March 21, 2021 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin
59:48
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| I mean, it was an escalation because you had not just, you know, one person, Trump or his supporters being ghosted or deplatformed, but you had 16 million Parler users or whatever it is, 99.9 percent of whom never did anything wrong, you know, and that was a diminishment of their free speech rights. | ||
| It was also, I think, unjustified if the justification for that was that Parler was used in the planning of the events of January 6, it was clearly a scapegoating because we now have FBI charging documents that come out. | ||
| They found 226 cases. | ||
| The social networking site that was used 10x more than all the others was Facebook. | ||
| You know, Parler was used 1/10 of the amount that Facebook was, but Parler was, you know, | ||
| was sort of an easy target to sort of scapegoat for that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
(upbeat music) | |
| I'm Dave Rubin, and joining me today is the former COO of PayPal, | ||
| an angel investor in such companies as Facebook, Uber, and SpaceX, the founder of Kraft Ventures, | ||
| and a co-host of the "All In" podcast. | ||
| David Sachs, welcome to The Rubin Report. | ||
| Great to be here. | ||
| I'm glad to have you. | ||
| You know, when I was looking through all your bios and Wikipedia, which I'm sure is all perfectly true and all that good stuff, there's a lot of stuff I could have pulled there for the bio. | ||
| And I was thinking for the for my young audience watching this, like basically being part of all of those things kind of seems like the coolest thing possible. | ||
| So how does somebody get into all of that? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I was lucky to graduate Stanford in 1994, which was the year before the Internet really kind of took off. | ||
| And I was lucky enough to meet Peter Thiel when I was there. | ||
| And we collaborated together on, you know, we both worked on the student newspaper, the sort of conservative libertarian student newspaper that Peter founded. | ||
| And then we ended up writing a book together. | ||
| And he recruited me years later to join PayPal. | ||
| And, you know, I actually thought I had missed the whole And then I got a call from Peter in 1999, and he told me about this company he was creating, and that company went on to become PayPal, and he recruited me to be the COO. | ||
| So yeah, that's how I got into it. | ||
| Do you think Peter, or you, or Alain, did anyone realize what any of this stuff was going to become, or just when it's unfolding, you just kind of run with it and see what happens? | ||
| At the time, we sort of knew on a certain level that it was changing the world. | ||
| Like at PayPal, we had this user counter that would track the user growth. | ||
| We called it the World Domination Index. | ||
| So on a certain level, we kind of thought it was taking over the world. | ||
| But on another level, we didn't quite understand it. | ||
| It felt a little bit like fantasy or something. | ||
| So yeah, it definitely operated on both levels. | ||
| Yeah, how much of PayPal was just trying to get people to understand you could do things differently? | ||
| I literally remember the first time I saw PayPal, I had moved into a new apartment with a couple roommates, I was a struggling comic, I barely had any money, and one of my roommates said to me, you gotta pay me on PayPal for the rent. | ||
| And I didn't even know what that meant, the idea that I could link a bank account to something online and I don't even think we had Wi-Fi yet like it was still wired to all like just getting people to like understand there's new ways of doing things like how much of it is just that? | ||
| Oh, a big part of it. | ||
| And then the other big part of it was just making it really easy to actually do it. | ||
| So, you know, we, it's a lot easier now. | ||
| We didn't have all the tools, you know, that we, that we have now 20 years ago. | ||
| And so just getting the product to be super simple. | ||
| So you could put it in an email address, put in your credit card number and it would send the money and then you'd get it and be able to take your bank account. | ||
| I mean, it sounds really easy, but there, you know, there's all this friction in the way that had to be removed. | ||
| And I think part of the reason why we were successful is we were able just to make it like incredibly simple. | ||
| Yeah, so you mentioned the diversity myth, and I've talked to Peter on the show, and you guys wrote this book, 1995. | ||
| In essence, you wrote this at Stanford, you guys kinda predicted everything that's happening right now. | ||
| Like really, the idea that sort of the diversity of immutable characteristics would matter more than the diversity of thought, which we now see just rampaging through all our businesses and institutions and the political sphere and everything. | ||
| How did you guys see it coming? | ||
| We had been writing on the Stanford Review, and Stanford was sort of the epicenter. | ||
| There was a famous protest in 1988 where Jesse Jackson led a mob that was chanting, hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's gotta go. | ||
| So Stanford was sort of the epicenter for a lot of that stuff. | ||
| So we were writing about it as student journalists in a way, and that book was an extension of the student journalism we had done. | ||
| You know, looking back, I mean, I was a teenager when we wrote a lot of that. | ||
| I wouldn't actually make all the same arguments the same way that I did back then, but I do think we were ahead of the curve in realizing, you know, this growing illiberalism, you know, this sort of political correctness. | ||
| Now it's called cancel culture, where we're putting restrictions on people's ability to speak and to think. | ||
| to express themselves in ways that I think would have been that certainly, you know, 1960s liberals wouldn't have | ||
| you know, wouldn't have supported. And so, you know, I never initially saw myself as a conservative. | ||
| I saw myself as more of like a 1960s-style liberal who believed in free speech and, you know, a colorblind society. | ||
| I know the feeling, man! | ||
| I think we're on a similar journey here with these issues. | ||
| But yeah, I mean, you know, it was the illiberalism on campus that sort of pushed me to become more politically aware. | ||
| And that's what the book was about. | ||
| And now, really, the whole country is like, it was like Andrew Sullivan says, we all live on campus now. | ||
| Right, because it's kind of funny to me, you guys were writing about this in 95, and say, when I was talking about some of this stuff five years ago, so 20 years after you wrote about it, people kept saying to me, no, no, it's just gonna stay on campuses, and when they get to the real world, the real world will show them, and no. | ||
| Well, those students graduated, you know, and and they took those ideologies into the places where they went. | ||
| And so, you know, they took them to the, you know, a lot of those graduates went off to run school boards or to run, you know, newspapers, the New York Times and places like that. | ||
| I mean, this is it's a very elite Philosophy or ideology that's being imposed. | ||
| And it's coming from places like Stanford and other Ivy League type schools. | ||
| Yeah, so you've been big on sort of the three topics that, at least for me at the moment, are my big three topics, which are big tech, COVID, and then California specifically. | ||
| Because I think there's COVID at a sort of national and worldwide level, and then California. | ||
| So we'll hold that for a moment. | ||
| But on the big tech, Stuff, you know, I started talking about free speech a couple years ago and then there was suddenly this feeling that we were kind of being censored but we couldn't figure it out. | ||
| Then we started hearing phrases like shadow banning and de-boosting and algorithmic fairness, all of these things. | ||
| And I think one of the things that people wonder about is how this all infected all of, seemingly all of the big tech companies. | ||
| Do you have any theories on where it sort of started in there, and how it became so inclusive? | ||
| Yeah, well, I think, you know, the technology industry is primarily based in Silicon Valley, and most of the people are pretty liberal, and so there would be sort of that liberal skew, but I'd say most of the evolution of these big tech companies They saw themselves as neutral platforms, and they didn't see themselves as partisans engaged in a political battle. | ||
| They merely wanted to create the tools and the platforms for other people to communicate. | ||
| And I think something changed, if I had to sort of pinpoint when it changed, it would have been around 2016, you know, when Trump got elected. | ||
| I think that a lot of big tech bought into the argument that they had sort of caused Trump to be elected or, you know, that sort of disinformation, you know, had been used through their platforms and this had resulted in the election of Trump. | ||
| And so, therefore, they could no longer just be neutral. | ||
| They would have to take corrective measures to prevent this disinformation. | ||
| And I think that was sort of the beginning of it where, again, I think Big Tech sort of bought into this idea. | ||
| I think they were predisposed to buying into it because they were liberal, but they were never as partisan as they subsequently became over the last few years. | ||
| It's not that dissimilar from, I think, what happened with the news industry. | ||
| You know, there were people like Brent Bazell for years who were doing studies showing that 90 plus percent of reports were liberal, voted Democrat and so on. | ||
| But they believed in a code, a journalistic code of objectivity or neutrality. | ||
| And somehow, you know, over over the last four years, Trump was perceived as such a threat that, you know, the media decided that was more important to stop Trump than to live up to the sort of this code of neutrality. | ||
| And I think something similar happened in big tech as well. | ||
| Yeah, has it been tough for you as someone that isn't purely a leftist, regardless of how you fully define yourself, but you're clearly not purely a leftist, but to be in San Francisco and still be around a lot of that? | ||
| I mean, right now we know that a ton of people, the whole biz, the whole industry is fleeing to Miami. | ||
| Miami's looking pretty good right now to have some open conversations. | ||
| Well, yeah, I mean, so no, I mean, there's been no reprisals or anything like that. | ||
| But I do think that people feel like they can't say, you know, exactly what they think. | ||
| I do think that people feel uncomfortable expressing a view that's not the prevailing, you know, the prevailing views. | ||
| So, for me, part of the reason why I started doing the All In pod and started speaking out more is just to show people that they could speak out, because the gap between what makes sense and what people feel comfortable is never going to be greater. | ||
| I mean, if you look back on 2020, I mean, just to name a few issues, I mean, these protracted lockdowns that, you know, aren't substantiated by science, I mean, they're just kind of crazy. | ||
| The idea of defunding or abolishing the police. | ||
| I mean, you can, you know, believe that we need to have controls on the use of violence by police, but just to say that we should just abolish the police or defund them or to empty out the jails, which is happening now in San Francisco and L.A. | ||
| We'll get to your DA in a little bit. | ||
| Don't worry about that. | ||
| Just for me, but what struck me is not just like that these ideas are just so Crazy and sort of off base, but just that nobody felt comfortable saying these things. | ||
| And so I felt a little bit of an obligation to speak out more because, you know, economically, you know, if I get canceled, I'm still going to be fine. | ||
| You know, I'm not I'm in I'm in a position where I mean, I don't know if I can be cancelled, but if I can, economically I'm going to be fine. | ||
| So I felt like we need more people to speak out so that everybody feels comfortable and they don't feel like they're just going crazy. | ||
| If they're not in favor of defunding the police or something like that. | ||
| Yeah, are you surprised that in the Silicon Valley world there aren't more people? | ||
| I mean, there's plenty of people that I think have a little more libertarian approach to the world. | ||
| I think all of you guys, you like business, you like competition, you like capitalism, all of those things. | ||
| And there are plenty of people that are at least somewhat financially secure that still are pretty quiet, because they'll reach out to me privately, but then they're like, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not gonna go on the show. | ||
| Yeah, so it's funny, the latest episode, so I do a pod with, I'll be all in pod with three other friends in Silicon Valley. | ||
| We all play poker together. | ||
| That's the name all in. | ||
| And it's a sort of a mix of people across the political spectrum. | ||
| But on the last episode, we were joking that it was sort of the red pill episode because we were talking about California. | ||
| And we were talking about crime in San Francisco. | ||
| We were talking about the protracted lockdowns. | ||
| We were talking about the Newsom recall. | ||
| And pretty much everybody on the pod, you know, all four of us were basically espousing positions that you could say were, you know, so that I don't even know if they were to the right of center, but they were sort of, you know, red pilled. | ||
| And so I think there is kind of now, I think, more of a willingness of people Well, I don't know if it's a willingness to speak out, but I definitely think there's a lot more people who feel the way that we do, that things have gone too far. | ||
| And I think part of it is also that with Trump off the scene, it does depressurize the situation to some degree for, you know, like some of the one or two of the guys on our pod, I would describe as having TDS for sure, you know. | ||
| And, you know, now that he's that he's sort of cured of his Trump derangement syndrome, You know, he's speaking out about the DA in San Francisco as much as anybody. | ||
| So yeah, I mean, I think that changes things a little bit. | ||
| Yeah, all right, so before we go too far down the California thing, and I know you've got all kinds of issues with your DA up there, and you have challenged him to a debate. | ||
| We'll see if it actually happens. | ||
| But I just thought we could go into some of the basic stuff about big tech that I think people are confused by. | ||
| So you've written a bunch about Section 230 of the Communications Act. | ||
| And I thought maybe, could you just kind of clean it up for people, because I hear a lot of people saying, oh, Trump should have invoked 230, and now it's too late, and we should do it, we shouldn't do it. | ||
| But basically, in your Medium article, you make the argument, it's a little more nuanced, perhaps, than just invoking it, or getting rid of it, or whatever else. | ||
| Yeah, the call that you're hearing by conservatives is that they want to repeal Section 230, which is the liability shield that protects big tech companies. | ||
| And what that liability shield does is that When somebody posts content on their platforms that would normally give rise to liability, you can only sue the person who posted it, not the platform. | ||
| So it's a little bit like the distinction between a magazine and a newsstand. | ||
| You know, if the magazine publishes an article that's defamatory, Then the magazine can be sued. | ||
| But the newsstand on which the magazine is sold cannot be sued. | ||
| It did not participate in the creation of that content. | ||
| It merely distributed it. | ||
| That was the distinction that Section 230 sought to establish. | ||
| It basically said that these big tech companies, and really all tech companies, this doesn't just apply to the big ones, but to small innovators as well, they're protected as long as all they're doing is distributing, as long as they're not creating the content. | ||
| And I think that makes a lot of sense because You couldn't have restaurant reviews on Yelp if Yelp could be sued every time a small business didn't like the review. | ||
| Reddit was sued recently because people in a comment board lost money on one of the trades that was posted in Wall Street Bets. | ||
| Gmail maybe would be imperiled if Google could be sued every time a crime was committed using Gmail. | ||
| It doesn't make sense to always hold the tech platform liable for any content that the user is posting. | ||
| You should really go after those users. | ||
| That part of Section 230, which is sort of provision 230c1, that still I think makes a lot of sense. | ||
| And if you were to get rid of it, sort of throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think you would hurt a lot of small innovators. | ||
| There's a lot of small tech companies that rely on that liability protection to offer their service. | ||
| The problem is, it all came in with Section C2, which basically, this is, it's really interesting, this is where Congress, this is where the road to hell is paved with good intentions. | ||
| What Congress tried to do in C2 was say to the big tech companies, listen, we don't want to punish you for being good Samaritans. | ||
| So if you want to take down content on your site because it's pornographic, it's obscene, it's excessively violent or otherwise objectionable, you can take that down and we won't hold you to be a publisher. | ||
| You'll still stay, say, you'll stay a newsstand in our eyes. | ||
| And so, you know, Congress tried to, Congress was very worried. | ||
| This was 1996. | ||
| When the act was passed called the Communications Decency Act, and they were very worried about sort of smut on the Internet, and they were trying to give tech companies an incentive or protection to remove this type of objectionable content without then triggering liability. | ||
| And so, but see, this is where all the censorship concern has now come in, because fast forward 15 years later. | ||
| And big tech companies are using this very broad term, otherwise objectionable, to mean content that they simply don't like, that, you know, politically they don't like it. | ||
| And so they now have all the censorship power. | ||
| And this is where all the problems come in. | ||
| This is why, you know, Trump and others have called for the repeal of Section 230. | ||
| I understand that, the desire, because I think the censorship is wrong. | ||
| But I just think that we need a slightly different solution. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So do you have a sense of what goes on at the board meetings of these companies when they're trying to make these policies? | ||
| Because I think a lot of people think, and I've tried to get my audience off this idea, that it's just a couple of guys sitting there and they all hate conservatives and the goal is just to destroy conservatives. | ||
| Because I don't think it's that simple. | ||
| I think it's much more complex. | ||
| Then that, but what would be like a sensible policy? | ||
| Cause it seems fairly obvious. | ||
| You, you can see it in, in Twitter trends. | ||
| You know, I screen capture them all the time and it's very obvious when they're actually, sometimes they're actually trying to push a mob towards somebody. | ||
| So what, what would be a sensible policy that you think would be, would be honest and, and legal, I suppose. | ||
| Well, I'm pretty happy with the First Amendment. | ||
| I think the First Amendment and 230 years of Supreme Court case law provides us with the standard. | ||
| And the Supreme Court for two centuries has been wrestling with the problem of dangerous speech. | ||
| I think there's a misconception that the First Amendment allows anything goes. | ||
| It doesn't. | ||
| There are at least nine categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment because they're dangerous. | ||
| You cannot yell, you know, fire in a crowded theater. | ||
| You cannot incite people to commit a crime. | ||
| You can't engage in fraud. | ||
| You know, you can't defame somebody. | ||
| You know, fighting words are illegal. | ||
| So there's a lot of categories of speech that aren't protected. | ||
| And most of the speech that causes social networks the greatest problems They fall into one of those categories, and so I think it would be very doable for them to create a content moderation policy that is broadly consistent with the First Amendment. | ||
| Now, the reason why I say broadly is because, look, take defamation, for example. | ||
| We're not going to do a court trial every time that a user complains that they're being harassed by another user, okay? | ||
| What we're going to do is we're going to have a standard that says that if a user complains about another user's post and that post is facially defamatory about that other user, we're going to take it down because there are billions of these social media posts and we're not going to run a trial every time. | ||
| But we're going to take our guidelines from First Amendment case law and those are basically going to be the broad categories. | ||
| What we're not gonna do is create new categories of speech that are prohibited, because that would appropriate | ||
| to the big tech companies extraordinary power, you know? | ||
| But do you think the problem, do you think the inherent problem is that because so much of the social justice stuff has now leaked into these companies, that you know I can get on board with what you just said, most of my audience can get on board with what you just said, but they can't because they've accepted this ideology that in many ways is just completely counter to that. | ||
| I think ideology is very motivating, especially for a lot of the low-level employees who've banded together and created pressure on the leadership, the management of these companies. | ||
| They've created these campaigns, these boycotts. | ||
| There's also pressure coming from above, from the Senate Judiciary Committee. | ||
| And that committee basically, in these hearings, the people who are now the leading members of that committee, Basically, are telling big tech, on the one hand, we want you to censor more, and on the other, we're thinking about breaking you up. | ||
| And so there's a lot of pressure, I think, that big tech is feeling that if they don't go along with these policies, that either they're going to anger the people above, and that may increase the chances they get busted up. | ||
| Or that they're going to upset this pressure that's coming from below from the employees. | ||
| I don't think it's a very good excuse, by the way. | ||
| I think they should have more courage and backbone than that. | ||
| I think our commitment to free speech should be made of sterner stuff than that. | ||
| But I think the reality is that these companies are succumbing to pressure campaigns. | ||
| What do you think just broadly about just the amount of power that they have over us? | ||
| Because you mentioned the First Amendment before. | ||
| I don't think the founders could have ever imagined that there would basically be four companies that in many ways, I think you could argue, are more powerful than the government, at least in our day-to-day lives at this point. | ||
| What do we do about that amount of power? | ||
| They do have an extraordinary amount of power, because what happened is the town square got privatized. | ||
| Free speech got digitized. | ||
| That caused the town square to get privatized, and the First Amendment got euthanized. | ||
| You know, when the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, where did you go for free speech? | ||
| There were a multiplicity of town squares all over the country. | ||
| There were thousands of them. | ||
| You could get on the courthouse steps, pull out your soapbox, you could speak, and anyone who wanted to listen could gather around. | ||
| That's why the First Amendment contains not just a right to free speech, but a right to peacefully assemble. | ||
| Well, where do people assemble today on these massive social networks, which have gigantic network effects? | ||
| That is where you go to be heard. | ||
| And if you cannot express yourself on one of these social networks, to what extent do you still have a free speech right in this country? | ||
| I don't think you do. | ||
| And what we saw and what we were seeing, you know, since since the election is that you effectively have a cartel of these big tech companies coming together, making identical decisions to deny people their free speech rights. | ||
| And, you know, again, to what extent do you really have Can you talk a little bit about how you think that cartel works? | ||
| Because you've written a little bit about this. | ||
| Like, when Trump got taken out after January 6th, when they took him off Spotify and Pinterest and Twitter and YouTube, you know, it wasn't even the ones where he was. | ||
| It's like, okay, now he can't listen to music anymore either. | ||
| Like, we're just going to take him out of everything. | ||
| That they operate sort of as a cartel. | ||
| It's like they just wait for the first mover and then everybody sort of in a minute does the exact same thing. | ||
| Well, so Jack Dorsey actually explained it. | ||
| He wrote a tweetstorm in which he felt the need to defend their action to permanently de-platform Trump. | ||
| Well, you had a funny comment on what he said, because it's like he does these things, and then he suddenly feels very emotional about what he's done, and then he opens up about everything. | ||
| Yeah, they make these knee-jerk decisions, then there's like a violent reaction to it, and then, because they don't, they have a blind spot with respect to their, you know, their partisan biases, and then they realize, oh, wait a second, we just did something that is a big deal, and then he comes out and gets very introspective and tries to explain it. | ||
| At least he tries to explain it. | ||
| That makes Jack my favorite oligarch. | ||
| But what he said is that when we, Twitter, decided to ban Trump, we didn't think it was that big a deal because there were other places he could go to basically get his free speech right. | ||
| And then all these other companies did the same thing. | ||
| And he's right. | ||
| If only one company were to de-platform you, it might not be that big a deal. | ||
| But when all of them are doing it at the same time, they're acting as effectively a speech cartel. | ||
| Now, what Jack said is that all of us didn't collude to make these decisions, but we emboldened each other. | ||
| That was his word is emboldened. | ||
| It sounds a lot to me what we would call signaling in antitrust law, where you have a bunch of companies that normally compete with each other and therefore are trying to make different decisions, not all trying to get to the same decision to try and compete with each other. | ||
| But signaling occurs when one company does something and then, you know, all the other companies follow suit. | ||
| And that's basically what's happening is that Is that with each incremental company that decides to ban Trump or whoever, the pressure builds on all the rest of them to do the same thing. | ||
| Otherwise, they'll be subject to, you know, letter writing campaigns and all that kind of stuff. | ||
| And so, you know, whether they're actively colluding or not, or whether it's merely just a signaling, you have the same effect, which is a cartel. | ||
| So would you break them up? | ||
| I mean, would you use the force of government to break up some of these companies at this point? | ||
| I would seriously look at it because I think they are too powerful, but I don't think it's going to solve the speech problem for this reason. | ||
| Imagine that Google is busted up into, you know, we have kind of Google search and then YouTube becomes its own property and, you know, maybe there's like a third Division for enterprise. | ||
| Well, YouTube is the one that we sort of care about. | ||
| We're not going to divide that property up. | ||
| It's still going to be run. | ||
| It'll just have a different cap table. | ||
| It's going to have the same executives. | ||
| They all drink from the same sort of monocultural fountain. | ||
| They all have the same ideological commitments and biases. | ||
| They're subject to most of the same pressures. | ||
| So I don't know that if you effectively increase the size of the speech cartel from five members to 10 members, I don't know that that by itself does anything. | ||
| I think what we need, and I'm not expecting to get this from Congress anytime soon, is some sort of common carrier obligations imposed on these big tech monopolies. | ||
| This is a proposal that came from Richard Epstein, who's a professor at the University of Chicago. | ||
| Basically what he says is, look, if you're a gigantic monopoly, you're a utility, you can't deny service to somebody based on their creed. You know, that's | ||
| the non-discrimination rule that we need. | ||
| Imagine if, you know, like a common carrier would be something like a | ||
| railroad, you know, where it's a natural monopoly. | ||
| Imagine if in the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, you know, they got around the country by train. Imagine if, I | ||
| don't know, some oligarch, Cornelius Vanderbilt or something said, you know, "Mr. | ||
| Lincoln, I don't like your point of view in this debate. | ||
| I'm going to deny you service. | ||
| I don't want you to be able to express your views. | ||
| Well, there's no way that we would have let that happen. | ||
| We wouldn't let somebody, we wouldn't let monopolies be that powerful where they can deny service to essential facilities, to people based on their creed. | ||
| And that basically is the legislative fix here. | ||
| I think more than doing something, Like repealing Section 230, which I think would hurt a lot of small innovators. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So yeah. | ||
| But look, I'm not expecting to get that in the next two years or even four years. | ||
| I'm guessing, generally speaking though, you'd rather have technological solutions to this than governmental solutions? | ||
| I would, but I don't know that we're going to get a technological solution because I do think that monopolies are real. | ||
| Part of what I do as an investor is try to invest in the next set of monopolies. | ||
| That's what Peter's whole book, Zero to One, is about. | ||
| There's two kinds of companies. | ||
| Right there! | ||
| There's two kinds of companies. | ||
| There's monopolies and commodities. | ||
| You want to be a monopoly. | ||
| Well, monopolies have incredible market power. | ||
| I think it was it was fine when those monopolies were lawfully gained and weren't trying to use their power to put their thumb on the scale of American democracy. | ||
| You know, and it wasn't that long ago that these big tech companies, you know, would state their their commitment to neutrality. | ||
| I mean, Mark Zuckerberg gave, I think, a very good speech just a few years ago in 2018, in which he said that He said social networks were the fifth estate. | ||
| You know, the traditional media historically was the fourth estate. | ||
| I don't know, I think one through three were like, I don't know, they go back to Europe or something, like the nobility and the peasants and the clergy. | ||
| It's the people, yeah, yeah. | ||
| The people, yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| Anyway, the fourth estate is traditional media. | ||
| What Zuckerberg said is that social networks were the fifth estate and that they posed a threat to the people in power, just like the fourth estate did, and therefore it needed to be protected. | ||
| And I think he's right about that. And the sad thing is that he has felt the | ||
| need to kind of move off that position and engage in this sort of censorship. | ||
| Yeah, he's, yeah. | ||
| When you see these guys have to go in front of Congress, when you see Jack or Zuckerberg, I don't know if you know them personally, probably at least somewhere in the circles or somewhat close, but when you see them have to basically be arguing with people who have so little understanding of what the real issues are or any of that stuff, does it just drive you crazy to see it? | ||
| It's a little painful because the people doing the questioning, by and large, don't have the knowledge or ability to interrogate these CEOs the way that they should. | ||
| But some of them do. | ||
| There have been some interesting moments where these CEOs get questioned and sort of dressed down. | ||
| Theater. | ||
| It's very performative. | ||
| There's a lot of grandstanding. | ||
| I mean, I don't really know how much progress gets made in these in these hearings. | ||
| But the point of it, I think, is valid, which is you have these a handful of tech oligarchs who now control the public square, and they've appropriated to themselves a vast power to decide who has access and which views have access and in which views they're going to silence and censor and basically ghost And no one elected them to have that power. | ||
| And I think we should be rightly concerned about that. | ||
| And I think we should question them about how they are wielding that power. | ||
| How much of an escalation do you think it was when Parler got nuked by Amazon? | ||
| Because that was completely different, taking away servers, than taking away speech of an individual person. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, it was an escalation because you had not just one person, Trump, or his supporters, being ghosted or deplatformed, but you had 16 million Parler users or whatever it is, 99.9% of whom never did anything wrong, you know, and that was a diminishment of their free speech rights. | ||
| It was also, I think, unjustified. | ||
| If the justification for that was that Parler was used in the planning of the events of January 6, It was clearly a scapegoating because we now have FBI | ||
| charging documents that come out. | ||
| They found 226 cases. | ||
| The social networking site that was used 10x more than all the others was Facebook. | ||
| You know, Parler was used one tenth of the amount that Facebook was, but Parler was, | ||
| you know, was sort of an easy, an easy target to sort of scapegoat for that. | ||
| Is that purely because of sort of the cartel mindset that you were discussing before? | ||
| Like there's certain, there's, you know, however many people or companies are involved in the cartel and here's just this new guy. | ||
| So it's like, well, they are competition. | ||
| There are 21 million people over there. | ||
| May as well just take them out, right? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I mean, it's, yeah, I think they're an easy target. | ||
| I think Facebook clearly was eager to deflect blame onto Parler. | ||
| There was actually a pretty good article in the Washington Post about that, calling Facebook out on that, pointing to the fact that they had a lot more of this problematic content than Parler did. | ||
| But yeah, I mean, it's an easy way for these big tech companies to show that they're doing something. | ||
| To control, you know disinformation or whatever that the powers that be now, you know are concerned about and again | ||
| I think this all goes back to the fact that These the big tech companies are very worried about getting | ||
| broken up right now They don't wanna get busted up. | ||
| And so they're looking to curry favor with the current administration in Washington. | ||
| So I can hear all my pure libertarian fans in the back of my head going, okay, you guys are talking too much about government and antitrust and regulation and breaking them up and all that stuff when you should be talking about decentralization and crypto and everything else. | ||
| Do you think there are enough answers there basically to solve a lot of this stuff? | ||
| Not in the near term. | ||
| I mean, I'm a fan of a lot of those crypto projects, but they're very much projects. | ||
| I would like to be able to call them companies. | ||
| Some of them, I guess, are companies, but they're still at a super early stage. | ||
| You know, we're still building out core infrastructure of these sort of blockchain platforms. | ||
| To my knowledge, there has not been a breakout application built on top of any of these sort of crypto platforms, except if you want to, you know, except for like Bitcoin and then DeFi or decentralized finance, basically financial speculation. | ||
| I think we're a long way off from, you know, being able to run truly decentralized, say, speech apps with billions of users. | ||
| You know, that seems to me Years off, if not decades, and I'm not really willing to kind of wait that long to kind of have the First Amendment back. | ||
| Yeah, and by the way, that creates a whole host of other problems, right? | ||
| Because then you can put all sorts of horrible stuff on there, and once it's there, it's there, and then then you got a whole bunch of other problems. | ||
| Yeah, it's not clear exactly. | ||
| You need to have some sort of regulation of these sites. | ||
| It's not that I want there to be anything goes. | ||
| I just would prefer to put my faith in a venerable external standard. | ||
| First Amendment case law, than to give all this power to these unelected oligarchs | ||
| to make these decisions about who gets to participate in an American democracy. | ||
| Yeah, so let's shift a little to lockdowns and generally what's happened in the last year, | ||
| because basically from almost the day we're posting this, it was pretty much a year ago right now, | ||
| two weeks to flatten the curve. | ||
| Now it's a year later and people, Biden's double masking and California, | ||
| you still can't go to indoor restaurants or go to the gym. | ||
| And I guess we're gonna partially open on April 1st or something like that. | ||
| But so much of this does seem attached to big tech because they're letting you say certain things about lockdowns and not letting you say certain things. | ||
| Is your belief that there was just no science behind the lockdowns at all at any point? | ||
| Well, I guess at the very beginning of COVID, we didn't exactly know. | ||
| And so I don't fault anyone too much for the decisions that were made to lock down back in March or April. | ||
| We simply didn't know. | ||
| As you'll recall, I mean, we were seeing what was happening in Italy, the hospitals were completely overrun. | ||
| And so this idea of, you know, of locking things down to buy time so that Our medical system didn't get overrun. | ||
| I could understand the argument, but I think by this by last summer, it was becoming pretty clear that lockdowns had an enormous cost to them and a very unclear benefit. | ||
| And and I think as the year progressed, we had more and more data around this. | ||
| Certainly, I think by the fall, anyone who's paying attention to that data would have, you know, should have been against lockdowns. | ||
| I think Even by May, I was tweeting that the right policy was to go all in en masse and to not do lockdowns. | ||
| So, I mean, I think the data was clear even by then. | ||
| So what do you think was going on? | ||
| I mean, like, in the mind, we'll get to California more specifically, but generally, like, in the mind of Gavin Newsom, in the mind of Gretchen Whitmer, in the mind of Andrew Cuomo, these people that, you know, in essence destroyed their states in a lot of ways versus Texas and scary Florida, Like, what do you think they were thinking? | ||
| Because I can't find any science anywhere. | ||
| I get what you're saying. | ||
| Yeah, for a couple of weeks you could try it and there was this unsure moment and all that. | ||
| But then after that? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I don't know exactly why they thought the political calculus, it would benefit them to have this extreme lockdown policy. | ||
| But I think there was sort of a collective failure of elite thinking. | ||
| On COVID and really on many other issues. | ||
| And it really, you know, you have to go back to the WHO getting just about everything wrong from the beginning. | ||
| First, you know, all the way back in January saying that it wasn't clear that there was human-to-human contact. | ||
| And then when it was clear that there was, they greatly exaggerated the case fatality rate by claiming that there weren't a lot of asymptomatic cases. | ||
| You know, we would later learn that there was a huge number of asymptomatic cases and therefore we should, you know, the infection fatality rate was more like one-tenth the case fatality rate, but they got that wrong and sort of miseducated us and then that led to us thinking the virus would be even more severe than it was. | ||
| You know, then they were wrong about masks and so was, you know, Fauci and the CDC. | ||
| I mean, I wrote a blog post in early April saying that masks should be the policy. | ||
| I thought that was that was the type of thing that was low cost, high benefit. | ||
| And the type of thing we should be doing, you know, not not lockdowns. | ||
| And then, you know, they got lockdowns wrong, and then they reverse course on that. | ||
| And so there's just been like, systematically, I think the health establishment just seems like they've gotten everything wrong here. | ||
| And it kind of, I mean, just to tie it back to the censorship thing, it shows how ridiculous it is to maintain this position that we can censor based on what experts tell us, as YouTube has been doing. | ||
| You know, YouTube has been censoring COVID videos that have been put up that they say contradict the WHO. | ||
| Apparently without irony, because no one has contradicted the WHO more than the WHO itself. | ||
| But this idea that we can simply rely on experts, I think that has to be one of the big takeaways of COVID, is that we cannot rely on these experts. | ||
| They're just wrong way too often. | ||
| You know, Fauci today and the guidance we're getting today is far too conservative, you know. | ||
| Fauci recently said that we might have to wear masks until 2022. | ||
| Well, why? | ||
| I mean, you know, are you saying the vaccines don't work? | ||
| Because it seems to me that the messaging we're getting now is effectively anti-vax. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I mean, if the vaccines work... Right, they've all become anti-vaxxers, yeah. | |
| Yeah, if the vaccines work, and Biden has now said that every American adult can get one by the end of May, Why would we need any more restrictions after Memorial Day? | ||
| And so I was in favor of a mass policy early on, but I do not support having a mass policy once vaccines are available. | ||
| Why? | ||
| So you guys were just talking about zeroism on the show, and it's a perfect segue for that. | ||
| So can you explain that? | ||
| Yeah, so Jonathan Chait actually came up with it. | ||
| He's a writer for the, I guess- New Yorker? | ||
| I always forget if it's New Yorker or New York Magazine. | ||
| I think it's a magazine. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah, I don't think, I think he's probably, I don't think he's red-pilled. | ||
| I think he's pretty liberal, but he's pretty liberal. | ||
| He might've called me racist once or twice in a tweet. | ||
| Okay, well, he wrote one good column. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| He coins this term zeroism and what it basically is is a refusal to deal with COVID according to cost-benefit analysis and to insist that even one case of COVID is unacceptable because somebody can die and therefore we need to have a policy of stamping out every last case of COVID. | ||
| That's zeroism. | ||
| The problem with zeroism is that We're never going to get rid of it. | ||
| I mean, there are always going to be a smattering of cases somewhere. | ||
| It's a seasonal illness. | ||
| It's going to return. | ||
| And the problem is that if every time it returns, we now have the justification for the politicians to, you know, engage in like all these emergency measures, it gives them extraordinary powers. | ||
| So, yeah, that's the thing I think needs to be challenged. | ||
| I mean, and look, look at how zeroism is being used Right now, I mean, obviously it was used to justify the continuation of lockdowns far beyond what was necessary. | ||
| It's being used today to keep schools closed. | ||
| You know, you have the education unions saying that even after they're vaccinated, if there are any cases of community spread, if there's even one case of community spread in a two week period, they will not go back to school. | ||
| So, I mean, this is a recipe for keeping schools closed forever. | ||
| You had our district attorney in San Francisco use COVID as the excuse to empty out all the jails. | ||
| You had Gavin Newsom use COVID as the excuse for billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to his political supporters. | ||
| And so, you know, you have this suspending of normal operating procedure of the way that government works. | ||
| And if we're gonna suspend it every time there's one COVID case, well, that's not gonna work. | ||
| Are you worried, though, that that is the net effect of this thing, that they pushed us for a year and they, whoever they are, but in effect the system, so boy, we can really get people to destroy their own lives and not see their family and not travel, and yet they'll do it in some places like Florida, but we can get people in California to act like sheep and there's almost no pushback, so why not keep pushing? | ||
| Well, I think there's a lot of pushback now. | ||
| I mean, look, I think there are a lot of people who are frightened of COVID and there will be some PTSD about it. | ||
| But I think that, you know, we're seeing now with the Newsom recall that I think people are very upset about the restrictions and the The hypocrisy of it, you know, the fact that Newsom was going to French Laundry and even during the time when he was doubling down on lockdowns and telling people they couldn't go to the beach, which, I mean, that makes no sense because there's been no real outdoor spread. | ||
| So you had that, you know, he was sending his own kids to private school when the public schools were still closed and still are closed. | ||
| So I think people are pretty riled up by this. | ||
| And I do expect that people will want to go back to the way things were pre-COVID very, very quickly. | ||
| But I think the battle to be joined over the next few months is the battle against zeroism. | ||
| And I expect that we'll win that battle. | ||
| I expect that if Newsom sticks to the zeroist position, he will be defeated. | ||
| I mean, the recall election will be in, I think, around August. | ||
| I think every American who wants a vaccine will be able to get one in May. | ||
| And so I think to the extent that California still has all these restrictions, I think every week pressure is going to build. | ||
| People in California are going to look and say, well, wait. | ||
| None of these other states are doing this stuff. | ||
| Why are we still restricted? | ||
| Are you worried, though, that basically every week from now till the election, he's going to open up more and more and we'll just kind of forget, right? | ||
| Because we all have short memories. | ||
| And even though we've got the two million signatures, I know you're bullish on the recall, that we'll just kind of forget. | ||
| Well, I think Newsom has already moved to the center because of recall. | ||
| I mean, he was suspicious that he reopened, that he ended lockdowns, or at least a big chunk of the lockdowns, right when the recall passed a million signatures. | ||
| So I think the recall has been creating pressure on him. | ||
| To do the right thing. | ||
| I mean, I think that's a good thing that that it's that even if the recall doesn't ultimately pass, I still think it's a good thing that it's for it's reminding the politicians that they work for us and. | ||
| And for them not to forget that. | ||
| Yeah, before we move on to your fair city of San Francisco, it just hit me. | ||
| Jonathan Chait didn't call me racist. | ||
| He did go after me for being a small businessman, because I said I had several employees, and he felt that that wasn't enough to be able to comment on economics or something to that effect. | ||
| It wasn't a racist, so I wanna clean that up. | ||
| But all right, let's talk about San Francisco, because you're not happy with what's going on in San Francisco. | ||
| And I've been there a couple times in the last couple of years. | ||
| And I mean, it's kinda disgusting, the amount of homelessness, the drug use. | ||
| Like, it's pretty, you know, there's an app to track where human poop is. | ||
| Like, how much worse does it get in a Western society city? | ||
| It's become totally dystopian and a lot of people are leaving, like huge numbers of people left during COVID. | ||
| I don't even think we know how many people have left. | ||
| I guess we'll find out after COVID and everything reopens exactly, you know, how damaged the city has become. | ||
| But it has become a huge problem. | ||
| And, you know, homelessness is out of control. | ||
| Crime is out of control. | ||
| The city's budget is completely mismanaged. | ||
| They were due for a giant budgetary shortfall, but they're going to be saved by the $1.9 trillion bill that's coming out of Washington. | ||
| So we'll defer that day of reckoning for another day. | ||
| But the city is squandering money. | ||
| It was recently revealed that they spent $16 million providing 260 tents for homeless people. | ||
| So it's a cost of $61,000 per tent. | ||
| You're saying that's not capital efficient. | ||
| Is that what you're telling me? | ||
| Yeah, and I think, I mean, I've heard a number that the city on the whole, if you look at all the homeless services, spends about $330,000 per year per homeless person. | ||
| So, I mean, that's just, like, staggering. | ||
| So can you explain why people seem to be, maybe it's a California thing, it's the nice weather, I don't know, that they can't seem to connect the bad policies and all of the spending with then the stuff on the ground. | ||
| They can't understand that the more they put these people into power, the more that the homelessness expands, that the drug use expands. | ||
| That schools get worse, that businesses leave, that house prices get higher, all of these things, and then they somehow always blame the Republicans, even though there's virtually no Republicans in power in the state. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| Well, and that's part of the problem, is we haven't, for whatever reason, we haven't had a functional Republican Party in a long time in California, and so therefore there hasn't really been a choice, and we've been living under a one-party state. | ||
| One party states generally don't go very well. | ||
| So, yeah. | ||
| But look, are voters waking up to this? | ||
| I think so. | ||
| I mean, you know, judging by my friends on the pod, they're all getting red-pilled to one degree or another. | ||
| I'm not saying they're ready to vote Republican, but I think they're pretty upset and they're looking for a different kind of Democrat, let's put it that way. | ||
| Listen, the line I've been using, it's basically, you're woke or conservative. | ||
| It doesn't mean you're a conservative like a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. | ||
| I don't consider myself a Republican, but it's pretty much everyone versus the woke at the moment, and we gotta set aside our differences to clean up some of this stuff. | ||
| But you've been going after your DA, Chesa Boudin, is that it? | ||
| Boudin, yeah, Chesa Boudin. | ||
| Chesa Boudin doesn't have the cojones to debate you, apparently. | ||
| Well, I was trying to goad him into a debate because, yeah, I'd love to debate him about what's going on in San Francisco. | ||
| There's a number of these radical DAs now. | ||
| L.A. | ||
| has one, too. | ||
| Gascon, who was a previous DA in San Francisco, moved down to L.A. | ||
| Yeah, thanks for that. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| So you should be prepared for what's coming. | ||
| They've done a number of similar things. | ||
| They've, I mean, first of all, they've shown no interest in prosecuting misdemeanors, so property crimes. | ||
| These are just quality of life crimes that don't, you know, they don't affect, they don't have victims is the theory. | ||
| Well, they do if you have enough of them. | ||
| And you can't park a car in San Francisco without fear that's been broken into. | ||
| There's now been a spate of home invasion burglaries. | ||
| They're up some astronomical number every year. | ||
| You know, there's and now there's other kinds of crimes. | ||
| We've had a number of people get killed recently. | ||
| I mean, very sad cases where you had I mean, there's been a few of these recently. | ||
| So on New Year's Eve, there are two women. | ||
| They were run down by a driver of a stolen car who was on drugs, fleeing another crime, I think a burglary he had committed. | ||
| This criminal, Troy McAllister, he had been arrested five times in the previous six months. | ||
| He'd been let go every single time. | ||
| The DA had chosen not to prosecute charges, and in fact, he was paroled six months before in a case where He was in jail awaiting trial on armed robbery. | ||
| He had used a gun in robbing a store. | ||
| And that was going to be his third strike. | ||
| And the new DA, Chase Abudin, came in and pleaded him down to time served. | ||
| And so, you know, you have a case with, you know, with New Year's Eve where, you know, the decisions of this district attorney led directly to the deaths of these two people. | ||
| You had Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt. | ||
| So anyway, it was a very sad case. | ||
| And there's a bunch of these now. | ||
| I mean, there's more and more victims. | ||
| What do you think, I mean, just to give the devil his due, like, what do you think the DA thinks he's doing? | ||
| Well, his agenda is mass decarceration. | ||
| And he's talked a lot about this. | ||
| He is the child of two Weather Underground domestic terrorists who were put in jail for an armed robbery, a brinks heist that went wrong. | ||
| They ended up, the people in that group ended up killing a couple of police officers and guards. | ||
| And so his dad is still in prison. | ||
| And he says his oldest memory is visiting his parents in prison. | ||
| And that profoundly shaped his view of politics and the criminal justice system. | ||
| And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that his agenda is to release as many criminals as possible without real concern for the new victims that's going to create the victims of crime. | ||
| And it's a, it's a, it's a radical, I mean, Gascogne's ideology is pretty similar. | ||
| And some examples are, you know, with Gascogne, he won't prosecute three strikes. | ||
| Actually, his own DA's had to bring up a lawsuit against him. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| The judge told him he had to enforce it. | ||
| I don't expect him to put a lot of effort into it. | ||
| He's prohibited prosecutors from attending, both Boudin and Gascogne have prohibited prosecutors from attending parole hearings. | ||
| And so there's no one to stand up in these hearings for the victims when, you know, we're talking about like, you know, criminals who've done, you know, horrible, horrible crimes, killings. | ||
| And the victims groups are up in arms because they used to have a prosecutor go up there and speak for them. | ||
| And because of that, you know, we've already had cases in L.A. | ||
| where murderers have been set free. | ||
| Neither one of them will charge enhancements to sentence for, you know, gang enhancements, gun enhancements. | ||
| I've talked to prosecutors who that's a very important part of their charging strategy. | ||
| And so, you know, they're really taking away all the weapons that prosecutors have at their disposal to keep, you know, these violent felons off the street. | ||
| And by the way, there's a really perverse result that's happened as well, which is, I don't know if you remember, but several years ago, the voters of California passed Prop 47. | ||
| Which downgraded a bunch of property felonies to misdemeanors, and this was marketed to all of us as, you know, prisons were overcrowded and this was excessive punishment. | ||
| Well, the problem is that these property crimes, like auto theft and stealing less than $950, now that they're misdemeanors, Boudin and Gascon have absolutely no interest in prosecuting them. | ||
| I don't think the voters of California would have voted for Prop 47 if they thought they | ||
| were decriminalizing, you know, theft, which is effectively what they did. | ||
| And so we now have this problem where shoplifting is basically, it just, we've had Walgreens | ||
| has exited San Francisco because people would just come in there with garbage bags and just | ||
| We covered it on my show last week. | ||
| 10 Walgreens in the San Francisco Bay Area have closed and there's video of just people literally just like one arm, the entire shelf, and what are you gonna do? | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, look, if you have a D.A. | ||
| who says effectively that we're not going to prosecute that crime, you've decriminalized it and you've made it illegal. | ||
| And so San Francisco's basically hung a burglars welcome sign at the city limits. | ||
| And, you know, so I'm not I'm not expecting the crime stats to go in the right direction after this. | ||
| So Sax, there are people watching this going, what are you two schmucks doing in California? | ||
| Give me something hopeful. | ||
| Is there anything hopeful? | ||
| I mean, you know, okay, so maybe the recall happens, maybe. | ||
| But do you see any real exit for San Francisco? | ||
| Like, how bad does it have to get? | ||
| How much of that has to be exported, you know, a little down south to me here in L.A.? | ||
| Like, do you see any hope? | ||
| Well, people really are up in arms about booting, I'd say even more than Newsom. | ||
| There's a recall underway for Chesa. | ||
| There's a recall underway for Gascon. | ||
| in addition to Newsom, heck, there's even a recall underway for the San Francisco school board. | ||
| So, you know, and by the way, I'm supporting all of them. | ||
| So, and if there's anybody else out there who wants to do a recall, let me know. | ||
| If you're willing to put in the legwork and the time, I'll write a donation to support you. | ||
| So, you know, I do think that, you know, people are up in arms, they wanna change, | ||
| and it's not partisan, you know. | ||
| The first thing that, you know, We're not looking for some political change. | ||
| guys that what they love to make it about is partisan politics. | ||
| But look, when Chesa gets recalled, the mayor of London Breed is going to appoint a successor. | ||
| That person is going to be a Democrat. | ||
| But it's going to be a reasonable Democrat who just wants to enforce the law, do a good | ||
| job as district attorney. | ||
| That's all we want. | ||
| We're not looking for some political change. | ||
| We just want the laws enforced. | ||
| So yeah, we shouldn't let these guys change the subject. | ||
| This has nothing to do with partisan politics. | ||
| Yeah, all right. | ||
| That feels like the right end. | ||
| That was sort of hopeful. | ||
| That was kind of hopeful. | ||
| We just want laws enforced. | ||
| That seems sort of hopeful, right? | ||
| Yeah, I know. | ||
| I mean, all we're really looking for here is civil society to basically be restored. | ||
| I mean, we don't have very high standards. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I mean, we just want schools to open. | |
| We want crime to be prosecuted. | ||
| You know, we want, The government to stop shutting everything down. | ||
| We, you know, we want government contracting to be done in a transparent way. | ||
| That's not just a payoff to political supporters. | ||
| So I mean, so I guess the hopeful thing would be that things are so bad. | ||
| We don't need a lot to see a big improvement. | ||
| You know, we just need to get to some normality here. | ||
| And I do think A majority of voters in the state want this. | ||
| And so if we can just marshal this energy to produce this change, I think we will get it. | ||
| Real radical stuff. | ||
|
unidentified
|
If we don't, then I'm not in Miami anymore. | |
| Exactly, real radical stuff. | ||
| A return to living under the law. | ||
| How bizarre. | ||
| All right, well, anyone that wants to get involved with any kind of recall effort, it sounds like David Sachs is willing to write you a check. | ||
| So his Twitter is at DavidSachs. | ||
| The podcast is The All In Pod, which you can get anywhere podcasts are downloadable. | ||
| And David, I thank you for doing the show. | ||
| Yeah, great to be here. | ||
| If you're looking for more honest and thoughtful conversations about tech instead of nonstop yelling, check out our tech playlist. | ||
| And if you want to watch full interviews on a variety of topics, check out our full episode playlist. | ||
| They're right over here. |
Export Selection