we start with
00:21:30
good intentions and the laws just need to change
well ironically chamath you're making a point that
00:21:36
clarence thomas made justice thomas made in
his uh filing recent filing where he said that
00:21:42
that if you are acting as both a publisher
and a distributor you need to be subject
00:21:46
to publish reliability which means peeling back
section 230 and moreover you may not even be the
00:21:52
primary creator of the content if you're merely a
secondary creator if you're someone who has a hand
00:21:58
in the content um then you are you're a
creator you're a publisher and therefore
00:22:03
you should lose section 230 protection that is
basically what he said if you if your argument
00:22:08
is that the algorithms make you
a content creator effectively
00:22:13
and the tools algorithms and tools well the other
thing is you know what you have because david
00:22:20
but you also have monetization guys right there's
monetization involved in the youtube example
00:22:26
they are helping you we're having a serious
conversation jason let's not let's not go off in
00:22:29
that no i'm just good no but but it's jamal i mean
this goes back to the politics may make strange
00:22:35
bedfellows point um i mean i think a lot of the
conservatives are actually making the point you're
00:22:39
making which is that these social media sites are
involved in publishing i don't want these guys
00:22:46
involved in any of this [ __ ] because i don't
trust them to be neutral over long periods of
00:22:53
time so do you trust their decision to pull down
q anon groups and zero just like just like it took
00:23:00
it took years for us to figure out that holocaust
denial was wrong anti-vaxx was marginal q anon was
00:23:07
crazy like wearing masks was a good idea right
i mean i i don't want these people in charge of
00:23:13
any of this stuff and to the extent that they are
i want them to be liable and culpable to defend
00:23:18
their decisions so chamel your ideal non-profit
social media service would be a chronological feed
00:23:26
of any content anyone wants to publish that
anyone can browse that's right that's not
00:23:30
what i'm saying david what i'm saying is that you
have to be able to live with the risk that comes
00:23:37
with you know playing in the big league and
wanting to be a 500 plus billion dollar company
00:23:42
there is a liability that comes with that and you
need to own it and live up to the responsibility
00:23:47
of what it means otherwise you don't get the free
option what if they didn't take a hand in it and
00:23:52
they follow the dig the reddit model and it's just
up voting that decides what content rises to the
00:23:57
top suspect i suspect that so reddit has a just
a different problem which is this sort of like
00:24:02
uh you know a decency problem and a different
class of law who are we to judge decency right
00:24:07
i mean like in in the vein of like editorialism
like they're taking no hand in what content rises
00:24:12
to the topic they did ban certain topics so
they did recently but like like assume they
00:24:17
didn't right and it was just purely like upvoted
consumer and not algorithmic it's very hard to pin
00:24:23
i think it feels like a platform to
me i think it's very hard to pin a
00:24:26
section 230 claim on reddit as easy
as it is youtube facebook and twitter
00:24:33
and so if youtube reverted to just hey what people
are watching right now rises to the top and that
00:24:37
was the only thing that drove the algorithm you
would feel more comfortable with youtube not being
00:24:41
it's not comfortable this is what i'm saying
it's it's what i know all i want to know is
00:24:45
what am i getting when i go here and if what
i'm getting is a subjective function where
00:24:53
they are maximizing revenue which means that
i can't necessarily trust the content i get
00:24:59
as long as i know that and as long as there's
recourse for me i'm very fine to use youtube and
00:25:05
twitter and facebook what i think is unfair is
to not know that there's a subjective function
00:25:11
confuse it with an objective function go on with
your life end up in this state that we're in now
00:25:17
where nobody is happy and everybody is throwing
barbs and you have no solution maybe i just want
00:25:22
to be stimulated like i remember the day when
i would go to facebook and twitter and it was
00:25:26
boring as hell it's like just [ __ ] random [ __
] that people like here's a picture like show me
00:25:29
the best stuff you know like like and now i go to
facebook and i'm like [ __ ] addicted because it's
00:25:34
showing me this and there's like [ __ ] that i've
been buying online and the ads keep popping up
00:25:38
and i'm like oh this is awesome and i keep buying
more stuff i think all of that is good but i it's
00:25:44
all it all should be done eyes wide open where in
these corner cases the people that feel like some
00:25:50
sort of right or privilege or has been violated
or some overstepping has occurred they should have
00:25:57
some legal recourse and they should be they should
be on the record a mechanism to disambiguate all
00:26:02
that wait hold on let me just ask just one
question david would this be uh alleviated if
00:26:08
the algorithm was less of a black box if we could
just say hey no we need these algorithms to be so
00:26:15
that's not a solution and then what is this and
then and i want to hear david's about that and
00:26:20
then also labeling because facebook labeled stuff
and if labeling stuff hey this is disputed from
00:26:25
a third party that feels to me like that would
have been a better solution in the twitter's case
00:26:29
all right let me get in here so i half agree with
tremoff okay so the half i agree with is i don't
00:26:34
want any of these people meaning the social media
sites making editorial decisions about what i see
00:26:41
censoring what i can look at i don't trust them i
don't want that kind of power residing in really
00:26:47
two people's hands mark zuckerberg and jack dorsey
i don't i don't trust them and i don't want them
00:26:52
to have that kind of power but that where i
disagree is if you repeal section 230 you're
00:26:57
going to make the situation infinitely worse
because section 2 what is the response of these
00:27:03
companies going to be corporate risk aversion is
going to cause them to want to hire hundreds of
00:27:08
low-level employees basically millennials to sit
there making judgments about what content might
00:27:13
be defamatory might cause a lawsuit they're going
to be taking down content all over the place and
00:27:19
you know what will happen that's gonna be
a worse world no you know what'll happen
00:27:23
those companies will lose users lose engagement
and new things will spring up in its place around
00:27:28
these laws that work how will they how do they
lose audience i mean i think what will happen is
00:27:33
you have a torrent of lawsuits any time somebody
has a a potential lawsuit based on you know
00:27:41
like trying to police speech at a
dinner party like this never existed at
00:27:49
i don't think the goal is to work backwards from
how do we preserve a trillion dollars of market
00:27:53
cap so what if that's what i think that's what
i don't think that's what we're doing so for
00:27:58
me i i'm trying to work back from how do we
preserve the open internet but i think this
00:28:02
is exactly what it's saying which is here's a
clear delineation in 2020 knowing what we know
00:28:07
you know person entrepreneur who goes to y
combinator or to launch to build the next great
00:28:12
company here are these rules pick your poison
and some will choose to be just the publisher
00:28:17
some will probably create forms of
distribution we can't even think of
00:28:21
some will choose to straddle the line they'll
have different risk spectrums that they live on
00:28:26
and that's exactly how the free markets
work today there's nothing wrong with that
00:28:31
maybe the only like disagreement here is that
i think that code can be written and algorithms
00:28:37
can be written in a speech neutral way so that the
distributors don't cross over the lines becoming
00:28:42
publishers i fully agree with you that these sites
should not be publishers the reason why the new
00:28:47
york post should be really taken off they should
be platforms and they cross the line i would say
00:28:52
that this this newer post story is the reason
why people are up in arms about it is because
00:28:58
what twitter and facebook have done is basically
said they're going to sit in judgment of the
00:29:03
media industry and if a publisher like the the new
york post puts out a story that doesn't meet the
00:29:09
standards of twitter and facebook they're going to
censor them that is a sweeping assertion of power
00:29:15
they're picking and choosing who they don't want
to give distribution to yeah we all we all agree
00:29:19
on that piece they should not be the arbiter
that is what is triggering but that is what
00:29:24
is triggering the conservatives in particular
but everybody but especially conservatives to
00:29:29
say they want to repeal section 230. nobody my
point is nobody is safe and it's less about um
00:29:35
i actually think that there's a nuance
point to this which is it's less about
00:29:40
what they think is legit or not as much as what
they think is important or not they chose to make
00:29:47
this an important article they chose to kind of
intervene in this particular case when every day
00:29:52
there are going to be hundreds of other articles
that are going to be actively shared on these
00:29:55
platforms that are by those same standards false
with you know some degree of equivalency false
00:30:00
which shouldn't be on the platform absolutely
and it is the simple choice that they chose an
00:30:04
article to exclude um regardless of the reason
in the background because there are many articles
00:30:09
like it that aren't being excluded um and that
alone speaks to the hole in the system as kind of
00:30:14
well it's because it's because they they have too
much power and they're unaware of their own biases
00:30:20
they can't see this action for what it so
clearly was it was a knee-jerk reaction on
00:30:25
the part of employees at twitter and facebook to
to protect the biden campaign from a story that
00:30:31
they didn't like i mean because if they were to
apply the these standards evenly they would have
00:30:36
blocked the trump tax returns for
the exact same reason by the way
00:30:39
is about to block you so he can keep the
biden campaign strong and not have your
00:30:44
i i would say i've been red-filled actually
the last 24 hours have been repelling for me
00:30:49
i i i gotta say david i agree with you because
like i thought i thought that both things were uh
00:30:54
crossing the line like meaning either you publish
them both or you censor them both and there are
00:31:01
very legitimate reasons where you could be on
either side but to choose one and not do the other
00:31:07
it just again it creates for me uncertainty and i
don't like uncertainty and i really don't like the
00:31:12
idea that some nameless faceless person in one
of these organizations is all of a sudden going
00:31:16
to decide for me knowledge yeah and information
that to me is just unacceptable the journalistic
00:31:22
standard becomes a slippery slope to nowhere right
like at that point like what what is true what is
00:31:27
not true what is opinion what is not opinion what
is what you know how do i validate whether this
00:31:32
[ __ ] laptop came from this guy or this guy or
this guy it's a slippery how are you ever going
00:31:36
to resolve that across billions of articles a day
standards would be the answer yeah and your look
00:31:43
has lower standards right and so let's look at how
slippery the slope has become just a week ago i
00:31:48
mean literally a week ago mark zuckerberg put out
uh a statement explaining why facebook was gonna
00:31:55
censor a holocaust denial why he really went on
a limb huh david well it's i think wow no no no
00:32:01
no no not brave no no no but my point is my point
my point is he actually put out a multi-paragraph
00:32:08
well-reasoned statement multi-paragraph your three
paragraphs about the holocaust is bad wow congrats
00:32:16
you're you're not listening to my point my
point is that he took it seriously that he
00:32:22
was gonna censor something and i think you know
people can come down you could be like a skokie
00:32:26
aclu liberal and oppose it or you know you could
say look common sense dictates that you would you
00:32:31
would censor this but he felt the need to
justify it with you know like a long post
00:32:36
how and then one week later we're already
down the slippery slope to the point where
00:32:40
you know facebook's justification for censoring
this article was a tweet by andy stone
00:32:45
you know like that was it it was a tweet
that was the only explanation they gave
00:32:49
by the way one of the reporters pointed
out that if you were going to announce
00:32:53
a new policy you probably wouldn't want it done by
a guy who's been a lifelong democratic operative
00:32:58
you know this was just so and so it just
shows that once you start down the slope
00:33:03
of censoring things it becomes so easy to keep
doing it more and more and and this is why i think
00:33:10
these guys are are really in hot water whatever
whatever um you know whatever controversy there
00:33:15
was about section 230 before and there was already
a lot of rumblings in dc about modifying this
00:33:22
they have made things 10 times worse i mean as as
someone who's actually a defender of section 230 i
00:33:28
wish dorsey and zuckerberg weren't making these
blunders because i think they're going to ruin
00:33:31
the open internet for everyone super blundered
i'll tell you it was an even bigger blunder or
00:33:36
an equal blunder for me last night i don't know if
you guys had this experience but i was trying to
00:33:40
figure out what the consensus view on the
biden hunter biden story was and i went
00:33:46
to rachel maddow and the last word and anderson
cooper and there was a media blackout last night
00:33:54
i couldn't find one left leaning or cnn if that
is even in the center i don't think they're the
00:34:00
center any more than the left i couldn't find one
person talking about buy and i was like all right
00:34:04
let me just see if i tune in to fox news and fox
news was only discussing the binding story and
00:34:09
so this now felt like wow not only if you were one
of these you know folks on the left who's in their
00:34:16
filter bubble on twitter and facebook they're not
going to see that story and then if they tuned in
00:34:21
to rachel maddow uh or to anderson cooper or you
go to the new york times it's not there either
00:34:27
and then drudge didn't have it for a day you're
bringing up something so important so think about
00:34:33
what you're really talking about jason there
was a first order reaction that was misplaced
00:34:38
and not rooted in anything that was really
scalable or justifiable then everybody has
00:34:44
to deal with the second and third order reactions
the left leaning media outlets circle the wagons
00:34:50
the right leaning media outlets are are up in arms
nobody is happy both look like they're misleading
00:34:57
and then now if you're a person in the middle for
example what was frustrating for me yesterday was
00:35:02
it took me five or six clicks and hunting and
pecking to find out what the hell is actually
00:35:06
going on here why is everybody going crazy but
that bothered me you know uh and so i just think
00:35:14
like again it used to be very simple to define
what a publisher was and what a distributor was
00:35:20
in a world without code without machine learning
without ai without all of these things i think
00:35:26
those lines are burned we have to um rewrite the
laws i think you should be able to choose and then
00:35:32
i think if you're trying to do both by the way
the businesses that successfully do both will
00:35:36
have the best market caps but if you're trying
to do both you have to live and die by the sword
00:35:41
yeah it would be interesting also if i don't
know if you guys have done this but i switched
00:35:46
my twitter to being reverse chronological which
you can do in the top right hand corner of the
00:35:51
app or on your desktop because i just like to see
the most recent stuff first but then sometimes i
00:35:55
do miss something that's trending whatever but
i just prefer that because i have a smaller
00:35:58
follower list now um but to friedberg your point
you kind of like the algorithm telling you what to
00:36:06
watch so a potential solution here i think i like
it rationally by the way i'm just saying like as
00:36:11
a human humans like it i like it like i like to be
stimulated with titillating information and uh you
00:36:19
know interesting things that for whatever reason
i'm gonna you know click on again you like that
00:36:24
experience of jumping down the road my point is
all humans are activated and the algorithms the
00:36:29
way they're written they're designed to activate
you and keep you engaged and activation naturally
00:36:34
leads to these uh dynamic feedback loops where i'm
going to get the same sort of stuff over and over
00:36:38
again that that it identifies activates me because
i clicked on it and therefore i'm gonna you know
00:36:43
continue to firm up my my opinions and my beliefs
in that area but i think doing these stuff that i
00:36:48
don't believe showing me stuff that's anti-science
because i'm a science guy showing me stuff that's
00:36:52
anti-science showing me stuff that's [ __ ]
that i consider [ __ ] i'm not going to read it
00:36:56
anymore so if i'm reading just random blurtings
by random people in reverse chronological order
00:37:01
it is a completely uncompelling platform to me and
i will stop using it and that leads back to kind
00:37:06
of the you know tomos point which is that the
ultimate incentive the mechanism by which these
00:37:10
platforms stay alive is the capitalist incentive
which is you know how do you drive uh revenue
00:37:15
and therefore how do you drive engagement and and
that's to give consumers what they want and that's
00:37:19
what consumers want all right let's let's give
sax his victory lap he predicted last time that
00:37:25
uh there was a possibility that trump would
come out of this like superman and would do a
00:37:31
huge victory lap and sure enough he considered
putting a superman outfit on under his suit
00:37:37
and he did a victory lap literally around the
hospital uh putting the secret service at risk
00:37:43
i guess um and then did a mussolini-like salute
from everybody from the top of the white house
00:37:52
i mean you nailed it sacked you
came out it was very ill duchy
00:37:59
no but it was it was it was
it was very predictable it was
00:38:02
you the media was making it sound
like trump was on his deathbed
00:38:06
you know because the presumption is always
that the administration's hiding something
00:38:10
he must be much sicker than he's letting on if
he says he's not that sick it must be really bad
00:38:15
um and so for days and days they were talking
about how trump was you know potentially
00:38:20
had this fatal condition and by the way he
deserved it you know it was a moral failing he
00:38:24
was negligent and so it he it's not unlike really
what the right was doing constantly accusing biden
00:38:30
of senility you know and then biden went into
that debate and then blew away expectations um
00:38:36
and so the same thing here you know the the media
set up trump to kind of exceed expectations but
00:38:42
but but i do think you know it is um noteworthy
that trump was cured so quickly with the use of
00:38:50
these you know clonal antibodies that we talked
about last time and we talked about it on the show
00:38:55
two weeks ago and it was a combination i guess of
regeneron and rem deserve and the guy was out of
00:39:01
there in like a couple of days so um you know it's
like the the media doesn't want to admit anything
00:39:08
that is potentially helpful to trump but you have
to say that at this point we have very effective
00:39:14
treatments for kovid they may not be completely
distributed uh yet uh trump obviously had access
00:39:20
to them that the rest of us don't have but
it feels to me like we are really winding
00:39:25
down on the whole the whole covet thing and i
asked a question is it has have they published
00:39:30
the blow by blow tick talk of exactly what he got
when um no they haven't right i would love i would
00:39:38
love to have that because i think all americans
deserve probably yeah they know they know what
00:39:42
his dosage was and they said what day he got
it on the rem death severe he got several doses
00:39:47
it said what days he got the antibody treatment
i i just want to print that out and keep it as
00:39:52
a folded in my pocket just in case we know what
to take now we know what to take if we get sick
00:39:58
right yeah well the question is can we get it but
even independent of that right like um i think
00:40:04
people love um anecdote it's very hard for people
to find a motion and find belief in statistics and
00:40:12
you know if you look at the statistics on
covid you know you go into the hospital 80
00:40:17
chance you're coming out and you know the average
stay for someone that goes in a lot of people are
00:40:22
going to the er and they're getting pushed back
out because they're not severe enough and i think
00:40:26
the anecdote is everyone that gets covet dies the
statistics show that that's not true and you know
00:40:32
whether or not trump got exceptional treatment
he certainly did um it's very hard to sax's point
00:40:39
for the storytelling that has kind of been used
to keep people at home and and manage kind of and
00:40:44
create this this expectation of severity of this
crisis etc um it's very hard for people to kind of
00:40:49
then say hey like you know he's got a 97 percent
chance of making it through this and he'll be
00:40:55
90 chance he'll be out of the hospital in three
days when it happened it was a shocking moment
00:41:00
um and it really hit that narrative upside down
right like it was just like well can we show that
00:41:05
there's a tweet recently providing the statistics
on what the real infection fatality rate was for
00:41:11
covet um yeah it's about half a percent 0.4 and
that's across you know the whole spectrum but
00:41:18
like in anyone under 75 years old you've got the
numbers right facts right but it's here let me
00:41:24
pull it up it's on uh we we tweet i think bill
gurley first tweeted it and then i retweeted it
00:41:28
i thought the ifr was like point one if you're
young and it goes all the way up to like point
00:41:34
four if you were above 75. it's way way less
than point one wait yeah it's it's it's it was
00:41:39
um i thought the ifr was a lot less than that
that ifr is also distorted you you know based
00:41:46
on the zero prevalence study that was just
published you can take that number that's
00:41:50
published and divided by about three uh three to
five uh to get the true ifr because not everyone
00:41:56
that's had covet is registering as a positive
infection because they had cobin got over it
00:42:01
so there was a paper published in in jama a
few weeks ago where they took dialysis patients
00:42:08
and they measured and they get blood from
these dialysis patients and they measured covet
00:42:12
antibodies in these patients and they showed that
in the northeast 30 percent of people 27 point
00:42:18
something percent of people have already had covet
uh it's an incredible fact wow and in the west
00:42:24
uh the number is close in western states they've
kind of got it all written up in this paper and
00:42:28
they did a great job with paper it's about three
percent um but in aggregate across the united
00:42:33
states it's a this was a few weeks ago so nowadays
it's it was a 10.5 percent i think so it's
00:42:37
probably closer to 12 now if people have already
had covet and so then if you assume that number
00:42:43
right i mean that's 30 million people and now
you look at how many people have died we haven't
00:42:47
gotten the deaths wrong right because everyone
that's died from covet we've recorded that death
00:42:51
we know that numbers right it could be a little
inflated right people who died with covetous
00:42:55
exactly conservative and assume that it's right
right i mean if i look in the united states it's
00:43:01
217 thousand 270 cases but the real cases is
30 million 30 million and that's where you
00:43:07
that's where you end up with this like you know
adjusted ifr true ifr of 0.1 yeah like very very
00:43:16
0.1 0.07 or 0.7 sorry um by the way my my tweets
aren't loading right now so i think trump just odd
00:43:28
took the tick tock decree and he just crossed that
tick tock and put twitter and he just shut twitter
00:43:32
down what what what is the tick tock thing done
yeah who knows that was like three weeks ago it
00:43:39
doesn't matter anymore was there a second debate
there's tonight there's going to be two town halls
00:43:49
um trump refused to do a zoom with or you know
a zoom debate talk about the power of zoom
00:43:57
a virtual debate he wouldn't do ostensibly because
he's not good when he's not interrupting somebody
00:44:04
would be my take on it so then he went to nbc
which he made 400 million dollars i guess from
00:44:10
the apprentice and nbc let him take a time slot
directly opposite biden tonight to do his own
00:44:16
town hall so they didn't even stagger it which nbc
which is responsible for saving trump is getting
00:44:23
absolutely demolished by their own actors and
show runners on twitter so i think nbc is going
00:44:28
to come out swinging tonight in this town hall
to try to you know take down trump as maybe their
00:44:34
penance that's my prediction for it but how do
you watch biden if biden is up against trump like
00:44:41
that's like watching paint drive versus watching
like you know some maniac running down market
00:44:47
street with a samurai sword on meth i'll be uh i
won't be watching either um i cannot wait for this
00:44:53
election to be over how many days until november
3rd we are like 18 in a wake up 18 days my gosh
00:44:59
maybe 18 yeah let us just get this over with yeah
yeah i know we're all sick of it i i do feel like
00:45:07
i mean it's the polls are now showing that biden
is up by as much as 17 i mean things have really
00:45:13
uh continued to break his way i think to your
point jason um about trump being more watchable
00:45:20
i think that's sort of trump's problem is he just
can't help making himself the center of the news
00:45:26
cycle every single day and to the extent the
election is a referendum on trump i think he's
00:45:32
going to get repudiated if the election were more
of a contest and people would weigh biden's you
00:45:39
know positions as well i think trump would have
a better shot because i think he does have some
00:45:44
blind does have some weaknesses but um the
whole reason why biden's basement strategy's
00:45:48
been working so far is because trump just eats up
all the oxygen and he's making a referendum on him
00:45:54
which i think he'll lose if he keeps doing it that
way yeah you know what they say saks what got you
00:45:58
here will not get you there what got him into his
office was the ability to take up the entire media
00:46:03
channel during the republican runoff and just
be able to demolish everybody was entertaining
00:46:09
that is exhausting it's now
exhausting i want to change topics
00:46:14
i would like to ask david to explain
his um tweet related to prop 13
00:46:22
or 15 yeah yeah yeah so um so i saw that that mark
zuckerberg had contributed 11 million dollars to
00:46:30
try and convince the people of california to
vote for this prop 15 which is the largest
00:46:35
property tax increase in california history what
it does is it chips away at prop 13 by moving
00:46:42
commercial property out of of of prop 13 and it
would then tax it almost called fair market value
00:46:50
as opposed to the the cost basis of the property
it would have a lot of unfair consequences
00:46:57
for property owners who've owned their their
commercial property for a long time you know
00:47:02
if you're a small business and you've owned your
your store or whatever for 20 30 years all of a
00:47:08
sudden you're going to get your taxes are going
to get reassessed at the new fair market value
00:47:13
um but you know i just think there's the the
the larger prize though is that the the you the
00:47:21
california unions uh the the government workers
unions want to chip away at prop 13 this is the
00:47:26
first salvo first they're going to strip out
commercial property eventually they want to
00:47:30
they want to basically repeal all of prop
13 and i just think it's like so misguided
00:47:36
for billionaires to be using their wealth in this
way because profit 13 is really the shield of the
00:47:41
middle class in california and it's kind of no
wonder that frankly like tech belt wealth is so
00:47:48
just increasingly despised in this country because
tech millionaires are funding such stupid causes
00:47:54
to explain this to people who don't know in
california if you bought your house in 1970
00:48:00
for fifty thousand dollars the one percent tax
you pay on it is five hundred dollars that house
00:48:04
might be worth five million today if it was in
atherton and so you're still paying what would
00:48:09
have been a fifty thousand dollar tax bill is a
five hundred dollar tax bill so they're starting
00:48:14
with commercial spaces and jason i'm sorry
backwards and you can pass it off to your kids at
00:48:20
that cost basis yeah so this is why you have two
old people living in a five bedroom right it caps
00:48:26
the rate increase of the the tax increase every
year there there's there if you didn't have if you
00:48:34
no hold on if you didn't have proper please
explain to people if you didn't have prop 13
00:48:39
anybody who owned who's owned their house for
say 20 years would have a massive tax bill
00:48:44
all of a sudden and probably would have to sell
their house just about anybody who's middle class
00:48:49
who's been in california for for more than a
decade or two probably could no longer afford to
00:48:54
live in their house but the reality is people are
mortgaging that asset sacs to access capital that
00:49:00
they're using and investing in different things
whether it's that's fueling the economy right so
00:49:05
i mean the libertarian point of view might be less
taxes is good because in this particular case that
00:49:10
building can still be used by that resident uh to
buy stuff uh they can take a mortgage out and they
00:49:16
can go spend that money versus having that money
eaten up by property taxes which just goes well
00:49:21
yeah so so so i i understand that if you were to
design the like perfect tax policy it wouldn't
00:49:27
look like prop 13 or you know or you know and
maybe prop 15 in a vacuum if you're just like a
00:49:34
policy wonk trying to design the ideal tax policy
it might look more like that but the real problem
00:49:40
in california we're not an under tax state it's a
massively taxed state and and there's never enough
00:49:46
you know the beast always wants more and so what
i would say is look if you want to reform prop 13
00:49:52
do it as part of a grand bargain that creates real
structural reform in the state of california what
00:49:58
i mean by structural reform we got to look at who
controls the system and it's really the government
00:50:02
employee unions who block all structural reform
and who keep eating up a bigger and bigger portion
00:50:08
of the state budget so we've talked about this
on previous pods that the police unions block
00:50:13
any kind of police reform um you know the the
prison unions block prison reform you've got
00:50:18
the teachers unions blocking education reform and
school choice if you want to talk about systemic
00:50:23
problems in california look at who runs the system
it's these these gigantic unions and a bigger and
00:50:29
bigger portion of the budget keeps going to them
every year they're breaking the bank and by the
00:50:34
way it doesn't get us more cops on the beat it
doesn't get us more teachers in the classroom
00:50:38
what it's buying is lots and lots more of
administration along with a bunch of pension fraud
00:50:43
and so what i would do is i would say look we need
some structural reforms here we need some caps
00:50:48
on the rate of growth in spending we need
some pension reforms in exchange for that
00:50:54
as part of a grand bargain you might get some
reforms to prop 13 but just to give away one
00:51:00
of the only cards we have in negotiating with
these powerful special interests for no reason
00:51:05
i just think it's dumb you know do you think
that zuck was tricked or what do you think
00:51:10
i think he's probably got look i don't really know
but i don't know how anything can suck and i've
00:51:15
defended him on this podcast a lot basically on on
the speech issue but i think what it is he's got
00:51:21
some foundation and he's got some pointy headed
policy wonk sitting there trying to analyze what
00:51:26
the perfect tax policy is and it probably looks
more like fair market value than like cost basis
00:51:32
and they're not thinking about the larger
political sort of ramifications which is we
00:51:39
the private sector is being squeezed more and
more by these public employee unions and we do
00:51:45
need structural reform and we can't just give up
one of the only cards we have which would be you
00:51:50
know trading reform on prop 13. and zuck doesn't
already commercial real estate yeah well even
00:51:57
if so i i i i i would venture to guess that maybe
sax does i don't know i mean no no no hold on let
00:52:02
me i i do but let me explain that this doesn't
affect me because my cost basis is fresh yeah
00:52:08
all the all the commercial real estate that i've
bought in california has been the last few years
00:52:12
it's probably underwater i mean it's certainly
not above my cost basis um so ice doesn't affect
00:52:17
me it affects the little guy it affects the small
business who's owned their property for 10 or 20
00:52:23
years and again i'm not arguing that we couldn't
come with a better tax system but what i'm saying
00:52:28
is the bigger more pressing need is structural
reform totally no i mean look i totally agree the
00:52:33
bloated monster of socialism is coming for us and
it starts with the unions and it evolves and it's
00:52:37
just tax average salary i don't know if you saw
this go viral in the last couple weeks on twitter
00:52:43
average to average salary in san francisco
170 thousand dollars not a tech worker city
00:52:49
employees yeah of city employees i saw that like
170 000 was the average salary i was like oh wow
00:52:54
tech people are doing good they're like no no
that's the city employees 19 000 administrative
00:52:59
employees in the city of san francisco city of
800 000 people 800 people with a 14 billion budget
00:53:08
the state of california is converting the entire
middle class into government workers because if
00:53:12
you're a small business owner you're getting
squeezed by more and more taxes you're getting
00:53:16
driven out of the state people leaving the state
now exceeds people immigrating into the state so
00:53:20
the the private sector middle class is leaving and
this public sector sort of public sector middle
00:53:26
class of government workers is being created and
like i mentioned it's not getting us more cops
00:53:31
on the beat it's not going to get more teachers
in the classroom what it's getting is a giant
00:53:34
number of overpaid administrators and bureaucrats
that is a big structural problem the you know
00:53:41
private sector unions are very different you see
when a private sector union goes to negotiate
00:53:45
they go negotiate against ownership or
management there's someone to oppose their
00:53:49
unreasonable demands not all their demands are
reasonable just the most unreasonable demands but
00:53:54
it with a public sector unions they're negotiating
against the politicians and they are the largest
00:53:58
contributors to those politicians and so there's
no one and the politicians need them for their
00:54:02
votes right they're like they're going to deliver
whatever number of teachers police officers
00:54:07
exactly the unions feed the politicians the
politicians feed the unions that is a structural
00:54:11
um that is a structural
problem and and these unions
00:54:15
the unions will never be at peace you can never
buy them off it's why democracy always ends in
00:54:21
in the state like it's it's just an inevitable
outcome i um i had no idea about any of this until
00:54:27
um i'm glad i asked you about that
tweet that's really i i actually learned
00:54:32
a lot just in that last little bit uh i have one
other thing i want to ask you guys about which is
00:54:36
the amy coney barrett confirmation hearings
whether you guys have watched them and what
00:54:41
you guys think um and i don't know whether these
are just um cherry-picked clips or whether she's
00:54:50
playing dumb or i i really don't want to judge
because i want to know more but i just want to
00:54:54
know what you guys think of uh going into this
um you know the i'll say something about climate
00:55:00
change because look i'm i i i spend a lot of time
looking at data and research on climate change and
00:55:07
certainly feel strongly that there's a human
caused function of global warming that that we're
00:55:14
actively kind of experiencing but i think everyone
kind of assumes you have to take that as truth
00:55:21
i think one of the the key points of science is
you have to recognize your ignorance and you have
00:55:26
to recognize that science is um you know kind of
an evolving process of discovery and understanding
00:55:32
i don't and she's getting a lot of heat for
what she said about i'm not a scientist i don't
00:55:37
know how to opine on climate change and i heard
that and actually gave me a bit of pause that like
00:55:43
this this is exactly you know what i would expect
someone who's thoughtful to say not someone that's
00:55:49
trying to act ignorant and play to the right um
she didn't say i don't think climate change is
00:55:54
being caused by humans and i think like everyone
kind of wants to jump on her and every it's like
00:55:58
become religion i just want to point out that
climate change has become as politicized and as
00:56:03
dogmatic as all these other topics we talk about
and we all kind of assume that if you do or don't
00:56:07
believe in climate change you're left or right
you're evil you're good um and i i think like
00:56:12
it's very easy to kind of just go into hear those
hearings and assume that but i wouldn't say that
00:56:17
her answer necessarily made me think that she is
ignoring facts and ignoring the truth i think you
00:56:22
know she's kind of pointing out that this is a
process of science and there's a lot of discovery
00:56:26
underway so i i don't know i mean that was one
point the controversial point that i thought i
00:56:30
should make um because i am a believer and i do
think that climate change is real i do think the
00:56:35
data and science supports it but i do appreciate
that someone recognizes that they may not have the
00:56:39
skills yeah the few rather than just assume what
the media tells them to believe yeah the few the
00:56:44
few clips that i saw of the confirmation hearing
my takeaway was basically you know any candidate
00:56:50
on the left or the right comes in extremely well
coached and they're taught basically how to evade
00:56:56
meaning there's a go-to answer amy coney barrett's
go-to answer was um listen as a judge i'd have
00:57:01
to you know hear that case on the record i can't
opine on something hypothetically you know she had
00:57:06
this very well-rehearsed answer and a lot of the
answers to the questions from the left were that
00:57:12
um and uh you know the questions on the right were
um more soft polish um so i couldn't really get a
00:57:19
sense of it now the the thing that i take kind of
a lot of comfort in is that you know when we saw
00:57:25
john roberts get confirmed to the court
um it was supposed to be 5-4 conservative
00:57:30
with john roberts and basically what we learned
was now john robertson you know some critical
00:57:36
decisions he is willing to basically you know uh
make sure that things don't change that much um
00:57:43
including obamacare yeah exactly you you don't you
don't know exactly how they're gonna vote on these
00:57:47
issues you really don't roberts was the deciding
vote in upholding obamacare gorsuch uh extended
00:57:54
gay rights well beyond anything anthony kennedy
ever did that was a big surprise and so we don't
00:57:59
really know exactly how she's going to vote
the reason why amy coney barrett rockets to
00:58:05
the top of trump's list quite frankly is because
of how dianne feinstein treated her three years
00:58:10
ago in the last confirmation hearings which is
she where feinstein attacked her catholicism
00:58:16
it was and it was so ham handed it was so poorly
done that it made barrett a hero instantly on the
00:58:22
right and it rocketed her to the top of this
list but but we don't know how she's going to
00:58:26
vote based on her catholicism you know which is
the future isn't it david because the lifetime
00:58:32
appointment means they like tenure they can go
with what they think is right so that that is
00:58:38
kind of a good feature of the supreme court do you
think they should be like a term well i i think
00:58:43
it's a little crazy that decisions as important
as you know the the the right to to choice or
00:58:50
something like that um hangs on whether an 89
year old uh cancer victim can hold on for three
00:58:58
more months you know it seems very arbitrary to me
and therefore these supreme court battles become
00:59:04
very um heated and and and toxic and there's been
a recent proposal by democrats that that i would
00:59:12
support which basically says listen we should
have an 18-year term for supreme court justices
00:59:16
that's long enough and each president should get
two nominees like one in the first year and then
00:59:22
one in the third year and so you basically
have one justice rolling off every two years
00:59:26
and one coming on and so you have nine justices
and so every two years adds up to 18 years
00:59:31
that proposal makes a ton of sense to me and um
and so you know you know that when you vote for
00:59:37
a president they're going to get two supreme court
picks that feels less chaotic than this that would
00:59:42
be that'd be a much better that's a great idea
that's a great idea yeah that's a great idea i
00:59:46
think it's a i think it's a fabulous idea i i took
solace in the fact that when they asked her the
00:59:51
uh for what's protected in the first amendment
she couldn't name all five things that i could
00:59:57
i was like what about protests did you
miss that one and i thought that was like a
01:00:00
i mean it's a gotcha moment obviously uh and
it's not easy to be under that kind of scrutiny
01:00:04
and obviously she justif jacob well i just
thought that was like it's also like pretty
01:00:10
interesting
01:00:17
i think they invented the word unconfirmable
for jkl you got a right to have your own pistola
01:00:22
but you shouldn't have a shotgun boys free
burgers has a hard stop at three uh the the uh
01:00:31
the fact that she left out protest is interesting
i do think let's let's just end on the election
01:00:35
uh and our little handicapping of what's gonna
happen and getting out of this mess i do think
01:00:41
one of the stories coming out of
this is going to be female voters
01:00:46
i have the sense and i know it's anecdotal
that trump has just alienated and pissed
01:00:51
off so many women and that the threat of the
supreme court thing and with uh rgb dying uh
01:01:01
this has made women feel so under appreciated
and attacked especially with trump um
01:01:11
uh you know in terms of how he treats women and
things he says about women and then you had the
01:01:17
constant interruption by pence of the moderator
and kamala like i think all of this is going
01:01:24
to add up and when we do the postmortem on this
losing all these women as voters is going to be
01:01:29
and as well as uh the black vote and people of
color this is going to be a big part of it so
01:01:36
i think that trump's going to lose and it's
going to be a landslide what a roundabout
01:01:42
way to say the same thing you've been saying for
four months yeah oh way he's disrespected women
01:01:49
listen i i don't know uh i think biden is uh is
is on the path to an enormous victory right now
01:01:56
well that's what the polls that's what the polls
say certainly is that it looks like a buying
01:02:00
landslide i um and i guess that makes sense
i think trump's running out of time to change
01:02:06
the polls um every day that goes by he's basically
got like 19 ounces or 18 days he's got 18 outs
01:02:12
every day that goes by where he isn't able to move
the poll number he loses an out right and so we're
01:02:17
going to get closer to election day he's only
going gonna have like a three outer or something
01:02:21
um so yeah i i mean look obviously i understand
the polls i still somehow think i know it sounds
01:02:27
kind of weird but i'm just not sure americans are
ready for this reality show to end i mean we know
01:02:32
it's jumped the shark okay but the kardashians
the kardashians lasted for 19 seasons i just
01:02:38
don't know if america is ready for the trump
reality show i think part of the appeal of trump
01:02:43
last time around was the the message of change and
he's not delivering a message of change anymore
01:02:50
and i think that's where he's kind of lost the
narrative um and the excitement of building a wall
01:02:55
and changing everything and draining the swamp
like he's just like keep draining the swamp or
01:03:00
keep building the wall and uh people don't love
that he's also um he also i think is coming across
01:03:07
as not being he's looking weak by not being
willing to be challenged and that came across
01:03:11
clearly in that debate he last time around he
got on stage and he just knocked everyone down
01:03:16
but by not letting biden talk by not kind of
engaging on any of the topics he looks just um
01:03:22
he looks like he just doesn't want to have a shot
at it and it just comes across as bad so i don't
01:03:27
know these are all contributing factors i think
to what's going on chances of a pardon by pence he
01:03:33
resigns he pardons himself pence player it's him
zero zero you go two you won't resign um well uh
01:03:42
we wouldn't see that unless he lost the election
if he loses during the last duck during the lame
01:03:48
duck period if he lost maybe 20 20 yeah because
at that point he's got nothing to lose right
01:03:54
right that i think it's i think it's like a
i think it's 50 50 he just goes for the full
01:03:59
family pardon uh all right all right love
you guys i gotta go all right guys uh love
01:04:05
you guys and uh hopefully we'll have a bestie
poker soon yay soon talk to you guys later bye
