Episode 1960 Scott Adams: It Turns Out The FBI Was A Big Part Of The Twitter 1.0 World & Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Aaron Rupar's suspension defense
Twitter had 80 FBI agent monitors?
President Trump's NFT fundraiser
Totalitarian social credit system coming?
FBI monitors Google, Facebook, Youtube?
Jack Dorsey didn't know
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called coffee with Scott Adams and let me tell you, there has never been a finer thing that's ever happened.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels heretofore unimaginable, all you need is a cupper, mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now. Go. If you were going to do a national advertising campaign in support of The Simultaneous Sip, what would be your slogan?
Go. Slogans.
Has to rhyme, has to be fast, has to get to the point.
Don't miss the sip.
Don't skip the sip.
Yeah, you can't top that.
All right, let's talk about some things.
A couple things happened in my neighborhood.
You heard the other day that there was a huge breakthrough at the Lawrence Livermore Lab just down the road from me.
It's e-bike riding distance for me.
And they, you already heard this, they cracked fusion.
They actually did a fusion experiment that created more energy than it used to do the experiment.
A gigantic step and maybe one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of all time.
It's just right down the road for me.
The other thing that happened was early this morning, there was an earthquake.
An earthquake in where I live, Bay Area.
It was like a little bit under a four.
So now you've got the earthquake and the gigantic nuclear fusion experiment roughly in the same place.
Well, I didn't want to tell you this, but a black hole is formed in Livermore, California.
It's small. It's only about this big.
So far, it has only sucked most of Main Street into it.
I think we'll be fine.
Don't panic. Not really.
Not really. Parody.
It's parody. How many of you believe that Klaus Schwab once said, someday you'll owe nothing and be happy?
How many believe that is something that actually happened in your actual world?
A lot of yes. A lot of yes.
Have you ever tried to Google it?
Have you ever tried to find him saying that?
Anybody? You should try doing that, just for fun.
See if you can find the most famous quote in all of the right-leaning world.
Nope. Do you know why you can't find it?
Because it never happened. Do you know what did happen?
So there's something like it that happened.
And that's how that all got started.
And if you want to know, I just tweeted the link to an article that explains where that rumor came from.
And you can see for yourself.
So it appears to come from an opinion piece that was on the World Economic Forum website.
So the first thing that's true is that there's something like that opinion that was, in reality, in truth, part of the World Economic Forum website, I think.
So it was associated with Klaus, but you'd have to read the context.
The context is not, we want to do this for you.
It was more like, this is what we foresee might happen.
Is it as bad as it looks?
You know, that sort of thing. It was an opinion piece.
It wasn't somebody saying, hey, let's take away all your property rights, something like that.
Now, would you have a problem if you knew it was an opinion piece that was saying more like, well, this stuff is already going to happen?
For example, the existence of Uber allowed at least one person I know who had plenty of money to not own a car.
I remember talking to him, and he would say, I don't need to own a car now, because where I live, Uber is just always available and it's just easier.
And I thought to myself, well, there you go.
Perfect example. There's someone who doesn't own a car, who easily could.
He's rich. But he doesn't own a car and he's happier.
And that's basically the essence of the article, is that the free market would create Situations in which you optionally could own something or not.
And if you decide not to, you might be happier.
Do you know what I was thinking about all yesterday?
Is how much I don't want to own a car.
All yesterday. Because I own an automobile.
I don't know if you've heard one of these.
I drive something called a Christmas tree.
Have you seen one of those?
It's a Christmas tree.
It's like an automobile.
It has a steering wheel and it has tires that often are inflated.
Those tires often have the proper amount of inflation.
But otherwise, on the inside, there's this thing in front of you, like an electric panel, that is lit up like a Christmas tree.
So it's usually telling me, this is broken, that's broken, and you better get a service, and your tires are flat.
And so when I get in my car, the Christmas tree comes on, and I feel festive.
I feel very festive.
But... As I was walking three miles to pick up my car with my flat tire yesterday, it was being serviced, I got home and, of course, the parking assistance doesn't work, which is why I ran my car into the side of my garage door because I was waiting for that little light to say, you're getting a little close to the edge of your door, and when that little thing goes on, I'm going to stop.
Well, it wasn't working.
So I just took out part of my garage door and my car.
This is about a $5,000 expense because BMWs don't have good electrical systems.
I'm just going to say that. I once bought a brand new BMW, the one, two cars before this one, and the entire electrical system failed as I drove off the lot.
As my car, literally, as I pulled out from the lot, brand new car, The entire electrical system of the car failed.
It was still running, but there was no electrical.
Just the whole thing failed.
You know, just sort of back up, back onto the lot.
Now, how many of you have heard me tell this story about my weird association with electrical and mechanical objects?
It's a theme my entire life, which I talk about all the time.
I can make street lights stop by walking under them.
I've done it a lot. You know, things just don't work around me electrically.
It's just a very consistent thing.
So my automobiles always have...
And so I wanted to ask this question.
95% of the time I drive any automobile that's mine, my own car, there's a warning light on on the panel.
How many of you would say the same?
That 95% of the time you drive your car, There's a warning light on, 95% of the time.
I'm seeing a few yeses.
Yep, yeses.
Now the reason is, it would be a full-time job.
The one that's broken now is this PDC light or something that tells you if you're close to something when you're parking.
That warning light has been on for months.
Have I fixed it? Yes, of course.
I've taken it in twice. And when I take it home, it stops working.
Now, every time I turn it on, I have to clear the error before I can, you know, use my panel and stuff.
Every time. Now, let me ask you this.
How many things in your life are there that you know if you took an hour you could fix it, but you never have an hour?
So you accumulate all of these things that you're just temporarily making not bother you?
Like, for the last several days, I drove on a flat tire that I knew was flat.
Why? I didn't have an hour.
I just didn't have an hour.
And my whole life is full of things, like, you know, driving on a flat tire.
Totally normal for me.
Because, you know, do you know how many problems I have with my computer?
My lights, my plumbing, my whole house?
Almost all of it is a little bit broken.
All of it. Every one of those would take an hour to fix, but if I did everything, it would be like thousands of hours.
I don't have that kind of time.
So I live in a world where everything's broken.
Everything's broken. Everything I own is broken.
All of it. A little bit.
Now, you know what would solve that problem?
Does anybody know how to solve that problem?
Of owning just a lot of shit that's broken all the time?
Say it. Say it!
Thank you. You know what would be great?
If I didn't own anything, then I'd be happy.
I'm not joking.
I'm not joking at all.
The idea that not owning things would make you happy is something you might not understand unless you own enough stuff.
If you own enough stuff, you don't like it.
If you don't own stuff, you really want more stuff, don't you?
If you're struggling, the whole time you're thinking, ah, I wish I had more stuff, nicer home, better car, right?
It doesn't make you happier.
It really doesn't. I mean, I'd still prefer it, but it doesn't get you close to happy.
You've got to do other stuff for that.
All right, let's talk about Aaron Rupar.
Has he been, has Rupar been brought back on Twitter yet?
It looked like Musk, he ran a poll about when to bring back the people he had just banned, and I think the poll said bring them back, and I believe I saw just a few minutes ago that he was going to do that.
So anyway, Rupar has given some interviews, and his defense for why what he did, which was referring to Facebook still having information on Musk's airplane's location, His argument is that that wasn't so bad and it didn't really endanger Musk, because all he did was make it much, much easier for somebody to hurt Musk.
And his point is that if somebody wanted to, they could still work a little harder to hurt Musk and his family, but all he did was make it a little easier and more convenient to hurt them, and that shouldn't be wrong.
That sound like a pretty good argument?
Well, let me tell you my opinion.
Independent of whether he should have been banned for his tweet, most people would say, you know, there's an argument both ways.
But independent of whether the first tweet was bannable, his response to why he thought that tweet was okay should ban him for life.
Do you want to have any association with somebody who says, no, I only put your family at a little bit of risk, which I decided would be appropriate for you.
I would like to take on what was a right-leaning misinformation site.
Did anybody see them ban?
It doesn't seem like YouTube always fucks with me when...
Maybe it's because I swore.
I don't know. It's possible. Anyway, could be a coincidence.
But... Do you remember that the FBI was warning Twitter that when Rupar was spreading the fine people hoax, as he frequently does, that that would influence the elections?
Do you remember the FBI tried to get Aaron Rupar removed from Twitter for spreading the fine people hoax, which was such a defining moment in American history, that Biden actually based his entire campaign on it.
But luckily, luckily the FBI was watching, and they wouldn't want the election to be, you know, affected by a hoax.
So the FBI immediately reported to Twitter, and then Twitter removed all of the references to the fine people hoax, because that would affect...
No, that didn't fucking happen.
Of course not. Not one of those things happened.
The entire hoax quiz of now, what, 20 fucking...
I think there are like 20 fucking hoaxes.
Do you think the FBI targeted or tagged any of those hoaxes?
Of course not.
Because they were all left-leaning hoaxes.
None. Now, if you ask the FBI, would they say, oh no, the things we're concerned about would be election misinformation such as what day the election is.
So a number of the examples were people who were joking that the election was on Wednesday.
Maybe they were joking, but maybe not.
Now, I don't mind if those get banned, or at least temporarily.
I don't have any problem with that.
Do you? No, I get free speech and all that, blah, blah, blah.
But do you have any problem with a social media network banning misinformation about the day of voting?
Maybe a, you know, a one-week ban or something, right?
Or maybe even put a notice on it.
Put a notice on it.
This is fake. Something like that.
But I don't really have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem if Twitter handles it with a notice.
I don't have a problem if they suppress it.
I don't have a problem if they...
I think I would...
I wouldn't favor a band for life, because I think it's just trolls messing around.
It's not quite that level.
But I would definitely act on it.
I don't think that would be inappropriate.
Because that goes right to the heart of...
Democracy, right? Or the Republic.
It goes right to the heart of it.
You've got to show up on the right day, right?
So I'd be okay with that.
As long as they didn't put anybody in jail for it or anything.
But they did more than that, didn't they?
The evidence suggests that they were banning funny memes that didn't have any informational value, really.
So Do we know for sure that the FBI was in no way involved in anything useful?
Can we say that?
Because even if they were doing something for their own team it didn't seem to be doing that.
The accounts that they were targeting Were all these minor, unimportant accounts that who knows if they had any effect at all?
And I'm sure that whatever rumors they were trying to stop, they didn't stop at all.
Can you name a rumor that the FBI tried to stop that you haven't heard?
Anybody? Is there any rumor that the FBI tried to stop, based on the files?
We don't know everything they did.
Did they stop any rumor?
I don't think so. So why were they there?
You know, what a lot of it looked like is just a bureaucracy doing what a bureaucracy does.
Don't you think there are a lot of people in the FBI who are not qualified to do field work?
What do you think? Do you think there's anybody at the whole FBI who might be, let's say, unqualified to be in the field doing important work like catching counterfeiters and terrorists?
Now, what would you do with somebody who you didn't want to get rid of them, but they didn't have the ability to do fieldwork?
Can you think of any kind of assignment which would be a way to just park somebody useless?
Hey, Bob, here's your new assignment.
And you won't need your gun for this.
If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could leave your gun locked in the boss's safe.
Oh, it'll be there anytime you want it.
But we don't think you should have a gun right now.
However, if I get a job for you, how would you like to watch Twitter all day and then write memos about stuff you don't like?
And I'd say, I do that for fun.
That's pretty much you described my entire entertainment day.
Looking at Twitter and bitching about shit I didn't like.
Oh, there's some shit I didn't like.
Hey, how about I make that your job?
Wait, am I hearing this right?
It's going to be my job to shitpost about Twitter, except it's even going to be better than tweeting what I don't like.
I can go directly to Twitter management and tell them to get rid of it.
Seriously? And that's my job?
That's my job. Let me see if I understand this.
I'm not getting this.
I'm confused. You're also going to give me money for this.
Yes, yes. We're going to pay you money to read Twitter and complain about shit you don't like.
I'm not getting it. I'm not getting it.
There's a trick here, right?
What is the trick? What's the trick?
You also get excellent employee benefits.
I don't get it. I don't know.
There's something you're not telling me. It's too good to be true.
So, the first thing we need to all agree on, can you take my lead on this as the creator of Dilbert?
Do I have enough credibility to make the following statement?
They weren't sending their best.
Any disagreement?
They weren't sending their best.
That's got to be part of the story.
Has anybody mentioned that yet?
It's got to be a huge part of the story.
Imagine this. Take any large organization.
Could be government. Could be the FBI. Could be Congress.
Could be any business. Could be Apple Computer.
Let's say you took Apple Computer, some of the, I would imagine, some of the finest employees ever selected for a major business.
Would you agree? Would you agree?
They have very high standards.
It's very hard to get a job at Apple.
The finest employees in the land at Apple.
Now imagine if you had some way to identify the 10% or less, let's say, the 1% of Apple employees who are not good.
Because there's always some, right?
You can find the worst employees at Apple.
Now let's collect them all together and put them on the same project.
How would that go? Remember, they're Apple employees and some of the best in the world, but for this one project, you did somehow scour the organization to find the worst 1% of the employees.
They're all working on the same project.
That's what the Twitter files was.
It was a bunch of FBI people who were not qualified for real work, doing some of the most important work in the country, because we didn't know how important it was at the time.
Now, I didn't really see anything that they That they went after that mattered to me.
Did you? Did you see anything that the FBI banned that you or the country would have been better off if it had been fully expressed?
I didn't see an example, did you?
So I think it didn't matter.
I think the bigger story is that it doesn't matter how many of the worst employees you throw at something, nothing happens.
In the end, nothing really happens.
It was just a bunch of employees doing stuff, but nothing really.
They didn't change the world.
They didn't change the election. They didn't support the election.
They didn't protect the election.
They didn't protect the country.
They didn't support Twitter. They didn't protect the public.
Actually, nothing happened.
It was just 80 bad employees bitching about Twitter and making the Twitter employees really busy.
I'll tell you what I didn't see.
A finely oiled deep state plot.
Didn't see that.
And Matt Taibbi also explains it in his own words better.
It's not so much that there's a deep state with some kind of an organized structure that's moving the puppet strings.
It's just a bunch of bureaucracy.
With people who have often common opinions.
But it's basically just a rat's nest of bureaucracy doing whatever the rat's nest can do.
And basically that's it.
So basically, the FBI, 80 FBI people working with Twitter was a rat's nest of no particular importance.
Now, the fact that, as far as I know, it didn't change anything, does that mean I'm okay with it?
I hope my audience is the ones who can handle nuance.
I hope I've filtered you well enough that you can.
I'm completely against it.
I'm completely against the FBI having practically a permanent role at Twitter.
Completely against it. But the fact is, it probably didn't make any difference.
Any disagreement? Or let me say, nothing has been reported yet where it made any difference at all.
Did it? You say it did, but would you agree there's no evidence?
If you're saying you think it did, I won't disagree.
I'm just saying there's no evidence of that, right?
Hunter's laptop, was Hunter's laptop because of these 80 FBI? No.
The 80 FBI employees were not the cause of the Hunter laptop.
I believe that came from actual management and, you know, a conversation.
So it did come from the FBI. But if the only thing that was happening was those 80 people reporting stuff, probably wouldn't have happened.
Because I think it was just 80 employees bitching about stuff.
We don't know. But anyway, let's agree on this.
Here's our point of agreement.
I think nothing's been demonstrated that was bad.
You think maybe it has.
But we both agree that whether it has or has not been demonstrated by the information we have, you can't let it stand.
It's not a situation we can tolerate, right?
Because the potential for abuse is so obvious.
The fact that maybe there's no direct evidence that I've seen personally doesn't really mean much.
You can't have a situation with that much exposure.
That's a clean, easy decision.
And Musk is making the right one, I'm sure.
All right, here's the dog not barking.
If you took everything you saw about the FBI, as I said, I don't think it mattered much, except maybe that laptop story, which I think would have happened in any situation.
But... What's the biggest thing you're still wondering about Twitter suppression?
Not counting the COVID stuff.
Not counting COVID. What's the biggest remaining question you have about what was really happening at Twitter?
Something that hasn't been addressed.
We've heard a little bit about the...
Yeah, we do have questions about the underage stuff.
You're right. Here's what it is to me.
I still don't know the answer to whether an account like mine, and specifically mine, but those like it, who have no strikes against them Why were we shadow banned and who made that decision?
And were we? Could it be confirmed?
So the first question is, could it be confirmed that I was ever shadow banned?
I mean, it looks like it in every way, but I still need confirmation.
Could be some other explanation.
So number one, why don't we know?
How is it possible that I don't know the answer to that at this point?
It's the biggest question. Because the accounts that the FBI tagged to get rid of were small accounts of no impact.
I'm not a small account of no impact.
I actually move probably tens of thousands of votes.
And I got shadow banned.
So if somebody shadow banned me and they did it, if they did it, by name, as in I'm on a list, if that happened, there's no evidence of that.
But if that happened...
What would be the reason that I would be shadow banned?
There's only one reason. Because I have no strikes, right?
I have no strikes.
So the only reason would be political.
There couldn't be another reason.
I've given nobody any reason otherwise.
So, question number one, am I shadow banned?
If I am, who did it?
And if somebody did it, why?
And when would be interesting, too.
Right? Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Knowing if I got shadow banned and people like me, so I'll say, let's say, a Cernovich, a Posobiec, people who can actually move the dial.
I'm not talking about just people who are users, but people you know can move the dial.
You know, the Ben Shapiro, right?
Right? Can Ben Shapiro move the dial in politics?
Yes. Yes, he can.
If he was shadow banned, that's a big deal.
A big, big deal.
Would you agree? Now, I don't know that he was shadow banned.
I have no direct evidence of that.
But if he was, he also, I believe...
Yeah, Dan Bongino. But now this is interesting.
Dan Bongino was called out by name as somebody who was shadow banned.
But I think they also had a specific reason, or was there not?
Give me a fact check.
Did the Dan Bongino case, there was a topic he was talking about they didn't like, right?
But was the topic...
Did that give them any justification, even weasel justification?
Because I'm wondering why he was called out and so many other big right-leaning accounts were not.
It was masks, was it?
Yeah. All right, so we heard some anecdotes.
But why would Dan Bongino be...
You can tell me that those accounts did or did not get shadow banned.
That's the whole story.
Am I wrong? That's the whole story.
Everything we've seen so far is just like the teaser to the story or something.
Yes, you're wrong, but tell me why.
Right. So I know that several people were confirmed, but I believe that there was some excuse in each of those cases, right?
That whether it was a good excuse or not, they had some reason to act.
I don't think that's the whole story.
My question is, did people like me get picked up by the algorithm without doing anything that anybody detected as a problem?
Because if the algorithm was just saying, oh, you tweeted...
If I tweeted Bongino three times, do you think the algorithm would have started suppressing me just automatically?
Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't it?
If they're going to ban anybody who's boosting them, isn't that automatic?
It would be automatic, I would think.
Pangino said Epstein didn't Clinton himself.
But I'm not seeing a direct I'm not seeing a direct refutation or agreement with me.
I want to see that because I want to know if I'm on the right track.
True or false, that the part we don't know is the big part.
Yes or no? Am I misreading this?
Okay, a few people say yes.
Right. And did you feel that you were being distracted And you missed that story.
Like, I'm wondering, did you miss that?
Because we've all been putting our attention on these little, you know, sparkling objects.
But so far, the sparkling objects have all been smallish, you know, of great concern, because they have the potential to be biggish.
So that's why you have maximum concern, even if the examples so far are not fully expressed as bad.
But the other thing is already fully expressed.
If, in fact, people like my account were shadowbanned, don't know that, but if they were, that would be a fully expressed plot.
The other stuff is just stuff that could have been bad, but it's a good thing we stopped it when we did.
The other stuff is what actually happened, if it happened.
All right, too much on that.
All right, would you like your head to totally explode?
This is just a question.
Let's see if I can make all of your heads explode.
There were 80 FBI employees looking at content on Twitter.
That is now confirmed. How many FBI agents were continuously monitoring TikTok and reporting to TikTok's management what things should be removed?
You don't know, do you?
It might be. Might be.
Now, it might be that the FBI is monitoring TikTok, and it might be that they are reporting things.
But we might expect that TikTok would not necessarily respond.
Or TikTok might respond.
TikTok might respond to the ones that are just really clean, like this is misinformation.
I could imagine that TikTok would take down a video that said the wrong data vote.
I can imagine that. I can imagine FBI telling TikTok to take it down.
And I can imagine TikTok knowing that that's not where the big win is for China.
China isn't playing small ball.
They're not like, oh, I'll start this little rumor and that'll cause some chaos.
It's not a small ball.
If China wants to weaponize TikTok, it's going to be through the major persuasion in general.
You know, telling you to go crazy on climate change if they think it's not going to help you, that sort of thing.
So it would be a whole topic persuasion.
That's the danger. So I wouldn't be surprised if FBI is in fact watching TikTok and in fact reporting things that look bad and maybe TikTok is taking some of them down.
Maybe. But wouldn't you like to know?
It feels like a really important thing to know.
Now if... I'm seeing Angela laughing at me.
Now if you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you know they're not, you could be right.
You could be right. I don't know.
But we'll see. It's a big story.
I don't know why we don't know the answer to it.
Have I ever mentioned to you that analogies are the best way to know that you won a debate?
But I feel like I've never explained why.
And I've had so much confusion about that.
I'm going to try it again. Analogies have two functions.
One of them is good, and I support it.
The other one is ridiculous, and I don't.
But if you just say they're all analogies, then you miss that distinction.
Here's a good analogy.
I'm going to try to explain this thing called a zebra that you've never heard of, because you're from another planet.
But somehow you've already learned what a horse is.
Alright, so I'm going to do a quick definition of a zebra.
Alright, you remember a horse?
Imagine a horse. Now imagine it's white and black stripes.
It's a little genetically different from a horse, but that's basically a good idea.
That's the idea. That's a good use of an analogy.
Why? Because all I did was quickly bring you up to speed on something that would have taken longer to explain.
Okay? And you would all agree with that as a good use of an analogy, right?
Good use. Now, what's a bad use of an analogy?
A bad use is that the logic or the situation in one analogy can be ported over to the other one.
You can't port logic from one analogy to the other.
Well, if it's true in this unrelated story, it must also be true over here.
Now, you notice none of that is the case with my zebra horse thing.
The zebra horse thing, everybody would hear it and say, oh, thank you.
I understand the zebra better now.
Right? Everybody okay so far?
The zebra one gives nobody anything to complain about when it's done.
That is a complete, perfect approach.
Now, I'm going to show you a bad analogy, and I'll explain to you why it's the end of the conversation.
Again, I'm going to put some ground rules here.
This is not a conversation about whether masks should be used.
We're all anti-mask.
We're all anti-mask.
Let's not talk about that, right?
But I'm going to talk about something related to it, and it's the related to it part that's important.
We don't want any mask mandates.
Let's not talk about that.
But in the conversation I had with a woman who was talking about whether the initial viral load made any difference.
So that was the conversation.
And what do you think? By the way, just check in with you.
Do you believe that if you were exposed to more virus initially, that you would get sicker?
What do you think?
What's your current understanding of that?
So like everything, the science is not as good as you would like.
But there is a preprint, there's at least one preprint, that says that people who lived in a house with somebody who had COVID... So, in the conversation, somebody jumped into the conversation with this analogy.
And the analogy was this, because I'd been making the argument that any kind of a barrier...
It makes a difference. It just might not be enough difference to be worth it.
So, for example, right?
Like, less than 111%.
That's all.
That's my entire argument right there.
There's no such thing as a barrier that doesn't have work, right?
So, I'm going to put up a chain-link fence.
Chain-link fence. How does that do for the hurricane?
Big-go. Gotcha. Gotcha.
An analogy has made you look like a chimp.
So I guess we're done here, right?
I don't think you would even detect the toe.
So my critic has a good point, doesn't he?
Have you ever go sideways and up and down?
And that's the argument for why masks don't work, right?
Because the stuff gets out.
If it's a poorly fitted mask, it gets out anyway, right?
So I said this.
Walk up to that fence and blow on it.
If your air goes sideways and up and down, then it'll stop a hurricane.
If you give me a chain-link fence that'll do the same thing as a mask, which is it redirects some of the air sideways and up, yes.
If your chain-link fence could do that, it would stop a hurricane.
Right? So now you say to me, Scott, you're arguing like the details of an imaginary situation with a hurricane.
You're wasting your time.
Exactly. Exactly.
That's the point. As soon as you talk about an analogy, you're in a different conversation.
It's just a different conversation.
It tells you nothing about the one you're talking about.
Right? So remember, if it's like the zebra, it's a good analogy.
It just says something that everybody understands and agrees with.
There's no debate on the zebra.
But as soon as you get to chain-link fence and hurricane, that's just a different conversation.
Because your mask is not a chain-link fence.
You know, all the dynamics are different.
There's nothing you can learn from that.
You'll just end up debating the details.
Anyway. So after this long conversation with the woman who was a subject matter expert on masks, I did what I should have done the first minute, which was?
Because the problem seemed to be a logic problem and not a knowledge problem.
So right away, I was like...
We're losing the audio on YouTube.
So right away, as soon as the conversation happened, I kept thinking, why is it...
It's almost like I'm talking to somebody who doesn't understand reason and logic.
Yeah, she's an author.
She's a writer. So I was having a science conversation with an author.
And it went exactly the way you think it would.
Exactly the way you think it would.
I couldn't even...
And in the end, it ended up being just a logic disagreement and not a factual disagreement at all.
Although she would disagree with that.
Do you know why she would disagree with my characterization of what it was?
She's a writer. Anyway, the most consistent pattern in all of social media is that people who are writers for a living, and I'm guilty...
Are very unlikely to have logical arguments on science and stuff like that.
It's just the wrong, it's the wrong group.
Have you ever seen me disagree with engineers on Twitter?
I'm just curious. Have you ever seen me having a, like those of you who follow me on Twitter, have you ever seen me have an extended disagreement with an engineer on Twitter?
Nope. Nope.
Do you know why? Because they're trained largely the same way I am, which is how to look at the costs and the benefits and make sure you didn't leave anything out.
Everybody who's trained the same way, you can have a pretty quick conversation with.
Because even if you disagree, what happens if I disagree with an engineer?
It takes 10 seconds to work it out.
Because like, I say this, I say this, show me your link.
Oh, okay, we're done.
Conversations with engineers are just, yes, no.
Is it logical?
Oh, okay. I am exaggerating, of course.
Engineers can disagree as well.
But their disagreement is a completely different type.
The disagreement with a writer or an artist, you're never really even talking about the same thing.
It's like you're just trying to model water into a sculpture.
It's water. There's nothing you can do with it.
With an engineer, at least that's an actual disagreement, so you can work it out.
What do you think of the United States deciding to arm Taiwan much more aggressively than we've done before and giving them much better weapons so they can defend against China?
Good idea or bad? Good idea or bad?
I don't know. Yeah, this one, there's no way to game it.
The only thing you can know for sure is that the decision will always go in the direction of follow the money.
Yeah, you could predict it.
So here's the part that I don't know how to predict.
If Taiwan and mainland China got into an actual serious war where China decided, you know, we're just going to end this, would that be good or bad for arms manufacturers in America?
You say good?
No. Because that was a tough one.
Because it would be good in terms of maybe immediate orders for products.
So that part we could agree on.
It would definitely boost orders.
But remember, the people who are operating in their own self-interest still have to live in the world.
So there's no arms manufacturer who's going to start a nuclear war to sell more arms.
Because that's so clearly not in anybody's interest, including the arms dealers, because they would be dead just like everybody else.
So I think the arms dealers have to play a game where they have the maximum amount of conflict short of a nuclear confrontation.
Now, I think that they went as close to the line with Ukraine and Russia as anybody should ever go.
Agree? They went closer to the line than most of us would have said would have been prudent.
And here's the problem. You see the problem?
So far, they fucking got away with it.
That's a problem.
The experience in Ukraine is that Russia, so far, is backing down from nuclear use.
That is the most dangerous fucking situation we could ever be in.
Because that allows those same arms manufacturers to say, you know, Taiwan will be fine too.
What would that be? An analogy.
That would be an analogy.
There's no reason, no reason to think that because Ukraine has so far not sparked a nuclear war that anything we did involving Taiwan and China would turn out the same.
That is a big wrong assumption that somehow those would be similar.
The Ukraine war, you can never anticipate the real ripple effect of what a war does.
Because sometimes you create new technologies because of the war.
And it's like, great, at least that part of it.
And sometimes there's some lingering thing like, you know, the end of World War I, Some would say, maybe you could debate this, but some would say the way we handled the end of World War I wasn't good news, because it basically created the seeds of World War II. So, I've got a feeling that the Ukraine situation is really going to screw things up for Taiwan.
I don't know how, but I hate that we're going to be informed by one thing to handle a separate thing.
China needs Taiwan's chips.
But, you know, if they thought they could conquer Taiwan in a month, they would have their chips.
They just don't bomb the chip factories.
China would just have to not bomb the chip factories, and if they thought they could gain control in a month, they'd be fine.
Yes, we're pronouncing zebra, not zebra.
I'm getting a disagreement that zebra should be zebra.
Now, I don't know what country you're from, With your zebras.
But in America, dammit, they're zebras.
Zebras. Australia?
British? We don't know.
All right. So now it's been a few days since Trump's NFT successes, and I wonder if there are more people like me who had a Covington Kids initial reaction.
Remember the Covington Kids hoax when you saw the first deceptively edited videos?
My first response was, God, I hate that kid.
Frickin' jerk. You know, just like being a jerk to this guy in public.
I hated that kid.
And then you see the full video.
Nothing like that happened.
Completely opposite of what the deceptive video was.
Yeah, it was a Rupar video.
And I think that happened to me with Trump's NFT. Would you like me to admit I was wrong?
Because I hear that I never do that.
There's a rumor that I never admit when I'm wrong.
Have you heard that rumor? It's widespread.
And yet, the funny thing is, nobody does it more often than I do.
I'm going to say that in the world, nobody has consistently admitted when they're wrong more often than I do.
Would you agree? If you watch me, you'd probably say yes.
Alright, here's where I was wrong. My first reaction to the NFT release, especially since he teased it as a major announcement, was, oh my God, he's done.
He's so fucking done.
Like, there's just nothing.
There's nothing I can say good about this.
It's just done. He's just cashing in.
It's just done. Now, you saw that was my first response, right?
Can you confirm? That was my first response.
Okay. I was totally wrong.
Let me say, with no reservations, sometimes you hear me say stuff like, well, I was wrong, but really I was right if you looked at it this way.
That's what I say about Ukraine, for example.
Yes, I was wrong when I said Putin wouldn't attack, but I was really right in a way because of the reason I said he wouldn't attack is because it wouldn't work.
It would go poorly, and that part I got right.
So, usually you see me saying, well, I was wrong, but not really completely wrong.
This time, totally wrong.
There's nothing I can say about this.
I just want you to accept my complete wrongness on this, with no reservations.
This was a good idea that worked out well.
Here's why it worked out well.
Number one is sold out.
And it was like a breathtakingly successful fundraiser.
For the amount of work he put into it, which was one video, probably, and maybe he reviewed it or something.
So he did maybe probably one hour of total work and probably netted, we don't know, two to four million dollars or something for like an hour.
Whoever did better than that?
The best fundraiser ever done, and he owns that now.
Would you agree that for the bang for the buck, was that not the best fundraising ever done?
Now, somebody's saying he did a license deal, which means that he doesn't get the full amount of that.
But even as a license deal, it would be tremendous.
Tremendous. So I don't know what percentage he gets.
We don't know that. All right.
Now, here's the other reason that it wasn't the disaster it looked like.
He followed up quickly.
Once there was a lot of energy around him, he was getting a lot of attention.
He followed up quickly with a very strong campaign video about free speech, which was free money, basically.
He said exactly what his base wanted him to say.
He said it well. He said it strong.
And I didn't see anything wrong with it.
Like, I liked every bit of it.
Now, who knows if he could execute, but what he said was perfect.
So here he takes what I thought was his big mistake, but it created energy.
And then, here's why I'm embarrassed that I didn't see this coming.
He's an energy monster.
We created all this NFT negative energy, and he just gathered it up, and then it put it behind the release of his free speech video.
Now, who knows how much was planned?
You know, it could be that they sped up their free speech video faster than he planned to get it in the same space with the NFT thing, because maybe it wasn't going as well as he thought.
But I don't know if it was planned, or he just found a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but he had a good week.
Am I wrong? I think it was one of Trump's best weeks.
Because Trump is being vindicated on all the Twitter stuff.
Totally vindicated.
So he's vindicated in seeing that the system was rigged against him.
And especially because it's the FBI. Because the FBI in this story just makes Trump look more and more like he was always the victim, and more and more like he was right the whole time.
Even though it's a slightly, you know, off Trump story, it's still, everything is connected.
So, I think he had one of the best weeks ever.
Now, do you think it's a mistake when an 80-year-old releases an NFT? Go.
When age is a question, and Trump releases an NFT? Do you see this play?
It's fucking brilliant.
It's brilliant. Do you know who's not going to release an NFT? Biden.
Do you know why? He's too old.
He's too old. Yeah, he wouldn't know what it was.
He wouldn't be able to tell you what it was.
You know, if somebody asked him about it, he wouldn't be able to explain it.
But Trump does licensing for a living.
Trump knows what it is.
Do you think that Biden could explain to you what an NFT is?
You just stop and say, what's an NFT? Nope.
Nope. Do you think that Trump could?
Yes. Yes.
Now, Trump maybe can't give you the details of what a blockchain is.
Or maybe he can.
Maybe he can give you the big picture that it's a public record that nobody can change.
Maybe he knows that.
That would be the only important part.
But think about the persuasion That is related to Trump embracing a modern technology that even most of the public is not familiar with.
Most of the public is not even familiar with NFTs.
And he basically just tied his 76-year-old brand to the most current happening young technology and then, and then, made it the most successful one lately.
Has anybody had a successful NFT better than this one?
Because the NFT market's garbage, right?
It's falling apart, and he still had a successful one.
Because, by the way, the value has risen.
The value of the ownership of one of those has risen.
You could resell it for more.
That's completely successful.
So I think you're missing the best part of the play.
The best part of the play is he younged him down.
He younged him down when he's running, maybe, against, you know, the oldest potential candidate.
He educated the masses that NFTs are like trading cards.
Exactly. That's exactly what he did.
Right. I'll bet you there's a whole segment of the population that goes, oh, I get it.
They're digital. They're like trading cards.
And the first thing they ask is, why can't I just make my own copy?
And then somebody says, well, that's something about the blockchain.
You go, okay, I don't need to understand that, but I get it.
All right. And also, I didn't mind that he was pitching a product because he's a salesperson.
Isn't Trump the ultimate salesperson, which is what he calls himself.
He basically says, I'm going to try to sell the country.
I sell stuff. And then he goes and he sells stuff for his campaign.
I don't know, to me it was right on brand.
The perfect Trump brand, I say, is when he creates all this attention, even negative attention, but when it all settles, you say to yourself, oh, that was a lot better than I expected, right? How often do you see that pattern?
Where you think he's really stepped in it now, and when the dust clears, you're like, oh, that wasn't so bad after all.
All right. Question.
I see that Jordan Peterson It is warning that Western countries that a totalitarian social credit system is coming to their societies in a highly probable way.
So Jordan Peterson says it's highly probable we'll have a totalitarian social credit system.
Agree or disagree?
Highly, highly probable?
Yes or no?
So who already has one?
What country already, or countries, already have, right?
Now, China's the one we know of.
Is anybody else doing it? Is there any other country on Earth besides China?
You say the UK, but I don't believe so.
That might be just for vaccines, right?
No. Now, I mean, there's talk about vaccine passports, but in terms of a, like, total social credit system, nobody else is doing it, right?
You're saying Canada? But not a full credit system.
They're doing things that look like they're moving in that direction, right?
Alright, here's my preliminary take.
Preliminary take, number one.
There are a lot of things that are not social tracking systems that rhyme with it and feel like it and it feels like it's in a domain.
I think you have to treat them differently.
I believe that in the United States, and there's no way to prove this, because I know there's plenty of pattern recognition that goes against it, but in my opinion, in the United States, if we had implemented, and I'm not arguing we should have, I'm not pro-passport, but if we had, do you think that we would not, as a public, have been able to get rid of it?
Do you think once it was in there, it would just take root, and it would just expand to a total full system?
So a lot of you say, yes, that's exactly what the government does.
When the government starts a program, it never stops it, right?
That's the pattern.
Because the government always wants more power, and if they get your money, they never say, we don't need it anymore.
So whatever grows just keeps growing.
All right, this is where we disagree.
I'm not going to say that your reasoning is flawed.
It's not. You do not have flawed reasoning.
Because your reasoning is based on pattern.
The pattern is well-established.
Would you agree? It's a well-established pattern that this is exactly the sort of thing you don't want to trust your government with.
Right? But here's where I disagree.
If it were unimportant, they could certainly get away with it, if we weren't watching and stuff.
But I think that the United States, and I won't speak for other Western countries, but I think the United States wouldn't put up with it.
So I think you need a totalitarian government to do it.
And I think we don't have one.
I think the base requirement of a social credit system is a totalitarian government, and we don't have one.
Now, does that mean the government would not try to implement it?
No. I'm not saying that.
Definitely the government would try to get away with anything it could, but I don't think the citizens would allow it.
Right? I don't think so.
And it might be, you know, there might be a...
You can imagine a number of ways that would work.
Alright, here's one way.
Embrace and amplify.
All you'd have to do is say, if you're going to give us a social credit system, we want to be able to track the social credit system of Congress.
And that's the end of it.
That's the end of it. Because there's no way that Congress could impose social tracking on the public and say we're exempt.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
If Congress ever said we're going to put a social tracking system on the public that will not apply to us in Congress, I will be with you to take over the Capitol building.
I will join an insurrection.
I will look to overthrow the government of the United States if they were to do that.
That's why they won't do it.
That's why I feel safe.
Because that's a red line of red lines.
I mean, no.
No, you're not going to treat us as second-class citizens while you're exempt from your own rule.
And do you think that they would say, all right, well, we don't like it applying to us in Congress, but it's so beneficial we're going to apply it to the people?
Nope. Nope.
There's no way that would happen.
There's no way Congress would allow that to happen to themselves.
And I think every one of you would confirm if they try to impose that on us, the public, and make themselves exempt, we will sweep them out of office with whatever means necessary.
Violence is allowed.
Violence is allowed under that condition.
So I'm not recommending any violence in any current situation.
The whole context is we will never be in that situation.
So, in case you're monitoring me on YouTube for inciting violence, no.
This is the opposite of inciting violence.
I'm saying there's no possibility of inciting violence, because the United States will never get to that point, because Congress will never impose it on themselves.
That's it. So, can I be sure That my predicted future is more accurate than those of you who have pattern recognition, which is operating quite well right now.
Your pattern recognition is on point.
Because if you say, this looks familiar, you're right.
But you know what else it would be?
Do you know what pattern recognition is?
What's another word for pattern recognition?
An analogy. Your pattern recognition, they're all analogies.
It happened in this other case, completely different case, so I think it'll happen with this one.
You're not wrong. You're not wrong.
That pattern is a very well-established pattern.
But the trouble is, if you don't look for what's different about each situation, you might imagine that the pattern can work in every situation, where it might be a pattern that is limited to some kind of domain.
You have to look at the specifics.
That's why analogies fail, right?
You reciprocate this. Thank you.
Would you stipulate that I'm true?
That I'm right?
Will you stipulate that patterns are really analogies?
And if you don't look at the specific situation, you don't really know what's going to go on.
Many of you just love your pattern recognition and will never change.
It works most of the time.
All right. So I'm not terribly worried about that, but it's not a zero.
Musk said maybe yesterday morning, or the day before, that the coup de grace was still coming.
Was the coup de grace what we saw about the FBI? Or is there something we haven't seen yet?
Does anybody know? You're just guessing though, right?
You're guessing it's the COVID files or you're guessing it's Fauci.
But you're only guessing, right?
Yeah, the coup de grace.
All right. But we think it's still coming.
I guess there's still a question whether there's something big coming or not.
All right. Is there anything else that's coming?
Anything else I missed, at least today?
Are you all having trouble on YouTube?
Dead feed, buffering.
Yeah, it looks like the YouTube feed is totally dead.
Now, keep in mind...
Now, can you hear me at least?
Can you hear me on YouTube?
Give me a yes or no.
Can you hear me? Because I can't tell if they have audio.
They're all talking, but they're not...
They're not responding to me, so I think that they can't hear me.
Oh, it's good now. All right.
So you should know that...
Can I just...
Let me do a quick check.
So I've got two feeds going on two new iPads, both of them on the same Wi-Fi.
The locals' feed is working perfectly, right?
Or are you having troubles on this one as well?
Oh, they are... Well, I'm getting opposite.
Some say yes, some say no.
Okay, the sound is good.
Yeah, I'm getting different responses.
So, I don't think it's my Wi-Fi.
Would you agree? It's not my Wi-Fi, because people are getting different outcomes, and I have the same Wi-Fi for everybody, of course.
So, it's not on my end.
It can't be. And it's not localized just to YouTube, so it might have something to do with just traffic or something.
I don't know. So I guess that's another mystery.
Now, do you assume that what we found out about the FBI and Twitter, do you assume that the FBI has equal operations in the other platforms?
Do you think Google and YouTube and Facebook all have their FBI teams?
Of course. Of course.
Is there any chance they don't?
Why wouldn't they?
Now, the only way I could see that making sense is if they imagined that Twitter was sort of the tail that wags the dog, and if you get Twitter right, everything else ends up right, but I doubt it.
Because a bureaucracy would never ignore Facebook, would it?
Could you imagine the FBI bureaucracy?
All right, we're going to put 80 people into Twitter.
But Facebook said no, so we won't have anything over there.
That doesn't sound like anything that happens in the real world, does it?
Because who doesn't take a meeting with the FBI? If the FBI says we want a meeting with you and you're a business, and you're not in trouble, you're not in trouble, they want to work with you to make your job better.
Who doesn't take that meeting?
Everybody takes that meeting.
Everybody. Because they're just offering you a service.
We have some information. We can help you monitor the bad people and the election interference.
We'll do it for free.
You just have to give us a little, like, access or something.
Who would say no to that?
Nobody. Nobody would say no to that.
This is the same argument I make about Don Jr.'s famous meeting with those Russian-related people in the first election for Trump.
Everybody would take that meeting.
It was just downstairs.
And sure, they promised something they didn't have, which was some dirt on Hillary.
Are you telling me that if you were part of a major campaign and somebody that you knew, it's not a stranger, it's somebody you know personally.
Somebody you know personally says, I have something that will change everything, some dirt on Hillary.
All you have to do is come down two floors and sit in this room for five minutes, and you'd have it all.
100% of the world takes that meeting.
Now, if something came up in the meeting, there was like a national security concern, should they alert the FBI after the meeting?
Well, yes. No, that didn't happen.
It was just a sort of a nothing meeting.
But you don't alert the FBI first?
That's stupid. Because there's no indication of a crime.
Why do you get the FBI involved when there's no indication of a crime?
There's just somebody who says they know something, and most people are lying when they say that.
I mean, usually it's hyperbole, usually it's not what they say.
First you listen. Does anybody disagree with that?
First you listen, and then you decide.
Does that sound sketchy? If it does, then the second thing you do is call in the FBI. And everybody acts like you should have been the other way around.
Like, immediately calling the FBI. For what?
For what? The guy you know wants to talk to you?
All right. Soccer ball with a microphone?
What? Yeah, you have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
She met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting.
Is that true? I never heard that.
Yeah, I saw the memes about Sam Brinton stealing Santa's bag.
That was pretty funny.
Trailers on the border?
I don't know about that. All right.
Thank you for saying I'm correct.
Yeah, the omnibus bill, I don't know, That bores me.
Budgeting. Don't forget, Jack doesn't know anything, Flower Girl says.
All right, are you surprised that we've reached this point in the process about looking into the Twitter file where Jack is still not implicated directly?
You know we're at that point, right?
Did anybody besides me say this would happen?
That we would get to all the way to here, and there's no direct information whatsoever, that Jack was directly involved in anything bad.
Now, you could argue he should have known, right?
That's a separate argument. Yeah, the argument of whether he should have known, totally good argument.
Right. And by the way, I imagine he would agree with that.
I don't know. But I think if you asked Jack, you know, was it like your job?
Should you have known what was going on, you know, in greater detail?
He probably would say yes. Probably would say yes.
Because he's been pretty transparent about everything, I think.
You say he knew, but there's no evidence to that.
In fact, the evidence strongly suggests the opposite.
Strongly suggests. You disagree?
Well, I'm only talking about what the evidence is, not what the truth is.
The truth, maybe you never know, but the evidence suggests exactly what I predicted.
I mean, I had exactly zero people agreeing with me.
I'm not wrong about that, right?
I think zero people agreed with me when I said, I don't think he was involved directly.
Right? Zero people.
Now, I could still be wrong.
Tomorrow we could find out something where I'm wrong.
But the fact that we got this far with my hypothesis that he wasn't involved, still active, it's still a good hypothesis, this far in, that's surprising to some of you.
Yeah, the simplest explanation, you're right.
Scott doesn't know what evidence is.
You think that's the problem?
Well, for those of you who are saying, I hear you saying that Jack was a bad manager, blah, blah, blah, because he didn't do it.
But let me give you a different frame on this.
Jack's management of Twitter did not begin and end with his role as CEO. It continues now.
If you expand your frame, Jack managed it properly by selling it to, or supporting the sale to Musk.
Because selling it to Musk was what solved the problem.
And Jack said that directly.
He said he's the right person to do this.
And I think that Jack knew that it would require devastating the company To fix it.
Like, you couldn't tweak it.
It wasn't like disciplining a few employees and moving some people around.
Like, you had to, like, take it down by its roots.
And I think that Jack probably knew Musk well enough, or at least his operating Methods.
To know that Musk could potentially root it out at the grassroots and just pull it out of the ground.
But it's hard for the existing CEO to do anything like that.
There's a long history of when you need to do major layoffs and major restructure.
You usually bring in a new person.
That's usually the right way to do it.
Because the person who's there has personal relationships.
That it's going to influence whether you can do the hard stuff.
The person who's been working there has too many personal stakes.
People they put in a position, they don't want to fire their friend, that sort of thing.
So, if you say that Jack didn't do his job while he was in the job, I would argue that that is refuted by the fact that he supported her bring in Musk, Which had to be very directly related to figuring out what was going on in a more aggressive way.
So I feel like he maybe did what was right to compensate for what problems had grown up during his reign.
Jack knew that Twitter was full of leftists, and the effect of that was to bias their operation.
Remember, he was very clear about that.
He's never argued that Twitter was a fair arbiter.
You know that, right? Jack has never said, Twitter's operating the way I want it to operate.
Everything's fair. He never said that.
He actually agreed with the critics.
That Twitter was operating like a left-leaning organization instead of just a platform.
You said it directly.
You said Jack didn't know Twitter was actively throttling conservatives.
Correct. And I still say that.
Because the examples given are individuals.
There's still not a...
That's the dog not barking.
The part we still don't know is if people like me were banned just for political reasons.
Now, we know there's a bias, which is that people are banning people for sketchy reasons that really you suspect might be political.
Am I right? So there's the gray area.
But I think Jack fully accepted that the gray area was exactly what you thought it was.
That if you're staffed with leftists, even though what they're trying to do is just the right thing, like get rid of bad information and stuff, it will end up being focused on conservatives.
I feel like he was fully transparent about that.
It's not my job to defend him, but I'm just telling you what I saw.
So the part that he has denied is the part I said has not been demonstrated.
That they had a policy or a programmatic policy, I guess, an algorithm, that would ban people like me, who had no strikes, and as far as I know, there was no conversation about me.
So did I get scooped up in some kind of...
So that's the part that I think he says no to, and we do not have evidence of it.
So far. I mean, to me it seems highly probable we will, but so far not.
And if we haven't seen it yet, it means Musk either hasn't seen it or for some reason needs to know more or something.
but that does suggest that you could be the head of the organization and not know exactly how that algorithm got tweaked.
Yeah, we all agree with the buck stops at the top, right?
Nobody's arguing responsibility.
You get that, right?
The responsibility is who's in charge.
It doesn't matter if they knew or didn't know.
That's just the way it has to work.
But I think Jack would agree with that.
I mean, I don't know, but everything suggests he would agree with you on that, that it was his responsibility.
You say, if Jack didn't drill down for the answers, that's unbelievable.
Let me fact check you on that.
Jack personally contacted me.
You know, a few years ago when I was complaining that it was a shadow band.
He personally introduced me to Dell somebody whose job it was to work in that area.
I personally worked with her and quickly determined that she was the problem and that she knew exactly what was going on because she sort of started ghosting me when I got too close.
Now, the fact that he connected me with her Suggests that he couldn't penetrate her barrier any more than I did.
Now, he could have fired her, but that's why you need a musk.
Somebody who just says, that's not an answer, you're fired.
Right? I feel like Jack was more of a, well, I'm not getting the answer I want, but I'll try harder.
Maybe I'll see if Scott talking to you gets the answer.
You know, he was like working around the edges.
But to say that he didn't drill down is inaccurate, because I actually was part of a process of trying to drill down.
It's just I hit an employee wall.
You know, a lower-level employee was just a brick wall.
But don't you think he hit the same brick wall?
Let's say he had drilled down with her.
All right, Dell. Scott has this complaint.
And she would say, I see no evidence that that's happening.
Then what does he say? Well, look harder.
Okay. I'll look for a week, I'll get back to you.
Yep, I looked for a week.
Nothing there. Then what does Jack do?
Fire her? He can't, because he doesn't know if there's nothing there.
Right? He doesn't know.
So all he knows is what his employees tell him, and when do employees ever tell the truth to the CEO? Hardly ever.
Everybody's shading things when they tell the CEO. They're telling them what they think is going to be good for them to hear.
Now, if somebody says, I looked and there's nothing there, how do you fire him?
Unless you know there's something there.
And how could he? It was a much harder problem than you think.
The only way to solve it was mass firings.
The only way.
I don't think any level of management excellence Could have been replaced.
Keep the same employees in place and then get to the bottom of it.
That wasn't going to happen.
You needed completely new people in there.
Some of them. And I'm sure Musk has done that by now.
Yeah, the fact that Elon called Twitter a crime scene.
I don't know how literal that is, but certainly it feels right.
Okay, that's a long comment.
All right. Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson, I didn't see that.
Is Jack not technical?
Yes, but that's not going to help you.
Being technical doesn't mean he's going to go scour the algorithm on his own if he's the CEO. All right.
