Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
π¨Elon Steps Down | New CEO Links to MSM | The Return of Twitter Bans?
Recorded: May 12, 2023 Duration: 2:52:22Space Recording
Short Summary
The crypto industry is facing significant challenges due to regulatory pressures and liquidity issues, leading to major players like Jump Crypto, Jane Street, and Galaxy Digital moving operations offshore. This has resulted in reduced interest and increased volatility in the U.S. market. Meanwhile, the rise of meme coins and the secret accumulation of Bitcoin by central banks indicate emerging trends in user activity and institutional adoption. The conversation also touches on the potential of Web3 and AI technologies in shaping future monetization strategies.
Full Transcription
All right, everybody will be starting in a few minutes.
All right.
How's space is sounding right now?
Can everybody hear me?
Yep, great.
Maybe it's the new CEO.
We'll see.
All right.
So, you know, we have a lot of different topics to go through today.
So I might just get started right now.
But just as a heads up, we're going to be spending most of our time today talking a little bit about Elon and
why he's stepping down as CEO
and the ridiculously unkept secret
of Linda Yacarino from NBC Universal's advertising team,
actually coming on as CEO.
Again, it's unconfirmed, but everybody knows it.
It's like the one unconfirmed piece of news that everybody knows the aunt knows already,
which is fascinating.
Like, how bad of a leak could that have been?
And Kara Swisher was the first one to break it, which is also fascinating.
Or at least she claims to be the first one to break it.
And why Linda was chosen, what it tells us about Twitter's long-term business strategy.
And in light of the fact that Tucker Carlson now is exclusively going to be on Twitter,
how does this impact that since Linda is definitely not, you know, has no history on,
and again, unless I know, I don't know something, she's definitely very much a,
much more on the left,
much more leaning left,
has no history of
protecting free speech specifically.
And honestly,
is just somebody from advertising.
So it's fascinating that people,
I think what's been really interesting
is that the Twitter community
actually has been very pro,
pro this move which i which i've been surprised by actually maybe at least the people i follow and the
people i listen to so really interested to to to get things kicked off but before we do get things
kicked off just wanted to kind of walk through what's going on in the market generally and then you know
as the room starts filling up where right now at about you know 800 was probably going to hit a thousand a few
seconds and then you know i know everybody is probably more interested in the details around this
elon news and
And I'm actually very interested in hearing from our experts on what is actually going on,
because this is very unusual behavior.
I wonder what their recruitment process looked like.
If people do know people at Twitter or even people like Jason or David Sachs,
please do hit them up on the back end.
Very interested to hear what they have to say.
So, you know, as far as the markets right now, there have been,
We're seeing a rebound in banking, but it's from, you know, when you are down, there's something that someone was asking me separately.
So I'll explain something interesting.
So let's say that you start at a stock price of $10 and you go down 90%.
That means that the value of your stock is $1.
Now, if you go from $1 to $2, how much did your stock increase?
100%.
So don't look at percentages, guys.
Percentages are BS.
And so I wanted to bring that up because a lot of people are getting really excited about bank stocks rebounding.
And I keep telling them, I hate to use these words, but zoom out.
Zoom out just a little.
It's going pretty poorly overall.
So, yeah.
You know, again, these percentages don't really tell us anything, but KRE or the regional banking ETF climbed about 1.1%. Western Alliance is up up about 2.4%. Pac-West gained about 3.4%. Largely because I think the market is starting to price in certain actions from the Fed.
Right.
Which again, I have no idea why the market is pricing in rate cuts.
Can anyone actually explain to me why the market has already adjusted?
I've heard like five times and I still don't get it.
If inflation is slowing down, why would we expect rate cuts?
Recession fears are also, you know, jobless claims are going up slightly, but there's no guarantee that there's going to be a deep recession at this point.
So I'm very confused about why the market is pricing and rate cuts.
Also, the other big move in the market outside of banking has been Tesla.
Tesla stocks have gone up quite a lot.
Tells you a little bit about what is actually going on.
This will be very critical to our conversation around Elon.
but it's up 2.4%
since he said that he's stepping down
and that he's only going to switch his role to overseeing product
and stop messing around being CEO.
Oh man, I took my hand there.
And then...
The debt ceiling meeting, this is the other big news,
that ceiling meeting was postponed.
We'll talk a little bit about the debt ceiling at the end as well.
So was there any other news that people want to share
before we really get into the Elon news about what's going on at Twitter,
what this means broadly, why is Twitter going back to advertising after talking all that trash?
Anything that people want to talk about before we go to all of that.
Am I missing? Oh, Bitcoin.
Bitcoin falls to 26,000.
My friend Scott, what the hell is going on?
Nothing.
Isn't this just what Bitcoin does?
You know, it takes everyone out in one direction,
goes back in the other direction.
I mean, if you're looking at it technically...
I think there's not much to talk about between like 25,000 and 30,000.
You know, it's kind of a big choppy range, which is what we see often.
But I will say, I mean, I think that to some degree we were already suffering from a lack
of liquidity in the market after all the bank failures and the crypto industry effectively
losing the banking access to the banking system in the United States.
And then you may have seen that this week, both Jump Crypto and Jane Street, who are arguably the two largest market makers in the crypto industry, have said they're leaving the United States.
By the way, they're all already have bases offshore, presences in Hong Kong, London, etc.,
But, I mean, if we were already suffering from a lack of liquidity, meaning that small orders
and small moves now become amplified because the order books are thin, when you remove the market
makers, that becomes even more highly problematic.
So for anyone who doesn't understand, a lot of people like wrongly believe that market
makers are the people who are the whales that are moving price by making huge orders and swings
in the wrong direction.
That's complete misnomer and not what market makers do.
But these companies do actually, they provide all the liquidity by keeping the spread tight.
So they're the ones that are filling orders on both the bid and ask side on the buy and sell side to make sure that when you go in, there's no major slippage.
And when you take those away,
And you leave it more organic.
Obviously, one big buy order can eat through the cell book, you know, one, two, three percent in one direction.
Especially if there are no ramps, right?
I mean, that makes it even worse.
That's right.
So Scott's been talking about this.
You know, again, our listeners are not crypto experts.
But this is a really important point, which is like the stock market, there are market makers in crypto.
This is something that people actually don't know, Scott.
I don't think the average person knows this.
Correct.
So there are market makers.
And again, for people that are not familiar with market makers, market makers, actually, people think that they are manipulating the market.
They're doing the complete opposite, actually.
And Scott, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay, thank you.
So, yeah.
No, that's $100.
And so the job of the market maker is actually to enable the market to function appropriately.
That's how they viewed their position.
And they're not manipulating moves on the market, at least not in the things like Bitcoin and other more stable crypto assets.
And so that's one thing.
Number two...
you know, is that when we're looking at,
if you're sitting here and you're thinking that the regulatory environment
is having no impact, well, there's been two big pieces.
One is,
Clearly, the SEC has shown its hand on what they think is going to happen long term.
Clearly, the leadership has tried to work with leadership at crypto and exchanges and other places have tried their best to work with the government.
And the government keeps, I don't want to say betraying them, but at some level betraying them.
Is that a fair point, Scott? I just want to make sure.
Yeah, I think that's all accurate.
People may have missed because it seemed to get lost in the news cycle, but either yesterday or the day before, there was actually a released brief that was sent to all of the Democratic members, I believe, of Congress in preparation for a meeting where they were told talking points about crypto, which included...
that they were supposed to parrot the point that Gary Gensler and the SEC have full,
full mandate to regulate all of crypto, which is absolutely nonsense.
So clearly this is now coming down from the top.
You may have also seen that Joe Biden tweeted the other day an absurd infographic,
which said basically...
conflating two completely non-related points and said,
this is what Democrats want to do to reduce, you know, the spending.
And this is what Republicans want to do.
Republicans was one thing that was somewhat accurate.
And on the Democrat side, it was closed tax loopholes for wealthy crypto investors as if like,
like crypto investors are taking advantage of some tax loopholes that don't exist for every
wealthy person on the planet.
So it's a very, very clear rhetoric.
I mean, it's literally insanity at this point, especially when you look at last year before
all the collapses and specifically FTX a year ago, we actually had very positive movement, I think,
within the legislators and the regulators.
We had things in the right direction.
You know, we had the Lumas-Jillabrand bill being proposed, which by the way is coming back.
But the Lumas-Jillbrand, which had very sensible sort of ideas about stable coins and other things.
And the president himself had an executive order that effectively hinted at the fact that
crypto is here to stay.
It's a real asset class.
let's figure out how to regulate this and legislate it and make it safe.
And now it's gone to the Elizabeth Warren anti-crypto army, which Biden apparently is going
to stumble onto the front lines of and take a nap.
But I mean, you know, and so I think that it's just insane increased rhetoric here.
Now we've seen Coinbase already start to move some operations offshore.
Let's be honest, Coinbase is not leaving the United States.
We saw Galaxy Digital say they're leaving the United States yesterday.
I mean, that's Mike Novigratz, right?
I mean, Mike Novigratz is a well-known donor of the Democratic Party, right?
So, I mean, this is a real serious, I don't know if it's political theater,
and they're saying, hey, see, look, we are actually willing to go.
But the bottom line is that leaves very illiquid books.
It leaves a lot less interest in the United States, and that's going to lead to more volatility.
And this shit's not going away, right?
Like, it's not like suddenly...
It is going away from the United States.
No, it's not going away in the United States.
Last I remember, we were supposed to be at the bleeding edge of everything.
And so that's what's so fascinating is that
the and I will blame the the way that we do politics in this country primarily Citizens
United actually that's my opinion is driving a lot of this who has more cash than the current
financial system and so I wanted to make sure that I called a spade a spade we have a real issue in this
country that
Imagine Citizen United being around when other technological innovations, you know, 80, 90, 100 years ago were around.
Of course the incumbents will push against it.
There's always issues.
I just saw there's some fucking stupid meme coin called Pepe take over the, of course crypto is going to have issues.
People are idiots.
But you can't.
Okay, well, I will say, I will say if we're going to be intellectual, sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, somebody else is going to push back.
Go ahead, A.K.
Yeah, I apologize.
I'm about to get the Pepe Army after me.
Go ahead, okay.
In terms of the mean, me, I'm just going to say really quick, if we're being intellectually
honest, there is a problem in crypto.
Yes.
There's no question about that.
Like printing meme coins literally out of thin air.
I mean, I joke about this all the time.
Is that like the crypto industry is supposed to be against money printing
until they're like printing their own and pumping it.
I mean, Brad Sherman, obviously everybody's probably seen his little video the other day
that we've been dunking on appropriate.
appropriately where he said, you know, crypto trillionaires, minted million, you know, minted coins,
minted money or printing money to literally make trillions.
And then he said the United States government is printing money, but it's the United States government.
So it's fine.
Right.
So honestly, like we can all look at that and say, what a, what an idiot.
But the point is the first part is actually right.
Yeah, yeah, but I will push back a little bit.
The same people, they're like, oh, bricks is going to take over, the dollar is going to get the dollarized.
But by the way, Pompepe, it's like, okay, guys, like, can we actually, like, have the difference?
Well, I think that's where we have to understand the difference between, I guess, you know, bit pointers and the crypto market.
I'll let it.
I'll lend you.
Sorry, Scott.
Go ahead, A.K.
I'm sure if Simon was here, he would completely agree that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
Oh, just don't do you, Justin.
Go ahead, Ike.
So, I mean, the last bull cycle, I think I made the mistake myself of discarding all the meme coins as probably pure garbage and retail frenzy mania coins.
Yeah.
I looked at them like they had possibly no intrinsic value whatsoever.
So, you know, I put my dedication and my energy into buying, holding, and trading, you know, some of these, you know, for me, it was, you know, below my line.
Although I will maintain that, you know, still there's the case that it is partially true because a lot of these coins, these meme coins and they call them shit coins, they did a thousand percent, 10,000 percent, 65,000 percent.
So, you know, their net.
effect is actually more so on onboarding more user activity and more of what people call normies
kind of onto the market of crypto and the space.
You know, a lot of people, they can't bear to hear about it anymore from the outside of crypto.
And they end up on.
People are getting eaten.
That's not even, I think the bad thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Here's.
So eventually.
Eventually, many will get smarter as they learn what's what and most will lose money,
but still, many will prosper from wealth creation.
Much of that wealth creation will flow into the actual true blue chip legacy coins that I believe are like Bitcoin, Eith, Link, etc.
And the overall net impact is positive for crypto, in my opinion, even if it's in the short term,
it does drain liquidity from more meaningful things.
Alterian protocols. So, you know, at this point, I'm having an open mind. I, you know, I don't want to miss the next
Doge coin of this next Bull Run and what they're calling it. I definitely do. A.K., hear me, hold on,
before Scott goes. Because even if you don't miss it, you're going to not sell it at the right time.
So, and there and and, and also the notion, AKA, I actually kind of agree with you and I'll tell you why.
And I know we want to move on from crypto, but I just want to address it really quickly. Quickly.
I don't want to miss the next doge coin.
There might not be another doge coin.
And the problem with people who are talking about Pepe is that they're literally saying,
okay, I'm up 10,000 percent, but another 100 X and we are dogecoin.
And that's a complete false equivalency.
Just because one person made a dog in 2015 does not mean that the person who makes a frog is going to make the exact same thing.
And so it's literally comparing apples to oranges.
They have nothing to do with one another.
except they're both stupid and the same people trying to pump them.
I hope you heard that sentence in your head also.
From the outside, as a non-cryptop person,
the fact that I'm going to repeat it back in the way I heard it.
Just because someone made a dog in 2015
doesn't mean that someone making a frog in 2023
is going to be just as successful.
This is a fucking ridiculous comment.
Can we at least admit that this is ridiculous?
Yes.
It's insane.
And listen, I will say this.
This was point B.
AK is not wrong about certain people.
Why?
Because I came into crypto in 2016 as a trader looking for dollars and what got me in love
with crypto was the doge cycles.
Before there was even USDT pairs, I was trading it against Bitcoin.
I fell in love with it, but then guess what?
I got completely washed and I stuck around.
I'm one of the thousand people who stuck around through the bare market got actually
passionate about the asset class.
Most people are just going to lose their money and they're going to leave forever.
So yes, you may find 10 or 100%, you know, 10% or 10 out of 100 people that stick around and find Bitcoin or Ethereum,
but 90% of them are going to go, this is a scam and never come back.
And I'll tell you the other reason that's different is because last time the government didn't give a shit about us.
And this time, the regulators are literally watching and legislators saying this is a scam.
SBF scammed us and we're literally now in the face of that...
printing scams and doing it outrageously, and it's going to end crypto in this country if it continues.
It's a completely different environment, not the same situation.
Can't compare it to them.
All right.
I think you got the last part.
I don't we're going to tell us all right.
Very quickly, we've had a case of PVP is what I like to call it, player versus player.
You know, nobody is here to give you anything.
They're all playing the game.
Everybody's trying to take it from you.
So what I say to a lot of people and followers that, you know,
kind of looked at it throughout the years is if you're up huge or you've made or made a lot of money or life-changing money,
secure your freedom, close it out.
And, you know, these things are always going to dump.
None of these coins is going to last.
I would just stick to the blue chip majors
if you really...
Doge is one in 20,000.
I agree.
And that's only because of a...
A comment on this before we move on.
You know, I think it's a fascinating discussion.
I mean, I interviewed the co-founder of Tesos,
Kathleen Brightman.
Really smart.
Individual, you know, founded this...
Tesos's ex-GZ.
It's one of the first...
Actually, I think it's the first one
that did popularish proof of stake,
but well before Ethereum 2.0.
And one of her...
Interesting commentary. This is, I think, a year or two ago, was like, hey, you know, the kids on TikTok are going to, you know, from a doge coin and it's going to become, it kind of become a bellwether. And it's going to bother perhaps people like us or some other folks. But, you know, that's kind of, you know, the way it is. So it's kind of unique. You know, it seems unique. But if you look at financial history, like, you know, hundreds of years of U.S. financial history, these kinds of things have happened. You know, I mentioned life insurance before, you know, being murder insurance because people take out life insurance on others and kill them.
until, you know, regulation came in.
So I think it's just kind of repeat of things that just happened in finance.
One thing about the U.S. government and central banks related to earlier is there was actually
like a rumor, which turned out to be untrue, that the U.S. government had sold about $10,000,
$10,000, $1,000,000, which was about $300 million.
It turned out it was false.
It was a mislabeled address in the Block Explorers.
But for those they don't know, the U.S. government has seized.
a lot of Bitcoin, you know, through several of different seizures, but they still own over 200,000 Bitcoin, which is, you know, I mean, still a drop in the bucket compared to what, you know, the, you know, the U.S. government has in general overall and fiat and other assets.
But central banks around the world have secretly started to accrue Bitcoin. And if and probably more like when,
they start selling their $5.5 billion worth of Bitcoin.
What's that going to do to the markets, right?
Is, I think, a big question.
So I just thought I'd bring that up because that was a sort of a big thing in
cryptobverse yesterday about the U.S. government starting to sell.
Talking about the U.S. government, Neely wanted to...
touch on the FDIC proposed rule changes yesterday.
That's another new story.
By the way, if there are news stories that you want us to cover,
please go down to the bottom right in the comment section.
It's a little bubble and let us know.
So that way, because as soon as we start talking about Elon,
it's over.
We're not talking about anything else for the rest of the day.
So just want to make sure that we cover all the major news
that's going to be affecting the markets today.
Neely had a big one.
Neely, go ahead.
I was just curious if you guys had covered this.
I wasn't able to join me.
We did not cover it because I don't think it was out.
The FDIC.
Yeah, I don't know what time and day this thing hit.
I don't think it was first thing in the morning.
Yeah.
So, but Eugene on the seizures, and this is related actually to FDIC, believe it or not,
in a kind of a tangential way.
is you can actually see on the daily treasury statement, like when the U.S. government
seizes assets.
So you can actually track what the U.S. government seizes and when they seize it.
They actually have line items on the daily treasury statement that tracks that.
So if you ever want to get really down and dirty with the daily treasury statement,
you can actually figure it out.
So, okay.
Okay.
FDIC, as we all know, because we've talked about it at Nazium over here, we've had some bank failures.
And I think there's been a big question about who's going to pay for said things.
Well, the FDIC came out yesterday with a notice of proposed rulemaking on what they're looking for as a special assessment.
what they're calling pursuant to the systemic risk determination.
So up in the nest, thank you, Donish, for doing that.
There is a fact sheet.
There's a whole series.
You can actually see,
Commentary from Marty Grunberg, who's the chair of the FDIC, as well as just their longer form press release.
But let me just summarize it for you here.
They're going to make the big banks basically pay for the failings of these banks that have failed.
and they're all going to get basically a special tax for it.
That's the proposed rule.
The idea would be that this assessment would be collected beginning with the first quarter of 2024.
And hilariously, they have invoice dates listed in the fact sheet.
But I think it's answering a lot of like who's going to pay.
Is it taxpayers?
Or is it going to be...
banks. And I think the question becomes like, oh, you know, it's really easy to look at this and be like, oh, banks are going to pay. Great. You know, they're benefiting. Great. They're the ones for getting the special deals on the consolidation. Okay, great. Like, well, what do you, where do you think the banks are going to turn around to do? Right? They're going to raise fees, etc. I wonder. I wonder if there would be provisions in the final rule that prevent, you know, pushing the cost to the consumer. I'd be, I mean, no.
How could you do that?
Like, how could they actually...
I don't know.
They're going after like airline fees.
I'm just being honest.
You know what it is? You know what?
I know.
What they could do, Donish, though, is, you know, as some people might know, banks actually
have to give testimony every single year.
So all the bank CEOs, at least once a year, I think possibly twice a year, they have to
sit before Congress.
And that's usually where the grilling occurs.
So, you know, it could be out of like fear for the grilling that,
that they could kind of keep them from turning around and doing that.
But yeah, I don't even know how that you could actually.
I don't know.
I don't know how they can legislate getting rid of airline fees, but they're working on it.
Scott?
Yeah, I just wanted to point out one thing, which is absolutely incredible. Thank you for posting this tweet in the nest. It's a tweet for my friend Tom Dunleby, who is one of the heads of research at Masari. As you can see, said at the current rate of spending, the Treasury will run out of money to pay U.S. bills in roughly six days. The next meeting for negotiations isn't until Tuesday. So if you look closely here, just speaking of FDIC and Treasury, specifically Treasury, the
bank balance of the treasury right now is $184,915. Let me repeat that, $184,915.
As I tweeted before, the flip, the silver lining, I guess, is that if the bank where the
treasury is banking fails, they'll be covered by FDIC insurance because they're under the $250,000
threshold. But can we talk about how insane it is?
That the United States Treasury now has less than $200,000 in the bank and won't be able to make their bills in five days, six days.
That's not.
Hilarious slash awful.
Caleb, you were jumping in.
Yeah, I just wanted to ask a quick question in Neely about this.
I'm seeing here on this fact sheet from the FDIC that they're basically, you know, imposing a, you know, special assessment fee of 12.5 basis points.
So 0.125% assessed at an annual rate over eight quarterly assessment periods.
Is that applied to deposits or total assets?
Like what is that 0.125% being actually applied to?
That's a really good question.
I'm learning too.
Yeah.
If anyone knows, please.
Yeah, let's dig into it.
We'll get an answer.
I bet you we'll get an answer quickly.
If someone had an answer, I'd recommend you go into the comments in the bottom right
and put in the answer that you think is going on.
We'll put it up on the nest and then, you know, Caleb will be complete.
Go ahead, Caleb.
Yeah.
Yeah, please, I'm like, I'm going crazy over here trying to find this answer.
I think it's got to be maybe assets possibly.
Yeah, but the fact that's so big is also kind of telling.
But go ahead, too.
Yeah, it's just it's not written anywhere on there.
I would imagine it's applied against total assets would be my initial impression,
but then I feel like that doesn't seem quite right either.
So I just, I'm totally lost on this.
I mean, I think it's fascinating, first of all, that that is the approach that's being taken to pay for this.
Because, again, like Neely said, the big banks are the beneficiaries of this.
So it is interesting.
Samantha, go ahead.
So the banks are the beneficiaries, and what are we as consumers using their product?
I mean, I guess I don't understand the question.
We're going to.
and the implication.
Okay.
So my question, my question, I'm sorry.
If we have any bank aside from Chase, for example...
Should we just switch to Chase, for example?
I don't think so.
I mean, I don't think you have to.
At this point, unless you have more than $250K in the bank,
and if you do have $250K in the bank,
then I would probably not switch out banks right now.
There's a lot of other options on improving access to insured funds.
You could do something as...
silly as an ICS sweep so that way you can take that money and spread it across
you know multiple other banks you could put it in treasuries with really high yield
ICS sweep yields of crap you could put that money to work really yeah it's pretty bad
really really quickly Samantha are you worried that your money will go away is that the is
that the primary fear I guess my concern is for all the veterans using USAA
Yeah, so FDIC still covers up to 250,000.
And I was talking to a bank CEO about this.
Right. So what you just said, as long as we're under that threshold, we should just chill.
Because we don't have anything to worry about.
Yes, but also, like I was talking to a bank CEO about this, and FDIC insurance covers accounts.
So once you break that threshold, you can just open another account, and the FDIC insurance applies to that as well.
Now, this is not my words.
This is actual banking CEO I was talking to.
So theoretically, you can just keep opening new accounts and keep getting new protection.
Yeah, Caleb.
Thank you.
If I just wanted to step in, I found the answer to my own question, which is they're paying that 0.125% on all of their uninsured deposits.
But it looks like the banks need to be over 50 billion in total assets to qualify for making that payment.
Yeah, it looks like it's only what 113 banks that this would apply to.
Is that what you came across? Yeah.
Yeah, but just seeing that, you know, that 0.125% is being applied against the amount of their uninsured deposits.
That's what they need to pay.
Yeah.
I'm actually surprised in it that at the end of all this carnage, that's only 15.8 billion.
I mean, I say only, but 15.8 billion that was lost to cover on insured deposits.
I mean, you know, when you looked at the deal, when First Citizens bought SVB and, you know, it looked like a sweetheart deal when you looked at what JP Morgan did, I guess for, I guess that's not technically counted in this because they only talked about the two banks.
But, yeah, I mean, you know, I guess.
FDIC did a decent job.
I mean, that's still terrible losses, but I mean, less than I would have thought.
The FDIC always crushes it. The FDIC always crushes it.
They're honestly probably one of the best government institutions,
and this is coming from someone who traditionally hates government institutions.
They have almost a perfect track record of making depositors whole.
So, you know, this is goodness.
One has to wonder.
I think Dr. Danish, that's worth going over for all the people in the room.
And I hear that.
you know people how is the banking crisis going to personally impact me
and i i think that people don't really understand that two hundred fifty
thousand threshold so i would say the majority of americans they don't have more than that
in their bank accounts so i don't i don't think people fully grasp that if you're under that
threshold not not exactly so i want to be very clear about this there is a specific type of bank
account that is super duper at risk and that is the payroll accounts
That is the account that people don't think about.
So it's not just about the fact that your own personal bank account could be affected.
You could end up not getting paid.
because the payroll accounts often are way over 250k, right?
And so payroll accounts actually are the accounts that I would say affect the average American.
And we keep forgetting that the businesses in America also are only insured by FDIC up to 250K currently,
unless they're doing other models, which most businesses now are,
which is why I was mentioning sweeps and other types of accounts that allow payroll accounts to be able to be more effective.
Right.
And that's a really good clarification, but I think most, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people are immediately focused on just, is my account just going to randomly dry up?
And I can tell you that the average person taking their money out of the account has very little impact on the overall cost.
concern around a bank run. We actually, that's not what's causing these bank runs in my opinion.
But, AK, last comment before we jump on to Elon, because I feel like there are two things
that take over every room of all time, every finance room. One of them is Bitcoin, and the other
one is the banking crisis. So we're going to do this really quick, AK, last question.
Quick,
Tom.
one minute clip here is that there's,
I read a story about a famous basketball NBA player.
His name is Janice Anto Tocompo.
He's a Greek national.
And when he came to the United States
and started earning,
you know,
eight figures,
uh it was a funny story he said that he deposited 250,000 dollars in over 200 banks is what the story said.
So, uh, you know, there, there is ways that me people can diversify and take advantage of the, you know,
FDIC's insurance policies, but of course that never stopped. He, since then, he has gotten a better
business manager. Uh, uh, uh, what, what an awful way to do it. All right. So, yeah.
But I like the fact that he was thinking about it, at least.
And it tells you that people outside the U.S. are actually often more risk-averse when they come to the U.S.
And we have the sense of safety because we have these regulations that are supposed to protect us.
Because like Caleb said, the FDIC is actually quite a well-run organization.
All right.
So why we're all here?
I know most people who are listening are here to learn more about what the actual details are around
this Elon Musk stepping down story.
But I think for us to understand all of it,
we will have to go through the history of everything that's happened.
I know, I know.
We're not going to start there, but I bet you we're going to go back.
Back in time, today's before Elon was in power.
And I think it's fascinating to even,
can you guys even remember what Twitter was like before that?
I feel like it's, you know,
I don't want to compare Elon to Trump
because they're very different people.
But man, has he taken over the news cycle?
There's nothing that gets, you know,
mainstream media more upset than Elon.
And I think that that's going to be really interesting
because on Thursday,
Elon tweeted that,
that Twitter, that he was stepping down as CEO and someone else was taking on,
someone was coming on as a new CEO.
He didn't name the person.
He said that they would start in about six weeks.
And he did mention their gender.
He mentioned that they were a she.
So then...
The world goes by storm.
Everybody's like, hold on.
Who's this woman that's taking over Twitter?
And there was a lot of speculation.
Kara Swisher comes out.
At least, by the way, if she was not the first one to break it, please correct me.
But everything I've read, it looks like Kara Swisher was the first one to break it.
And.
And she, quote unquote, guessed, I don't believe that at all.
But she guessed that it was Linda Yacarino.
If I'm not saying her name right, please, please correct me.
But I'm very sensitive to that, since my name is a fucking pastry.
But if it's Yaccarino, great.
All right.
So, yeah, Linda Yacarino, she is slated, at least according to the rumors.
But these rumors are on CNBC now, so it's kind of interesting.
um as you NBC she's the current uh chief of advertising advertising chief at NBC
universal and she is in advanced talks for the role so much so that he actually uh
you know put it out there and so yeah again as a reminder uh he is going to be transitioning to
exec chair and cto specifically overseeing products software and and ops as i mentioned earlier
before there were like 4 000 people in the room that tesla's shares have actually jumped quite a lot
in response to this news um
you know, since a lot of Tesla investors were concerned around how distracted Musk was.
And in reality, there's another bigger conversation here, which is that if I know it seems like a month ago,
but Tucker Carlson just announced that he's joining Twitter exclusively.
And now, I mean, Sir Elon brought in a mainstream media person.
I'm going to go, I don't know who to go to first.
I know there's going to be a lot of commentary on this.
That is actually the funniest part of all this.
Okay. First and foremost, when this was rolling around last night, I went onto her LinkedIn page. And you can see her most, her like most recent post was from three weeks ago. I put it up in the nest. And it's Linda in Elon. And I was like, that is next level baller. Okay. Like if you know your negotiations with someone and you post that picture and you leave it up there as your post, right?
Just I tipped my hat.
I tip my hat.
I tip my hat to not overall.
And when I hear your thoughts around this.
Neely, I think you're, I think Neely is just a little upset because she's no longer in the running for the CEO.
That's true.
I can get coffee.
You know, I wanted to get your thoughts on this.
I mean, does this bother you around just the implications of her coming on board?
Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, starting off, what you said in terms of the Tesla share prices increase, and that makes a lot of sense because she's basically from the mainstream media. She's basically her links to the W.EF, her kind of more left. Can you tell us the links to W.EA?
Yeah, yeah, I can expand on that in a second. But essentially, you've got a scenario where, so that makes sense in terms of the share prices going up.
But if you see on Twitter, there are significant concerns about her coming in the position.
And I know that Elon Musk replied and said that there won't be any more banning or it won't
reverber back to the previous regime.
The issue is that essentially once someone takes that position and starts becoming comfortable
in that position, you end up automatically putting your own ideology onto that said product.
And so, yeah, I do have concerns about the direction.
I get why Elon did it almost balance out his...
you know, the perceived perception about him being more towards the right.
In terms of specifically, what's her role in WF?
I haven't looked into it in too much detail,
but I do know that she has links to it.
I know she's got,
she used to work for Robert Kraft as well,
and he has some kind of links to certain organizations as well,
who was the in charge of the Boston,
sorry, New England Patriots.
So essentially there are issues with her and a lot of people on Twitter.
Yeah, no, I agree with him.
I've already heard that quite a lot now.
that people are worried about her ties to sort of the,
I've heard the unit party ties.
I've heard the big money ties.
I've heard the fact that she is coming from NBC Universal, by the way.
Like, can we just be honest about how?
I have to say it's ironic.
Again, this is coming from somebody who actually has loved what Twitter has been doing.
I know everybody else hates on it just because it's Elon,
but in reality, the product has never moved this fast.
By the way, I shout at Twitter every morning.
And so in terms of Danish, in terms of the W.E.F.
She was the chairman of the W.E.F.
And she was also on the task on future work.
Do you mind if I correct, Jay Salomon, as somebody who's, you know, several, have several
involvements in Wef myself.
She's actually chairman of the task force on the future of work.
And just to clarify that, I mean, there's, uh, web has lots of task forces, right?
So I'm on like the task force for the Metaverse and, uh, there was also on the task.
There's like the task force of blockchain, et cetera.
So, uh, mean assyms right now.
Uh, just admitting his ties to W.EF.
Oh, no.
I'm just kidding.
Sorry.
Yeah.
I mean, I know, like it's on my LinkedIn.
I'm just, I mean.
People think, I mean, now I'm, now I know.
EYC, now I know I'm talking to an establishment person, right?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Oh, no. I would not call myself that, but sure.
No, no, but it's interesting, right?
Like, we made this boobyman.
And in reality, it's like, you know, it is an interesting aspect of it.
There are people that are involved all over.
But Sileman's point is not unfair, which is that there, I mean, forget the W.
She comes directly from mainstream media.
So, you know, I want, and I want to go a little bit more into her background. Again, just to be clear, no one has actually confirmed that she's coming on as Twitter CEO. This is still at some level speculation, but holy cow, this is the best, the worst kept secret in America right now. Brian, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, I think this fits Elon's, Elon's strategy perfectly perfect.
You have Jacarino, I guess I'm pronouncing that, right.
She worked for the Biden White House.
She worked at least in partnership with the Biden White House.
She worked for the Trump White House.
And she worked for the WEF.
So somebody that's in the middle of the road.
She also, if you look at who she follows, she follows a lot of,
right-leaning individuals on Twitter.
I mean, maybe she just did that recently.
I don't know.
She also follows my brother, Ed, who's left-leaning.
So I think it's just exactly what Elon's looking for,
somebody that's going to piss off both sides.
And when you do that, then you're seen as being in the middle.
And hopefully that appeals to both sides.
Agreed.
And as people may remember, when the news broke about Tucker Carlson, my first comment to that was, this is great.
I think it's going to be great for all the creators on Twitter.
I think it's going to lead to more product innovation, especially via video.
So now there will be a true omni-channel approach to getting subscribers and that they're going to have to fucking figure out monetization.
And the last big monetization and video, right?
And she's perfect for that.
Exactly.
And then the last thing that I mentioned when Tucker Carlson's news broke up is that somehow they're going to have to balance it.
That's a huge deal.
And so having somebody coming in with a very different approach to thinking about news, I think will be good overall.
But no one can doubt that she's going to bring the administrative state with her.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing anymore.
Neely, go ahead.
You were making the point on monetization.
And I think that is the way to look at it, not just advertising, but monetization.
Right.
And I mean, you know, he didn't come this far just to come this far, right?
And I think that's the other thing that we need to kind of keep in mind that he is taking this.
And he's talked about this, right?
He wants content creators to succeed.
He wants the activity to be on this platform.
And we're certainly doing that on a daily basis.
I guess the question I have, big picture, is like with all of the layoffs and then looking at what his new, you know, title will be or his new, like, direct reports.
I'm like, okay, actually, who's the left?
Or is she going to be building?
Right? Is this actually the signal that they're going to be going in a rehire mode?
I don't think they're going to rehire.
I don't know. It's a curiosity of mine.
Well, one major point there is she's an advertising executive and Twitter's looking to get more advertisers.
So she probably has a lot of current really good relationships with some pretty big advertising accounts.
So it's a fast path. It's a fast path and trust channel to these advertisers' pockets.
Well, as someone, like, you know, as someone that works with people that have thousands and thousands of people coming to our spaces every day, the problem is not advertising per se and getting access to advertisers.
And I think that's why she's such a good hire.
To your point, Justin, it's actually not getting access to advertising people.
It's actually getting access to fucking analytics.
Right.
Solomon and I have been in these rooms,
and we've run rooms with like 10,000, 20,000 people,
and we have zero analytics about who they are,
what they do, what businesses they come from, like zero analytics.
It's crazy.
So the fact that she ran a streaming platform at Peacock,
And the advertising side of it, she knows what the advertisers need to see to actually understand whether it's worthwhile to put their money here.
and that I think will be very interesting.
I am really excited about what this means for product,
because I love product,
but I'm more excited about what this means for the business of Twitter.
Just a reminder to everybody who fucking hates on Twitter all the time.
And if you're in this room and you're hating on Twitter,
you know, the irony should not be lost on you.
At the end of the day,
Twitter provides tremendous amount of value.
When you look at companies that succeed over the long run, the one thing they all do is they create value and then they capture at least 20% of the value that they create.
So if you're creating value and you can't capture 20% of the value that you're creating, you're actually always put in a tough position.
That's why Twitter has been failing for so long, even though a ton of people use it all the time.
It's not that they're not creating value.
They're not capturing it.
And the ability for Twitter actually and most, let's say, social media capturing, let's say, actual,
sorry, media and or other forms of advertisement is quite limited in that sense.
And actually, if you're looking at studies for, let's say, business to business or business to client type interactions,
Twitter is not necessarily that type.
that median that is going to be in place, right? And we know that it's clear with Elon Musk's,
he wants to create a new media conglomerate in that sense. And I think on an administrative
hit, right, because we clearly see since Elon has taken over this Twitter, essentially,
I've had an enormous amount of bot following. And two, I've had an enormous amount of
messengers and messengers from, let's say, these...
It's very weird, but it's always these women that are necessarily asking me if they want me to do their Bitcoin transactions for them.
And I'm like, okay, this is a very erroneous problem.
And I think that it's continuously present, especially if we go back to the same conversation that Elon Musk himself was hosting.
We know that the individuals that he brought up were actually speculative at best.
Like certain individuals, I would say...
That's a question, David.
I wanted to stop right there.
Because the big thing I've actually noticed is that bots have gone down.
So it's really interesting that that's the first thing you said.
Not really.
Not really.
Interesting.
I would say, well, I think that they've increased everywhere except for maybe crypto where they've just changed.
But.
But David, I want to know, did you actually send them your Bitcoin?
I'm from the legacy system in that sense.
And so Bitcoin and I, we have a fairly interesting affinity.
In fact, I was in part of the pension structures in Canada,
and I was creating a lot of risk reports saying that we shouldn't interact within these markets
because our fiduciary responsibilities.
Unfortunately, we know exactly what happened to those teacher pension funds in Canada.
That's true.
So I was going to say,
Hey, David,
I sent you a,
I sent you a DM on the back end.
It just says,
hello.
Yeah.
But I was going to say that, you know, ultimately, it's interesting.
For the people that are listening, can you go into the comments and tell us whether the number of bots have increased for you in your DMs and in your messages and what you're seeing?
I think on my timeline, a lot of the scams have gone away.
But in my DMs, perhaps it's increased.
But it's also, you know, I filter my DMs too.
Yeah, John is.
I think what's happened is that obviously he raged against the bots before he bought Twitter,
obviously came on and realized probably that it was a relatively unstoppable problem.
I mean, what I would notice is that you used to,
But if you have a, you know, a large account that's crypto related, the bots are unstoppable, obviously.
So I think it's different for some of us than many others.
But I will say what they've seemingly done better at is eliminating the life where you get 100 immediate messages all with CZ or Vitalik deuterine space telling you, you know, what the next crypto thing is.
What they've improved is not getting rid of the bots.
They've gotten rid of some of those, but it's actually hiding them.
So like now I think it's more like show, there's that
link underneath my reply.
It will say, show more replies or something like that.
And all of the bots are basically there.
So I think they've done a slightly better job of putting them in a part of the timeline
of your comments where you might have to click or to go see them.
And they're not immediately being shown, but there are easily just as many bots.
And the scams and the DMs,
will remain out of control.
I will also say that there used to be, at any given time,
about 100 impersonators of anyone with a blue check, like myself.
And when the blue checks actually met verified,
it was a lot easier to identify who those scammers were
because they were, you know, Scott Melker with three Ls or something.
But you could see they didn't have a blue check.
Now it's been all bets are off because the scammers are coming back
with the impersonations and they all have blue checks.
Yeah, someone followed me, claiming to be you.
I think I replied that to you, like, last week.
It was some take on your name.
Maybe it was the Wolf of Mall Streets or something, I don't know.
Well, I mean, I should be the Wolf of Mall Streets, to be honest.
I think that would be more accurate.
But, yeah, it's a major problem.
But it should also be pointed out that's not unique to Twitter.
I mean, people who follow me know that I actually had, you know, I had a relatively large Instagram account from my music days long before crypto.
And there were so many impersonators there that I stopped using Instagram.
And then an impersonator actually reported my actual account as the impersonator on Instagram and got me kicked off.
And so I no longer have an Instagram account.
There's another dude who's like 400 pounds of the beard who's Scott Melker.
And there's 700 fake Scott Melkers who are literally scamming people in their Instagram DMs on a daily basis that I can't stop.
I just thought you had a tough year, Scott.
So I was going to say that.
I was going to ask Brian a question.
Brian, seen as though Elon is now one of your boys, right?
We have a scenario where this new...
this new person is a seems like she's significantly ideologically driven and one of the main
concerns people have is there's going to be a return to this ideological agenda there's going to be
bannings there's going to be a scenario where even if there's not straight bannings there'll be
shadow bannings let's say there's not shadow bannings now the uh if you
If you look at the parameters by which someone gets banned or shadow band is now going to be increased.
So what's your thought on that specifically?
Yeah, that's actually a good question.
So I was actually banned back in 2019, and I came back thanks to Ella Irwin, who some people thought might be the new CEO at first.
But...
I think Elon's still going to be the chairman of the board, right?
So he's going to have a major say in the way things are operated.
And I'm sure that when he hired, if this is, if Linda is who's actually being hired,
which it looks like it's the case, I'm sure he had.
discussions with her and told her what he expects.
So I don't think they're going to,
I don't think there's a need to ban people.
I mean,
maybe,
maybe some people that are promoting illegal activities.
Brian,
can I push back for a second?
Yeah,
sure.
So there might be a need to ban people for advertisers.
Maybe some advertisers might say,
hey,
I don't want this person or that person.
Or maybe you'll shadow ban them so the advertising doesn't show up next to their
tweets.
It is costly.
Yes.
So I think there could be the desire to ban people for advertisers, but I think they can, Twitter's different now than it was under Dorsey.
And they're using the paid, the blue checks to promote, promote comments.
and tweets and the algorithm,
they're also pushing down
a lot of the hateful content.
When Elon took over back in October, November, December,
it was more hateful,
and I noticed it personally.
But as they adjusted these algorithms
and they started to do things like boost the blue checks
and community notes and all that,
it has gotten better, at least on my end of things.
And I have gotten a ton of hate in the past.
But so I think what they're doing is they're diversifying their stream of revenue.
So it's not all about advertising anymore.
And that's going to give them a lot of leeway in dealing with some of these advertisers.
They can say, okay, leave.
We're monetizing in a whole other areas.
So they're doing subscriptions.
I'm sure they're going to put...
ads and videos which might be a little bit better for advertisers since it's only specific content.
So I think that although they might feel pressure from advertisers,
I don't think the pressure is going to be as high as it was prior to all these changes.
And I think an important point is...
For Brian, the thing is that what you post isn't controversial.
I know it's controversial to the right because they don't want to hear like a different position.
Right.
But it's not controversial.
Like you don't, you don't basically, you never close the line.
You're nowhere near it.
Like I read your post.
Like a lot of times they're very well written.
So essentially, you're not the person who will be impacted,
but the people that my concerns are who will be impacted are,
people who have returned from bands,
but always did skirt quite close to that line,
were a bit more towards, more far out there.
And those people, my concern, is that they're going to get banned.
Yeah, I think that it's going to be, it's going to, their content might be pushed down, but I don't think it's going to, they're going to be banned as easily. And I'm saying if you come on and you say all Jews should die, I think that that's going to probably result in a ban. But if you come on here. But that would get you a bad now, but let's say you said. Yeah, exactly. But, but, but if there's like, for example, let's say you say you.
I don't know. You said something against Israel. Maybe now you wouldn't get banned, but later you may. So that's just the, I'm just going to a vague example.
I really think the incentives have completely changed. And I don't, I can't verify that to be true. But just based on my own feed, I used to ignore the for you feed.
And now, and I would just use following, and now I'm noticing that I'm craving the 4U feed more because it's a lot of positive stuff.
It's people endorsing each other.
It's people talking about cool ideas.
So I really think the incentive structure has changed for Twitter that they're trying to push up positive stuff and they're trying to push down negative rage stuff.
What do you mean about?
I think that's true, but I see a whole lot of fight videos in my 4U.
I don't know what they think about.
about me, but mostly like bomb fighting.
I think on an administrative note, right, and sorry, Brian, to cutting you off there, I think
you make an important point, and I'm going to let you finish off your idea there.
There's always going to be internal shifts, specifically when we have administrative,
let's say, evolutions within specific corporations.
Right.
But the most important point is the monetization.
And I don't think that we're going to see an increase in, let's say,
bans and or lack of opportunities for basic individuals to utilize Twitter,
especially in this increased monetization phase that we have to go through,
essentially if Twitter wants to even have any validity.
And currently, I think one of the most important points,
point is look at the actual volume that the Wall Street Journal or any legacy actual journalistic
site is obtaining versus that of Twitter.
And if we're aggregating the actual volume Twitter on consistent point and to the Wolf's
point, why he sees a lot of fight streams is because it maintains user bases on your platform.
But I just want to push back because can you see even in the last few comments what people are saying is there's been a, they'll mid, they're accepting that there is going to be a shift. Someone mentioned about deboasting. So again, that's another. Like when you deboost a post when, for example, I know now when I post about Ukraine Russia, it's auto, I mean, the source code's open. Like we know it's going to be deboasted. So essentially when you're posted deboasted, when you've based, that's essentially a form of a, a
post having a shout about it to a certain extent but here's my pushback it's the administrative shift right
we're saying that i'm now becoming a media conglomerate and i'm like putting less value on a single
user's uh post in that sense and putting more value on the potentialities of tucker carlson
hosting a show on twitter now and so if you're looking at the progressives so that goes does not go
doesn't that go against that very notion of this idea of citizen journalists, we're not the
mainstream media, we're not a conglomerate, it's going to be different ideas and thoughts.
I'm saying that they're manipulating the actual field, sorry for that, the wolf, but they are
manipulating the field so that they create this free and, let's say, social journalism, but in reality,
that's not the case that we're going to see. And if we're actually looking at,
the developments between, let's say, most pertinent media figures within the world,
well, the individual citizen won't be as pertinent as this necessary researcher in that sense.
And so he's always going to have more impetus within the movement.
So like the Wolf and or Dr. Danish or Mario is going to have more pertinency versus me
because I'm not as valid within, let's say, the interpretations of the majority of citizens in that sense, right?
i just want to say that i mean this is a very let's all be like really honest here so i was very
critical of twitter when it switched over because i thought that it got worse now i think it's slowly
improving and that we just needed to obviously to give it a bit of time so uh i i think the impetus
is to jump right down everyone's throat but these are big problems to take a long time there's a
lot to unwind and then you have to have a completely new plan for the future so i mean being
genuinely honest with ourselves, I think free speech is a myth, right?
So it's a, it's a bit of a of a continuum, right?
What we're looking for here is freer speech, right?
And so if we can achieve that versus every other social media platform,
and we can say literally whatever we want on Twitter spaces,
which is what we're doing here, which is why I jumped in when you were talking about the citizen journalism,
you may not have the freedom to report whatever you want as news in your Twitter feed as fake news,
but you can certainly go on a Twitter space with 50,000 people and share your unvetted opinion.
And I'm not saying that's right or wrong.
But I do think that the only thing we can expect, and like I said, I was very critical at the beginning,
even though I am a huge alarm fan.
I think that what we can expect is movement in the right direction.
And I think that almost everybody agrees as we're discussing it here and that that's what's happening.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think it's going to be interesting.
Scott, I got to say that not everybody agrees wholly that it's moving in the right direction.
It's moving in the right direction for the business.
There's no doubt about that.
But that's a business.
That's my point.
It's a private company.
We can't expect them to open the floodgates to literally everything.
I do agree with you.
But also, like, we have a tendency to overanalyze every slight piece of news.
Yeah.
everybody sees who the CEO potentially is going to be and all of a sudden draws massive
conclusions about what her political positions and how she's going to manage the platform are,
which is a bit disingenuous because maybe she has a certain feeling but can run a business objectively.
Just what you know what's from a governance perspective, Eugene one second.
So just from a governance perspective, what's fascinating is that they didn't add her to the board right right away.
Like she didn't actually come on just in a board position.
That would have been interesting.
She didn't come on as chief operating officer or chief revenue officer.
She didn't come on as head of advertising, right?
She came on as CEO.
If you are bringing on a CEO that was the head of advertising at NBC Universal streaming a product, it says something.
I think it says something.
It says that it's a business like Scott's saying.
But it's also saying that, hey, we're going to go all in.
on streaming video and monetizing that streaming service,
it tells me quite a lot from a business perspective.
So what I would recommend to everybody is get your studio set up, y'all.
This is about to become a multi-media conglomerate.
It's very interesting.
I think you and I think that the exact same reaction
at the exact same time to Mario when the news broke
about Tucker Carlson.
I think you were on a plane and he and I were discussing it here.
We were both like, holy shit, this is huge
for anyone who's going to commit to Twitter.
I immediately, and listen, I have no feelings either way
about Tucker Carlson.
This has literally nothing to do with him or his politics.
It's the very fact that someone of that size and stature would commit wholly to utilizing this platform.
I don't think that says anything about the politics.
I think those are bad takes, actually.
When people say Tucker Carlson's coming, because if it was Don Lemon that said the same thing,
it would be the opposite side arguing the same thing.
Well, do you think Tucker knew about this new appointment?
I have no idea and I don't do that.
Unfortunately, I don't take guess, but I think it's literally, he probably did, but it doesn't matter.
What's relevant is that it makes a statement for content creators like myself that this is likely
going to be a better platform.
The first thing I said was I'm likely, I've been considering this for weeks, months even, by the way, making a wholesale move from all of my platforms and consolidating into Twitter.
Even with all the problems and all the issues here, I find YouTube to be extremely difficult.
I'm not the idiot.
I shouldn't say it.
It's justified.
I'm not the person who's going to go there and do a screaming face logo and tell you about the next 12,000 X.
I don't know.
Alt point, right?
It's just not my thing.
So that means I lose on the Twitter,
on the YouTube algorithm, no matter what.
I literally cannot grow my audience
without playing the algorithm game on Twitter,
I mean on YouTube.
So for someone like myself,
going to Twitter and knowing that they will have all of those capabilities and potentially my content will not be pushed down in the same manner.
That is a huge massive win.
Also, building a YouTube audience is much harder.
I have almost a million, 900,000 followers on Twitter.
Of course, for someone like me, I want to come to where my audience is.
So giving me the capability to do everything that's happening everywhere else and having...
a huge figure or two that lead that path makes so much sense for content creators to come here.
Also, it's open.
Hold on everybody.
Hold on. Hold on. Whoa. What just happened there?
Soleiman, why don't you go next?
Is it me or is Solomon's awesome?
I don't hear anyone.
Okay. Yeah, Solomon.
Hold on. Hold on. Wow. Okay, guys. Justin, why don't you go next?
And then Eugene. Go ahead, Justin.
Oh, I just thought maybe this is going to end Facebook and Instagram.
I tried Instagram for some stuff for the first time, like a couple months ago, and it's, oh, guys, I hate it.
I'm just like, I think I think I'm going to delete that now.
It was a totally different project, but, like, I wonder at Facebook.
Justin, I will say that.
I will say, though, that I thought that Snapchat was also going to end Instagram, and then Instagram just became Snapchat.
So I would not underestimate the power of Facebook to just replicate exactly what works on Twitter and try to steal it to their larger audience.
Yeah, and I would not underestimate the network effects that come with the fact that people have big followings on Instagram.
And so, you know, they're not going to let it die.
And it is when you look at the analytics.
on Instagram.
Holy cow.
The things they can tell you are insane.
And this is coming from somebody
that does not use any monetization
across any platforms.
But I just find it fascinating
how important that is.
I can promise you though.
David.
Yeah, I agree.
I just think maybe it'll be relegated
to the older, you know,
older generation and people leave it.
But I could be wrong.
I don't have any insight on that.
Interesting.
Yeah, go ahead, Eugene.
Yeah, so tying a few things together.
You know, even Elon thinks that, based on his tweets,
thinks that YouTube is a better social network than Twitter in this sense.
So this is a few months back, Marquez Brownlee, one of the largest YouTubers in the world,
MKBHD, I think is the YouTube handle, you know, tweeted out.
YouTube is still the only S-tier, so the highest-tier social network.
And Elon's reply on Twitter to MKV-BHD was, for now, right?
So, I mean, I guess that implicitly saying is Elon agrees that that actually YouTube is a better social network back then.
This was sort of NKBHD's reaction to Elon taking over Twitter.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is I think it's kind of hilarious.
I've been hearing the discussion about this discussion about Linda.
I've seen the reactions.
I was looking at the reactions earlier well before this.
you know, we're all kind of talking and debating about, you know, somebody and we have no
idea whether even it's the person. I mean, it most likely is, but also like what they're going to do,
right? I mean, I have my own preconceived notions, but regardless of who it is, when we talk about
corporate governance, Donish, I think you were talking about this. I mean, the reality and the question
is, you know, the title is CEO, right? But titles can be very funny, especially in tech
companies, right? Cheryl Sandberg comes on as
as C-O-O, but it's actually CEO for a while, right?
Meaning for a while in Silicon Valley, it was kind of like, you know, it was kind of like
the fashion, you know, du jour, if you wanted the CEO to step down, the CEO and founder
stepped down, you brought someone in and called them C-O-O, right?
But I guess anyone, I mean, we go back to the beginnings as to why Elon did this,
is because he did a Twitter poll, and he said, should I step down as CEO?
And it was like, yes or no.
Yeah.
And the yes is one out, meaning he, you know, Twitter told him to step down.
So he had to abide by this decision.
And of course, a lot of the reactions, some of the top reactions to Elon, you know, posting this was like Elon being someone else, right, being the woman who was going to be CEO, et cetera.
So I guess the question asks is whoever takes over, right?
How much are they going to actually be CEO, like de facto CEO versus just a name CEO?
That's just like, I think, a nuance or a question.
Yeah.
So, you know, that's that's kind of, I guess, just something to think about.
I'd say, like, you know, I don't want to throw in any preconceived notions, but I am kind of surprised based on some of the rhetoric in the past from Milan.
why we have somebody who's, I guess, middle of the road.
I think it was Brian who mentioned this.
You know, like, you know, Yolan talks a lot about Web3
and about the idea of us being able to take over.
And Web3, like, part of the ethos is we can take over our own,
you know, Web 2 is about advertising and eyeballs
and Web 3 is about ownership, right?
And I guess I was a little more excited about that.
Who knows, we might still get that,
but that's kind of the question.
And I did have a question for Scott.
about, I mean, you did, you think, you threw a comment.
I actually liked a lot of what you said and I always do, but in this case, you said that
true free speech doesn't exist.
And I just found that to be very curious, right?
I mean, I know, I know it's hard to achieve like a real idealist.
reality, but I think, you know, at least Twitter spaces does get as closer, as you mentioned.
But I wasn't sure whether you meant true free speech doesn't exist, period, or whether it doesn't
exist in sort of existing large platforms.
Certainly not.
Certainly not on privately owned company platforms, but I don't believe free speech exists
in this world.
I think that everything is a continuing, continue.
I don't think free speech exists.
I don't think free markets exist.
And I think if you dig into the data, I just don't think that is a thing.
I mean, do you think that you have truly free speech in the United States?
That's a totally different time.
Or in any country.
I could promise you, there's no country in the world.
I don't think there's any such thing because if you want to openly define free speech, that obviously includes the worst, most vitriolic hate speech.
There is.
there is right and I'm not saying I'm not I'm not making a value judgment about
whether it exists or should or should not I'm just making a simple statement that
On no place on this planet, can you literally say or do whatever you want without repercussions?
So I want to go in an effort for free speech, I'm going to go back to Salaiman and let him speak.
Because I don't know what happened to his audio.
And by the way, I think Salaiman, it was the man.
It was the mainstream media muting you.
So go ahead.
Yeah, it was.
It was a matrix attack, but no stress.
we can fight through it.
Danish brought me back.
So I just want to push back on two points.
And I'll go on the free speech point first.
The free speech, no one's asking for absolute free speech.
We understand why that can't be the case.
Even when Elon was in charge, my issue was that there wasn't a consistent approach to what free speech is or what type of speech is going to be allowed.
And now with this new CEO who has consistent,
has clear ideological positions and is very strong in those ideologies,
there is an additional concern that, again,
you're going to have inconsistent approach where certain people will be banned
who don't purport to her ideology whilst others won't.
That's the first point.
The second point was what you mentioned, Wolf, about algorithms.
and you mentioned about YouTube, yes,
that's the reason why a lot of us were getting excited.
When we heard about Twitter,
we heard about Tucker Carlson, we heard about the videos,
we all thought, you know what, we're going to move everything to Twitter.
Twitter is going to be the place to be.
We can expand.
You don't have to be concerned about other platforms.
the worry is that as you just mentioned about algorithms this new CEO implements things in place
that basically again reduces algorithms for dissenting voices and obviously again my point
is this like you can allow dissenting voice up to a certain point and we see that there's a lot
of research Glenn Reward did a did a
a piece on this where YouTube allows dissenting voices up to a point.
So someone like Ben Shapiro will be allowed on because he's still really
following the normal narrative,
even though he gives the veneer of disagreement.
But someone who is completely different,
like Ryan,
is completely banned.
So the concern is that, again,
the same things that have made me and you think about going to Twitter and now
not going to be an option.
Right, but I just want to, and then I think we should definitely go to everybody else.
I just want to say that even if there's very, very clear rules in place, they come up with a constitution for what is and is not allowed.
there's still going to have to be an algorithm or person who then determines how every single thing that anyone says on Twitter fits into that.
So my point is that this is just an extremely complicated problem, regardless of who's running it, and it's just never going to be perfect because that's impossible.
So I just think that we should keep an open mind and assume at least on the larger...
scale that things will move in the right direction and then if that is not the case judge accordingly when it happens right i'm just not ready to say this person was higher and it's going to get bad because i want to give them the benefit of the doubt and understand that these are impossible problems to solve i posted a few of elin's tweets in the nest because he's been responding to a lot of concerns uh in the last 24 hours so i just posted a few of those responses i think it's helpful for context
I actually am very worried about this whole move
So it's kind of interesting
Because as many people know
And as Soemann calls me
I'm an establishment chill
Just kidding
But you know
I definitely agree that there needs to be a good business
No no you're coming back to the light
You brought me back up after the establishment
trial cancel me so we know
Well, you know, and so I'm just kidding, though.
Like, honestly, I think the thing that I'm really worried about is the fact that I actually was getting really excited, even though everybody else thought it was a bad business decision to move towards subscriptions.
I was actually very excited by the fact that they were reducing their reliance on advertising.
You know, John Stewart once said that the business model is arson.
And I, that always stuck to me in my head around, holy cow, if the model is eyeballs, the most provocative comments will always win.
And the most provocative comments are often the wrong ones. And I think that that was...
was what was exciting me about Twitter.
I felt like we were having more nuanced conversations.
I felt like we were having more information.
They went to long-form tweets.
They were allowing these spaces.
People were able to talk about things in real time.
And we were pushing buttons.
We were in an FDIC report, right?
Clearly the government was starting to take a look at these things.
And they were saying, holy cow.
And then Jamie Diamond comes out and says,
hey, people shouldn't be able to tweet about stocks
and then pump and dump.
all of this we were pushing the boundaries and that was really exciting because it was on a
subscription model and i was getting very excited about that but instead he's gone back
to what worked for Twitter before.
And so I wanted to give Kim a chance to weigh in.
I think, Kim, I know where you're going to go with this,
but I really want to hear from you since I know that you can be a polarizing voice.
And we love having you up on stage because I think you speak your truth.
So I wanted to get a sense of, you know, Kim, I really want to get your sense of,
is this really scary for certain people?
Yeah, well, thank you for inviting me up.
I'm just here for five minutes,
and I will tell you my two cents about what I think.
I think this is a bad move because the optics are bad.
You all may remember that not too long ago,
Elon distanced himself from the WEF and said he had nothing to do with these guys.
He was invited once, but that's it.
And he's done that because he understood...
that there is a lot of criticism of the WEF, because in fact, the WEF is the biggest marketplace in the world for corruption.
This is where the big corporations and the billionaires come together to meet with politicians and to set an agenda for their...
global domination and it doesn't really include the interests of the people. It's literally just,
you know, how are we going to make this a global enterprise and how can we expand our businesses
around the world, you know, and they're doing this with politicians. And then on top of it,
They are infiltrating parliaments, political parties around the world with their young leaders, trying to influence the decision making of a number of countries.
So it's a very scary organization.
And for Elon, who is still in his honeymoon period with us, right, who is still, you know, people are still skeptical, is this guy β
a billionaire who's really on our side or is there some other agenda?
right and Elon has done a pretty good job so far to let everyone know know this is about free speech
I'm on your side he's done Twitter files like everything so far has been going really well for him
and Twitter and to make this I mean we're not 100% sure yet right if this is the appointment but if it
is I think it's a step backwards and it's not a good look
And I'm actually quite sad myself to see that this is happening.
Yeah.
And, you know, I think the advertising model is what has caused these issues.
And then to go and get somebody, by the way, Kim, from NBC Universal.
Yeah.
and from Peacock streaming, I think it's also another aspect of this.
Kim, do you think that this is going to, aren't you excited a little bit about the fact that, you know, we're going to have more video streaming and then potentially opportunity for monetization?
Or do you think all of that kind of leads down the wrong road?
No, I'm totally excited about the potential for Twitter, right?
Of course, monetization has now been turned on, which is great.
You know, many great content creators are already making good income.
They can now live off their Twitter subscribers.
And that, I hope, is going to grow.
I mean, everyone is for that, right?
It also strengthens the voice of citizen journalism, of channels like this.
So all of that is a great development.
And I've been saying for months that, of course, there needs to be video monetization as well.
There needs to be, you know, spaces on a much higher level and not just audio.
Like, there are so many opportunities there.
with Twitter and I think Elon did make a good investment because the future could be so bright
but to make this take this step now and to put someone in charge who has to be seen
really by the majority of people as coming from the enemy quarter,
coming from an organization that is not for the people,
is something that is concerning to me.
And of course, Elon says,
hey, I'm still going to be in charge.
I will be the chairman of the board.
I will focus on product development.
But she will be the CEO.
And what's going to happen if, let's say,
something bad happens to Elon?
Right. That person is going to be in charge and then where do we stand? So, you know, to put someone in a role of CEO who has this kind of baggage.
is, I think, a bad call. I think there are many, many people out there in the industry who can do the job that he's looking for, work on making this monetization model work and create one of the biggest content sites on the internet without the
this kind of bad optics.
And like I said, we are still in a honeymoon period with Elon.
He needs to realize that there are a lot of people who are
still kind of torn between, you know, him being a billionaire and running this platform and, you know,
wanting to believe that he is a good guy and then thinking, you know, maybe this is all just another
scam and, you know, they're going to take over the platform anyway and now he makes this, uh,
If he makes this appointment, I tell you, I personally will be disappointed because I think it sends the wrong signal at a time when we need to build trust, right? He needs to build trust.
This is the future, you know, of social media where you can still find the truth and get independent views.
And if you put someone like this in charge, I think this is under threat.
And if Elon can't see that, you know, I think it's important that users let him know.
So if you don't agree with this appointment or if you have concerns that someone from the WEF is coming in as CEO of Twitter, I think you should let him know.
Yeah, so for people that are listening right now, and if you agree with Kim, can you go down to the bottom right in the comments, hit that bubble, tag Elon Musk and tell them how you really feel?
Because I think that this is an important commentary.
And I do wonder, I'm actually kind of curious.
And we run our rooms a little bit differently where if we see a comment that is particularly nuanced and has a very good message that's not being talked up here, we'll actually bring you up and let you talk about it.
for a few moments and we'll have a discussion around it so feel free to go down and i encourage
everybody to comment i was going to also say that you know if for people they're they listen to
our shows every day you know that uh Mario and his team at iBC actually help uh AI and web 3
companies come up with monetization techniques and they partner with vCs and funds to work with
their portfolio companies
So if you're interested, do DM Mario.
And they can talk a little bit.
We talked a little bit about Web 3.
It's kind of interesting.
I'm not a big believer in Web 3, as many people know,
but I know Mario is.
And then last thing, I have to do a little shilling
for our sponsors.
They're actually doing some Shark Tank style pitches as well.
They've been doing them in crypto and AI rooms,
but they're starting to do them for all startups.
And so if you're interested, do reach out to Mario and his team.
All right, now that I've paid the bills, let's keep going.
So, you know, I wanted to kind of go back to monetization for a second
for what we were talking about with Kim.
You know, one of the big points, sorry, not monetization, the fact that this person does have ties to a partisan group potentially.
And she does come from the old guard.
Brian, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to what Kim was saying.
I think it is important to, are you not concerned that she's coming from mainstream media at all?
So I think Kim brings up good points, but I think those are good points if you're on the right, right? I feel that those on the left have been attacking Elon nonstop for the last six or seven months since he took over.
What Elon's MO is is trying to piss off both sides, like I said before.
So while Linda, if that's who's coming on, might piss off some people on the right because of her connections to WEF,
There's also people on the left who are criticizing me for saying that I think that she's probably not a bad choice because they say she's following all these right wing people.
She worked for the Trump administration.
So it's like both sides are attacking her.
And I feel that is the best way to get both sides to maybe trust Twitter a little bit more.
If both sides are attacking her, then it means that she's probably right in the middle.
Right.
I think if you are against the WEF, I think that it's a fair assessment that, hey, maybe she's not the best candidate.
If you're against some of the things that the Trump administration did, I think it's also fair.
So it just really depends on where you stand politically.
So I don't want to say that Kim's comments are meritless.
I think that they are if you're on the right.
But I think that's a bit of a black, Brian.
Like, I don't think she's right down the middle.
I would like to respond to that.
Yeah, go ahead, Kim.
So, Iman.
Go ahead.
So, Iman.
I've always said I'm neither right nor left.
You know, I'm in the middle.
The right has good ideas.
The left has good ideas.
If they would only work together, the work would be a better place, right?
Where I'm coming from is more of an activism stand for freedom, you know, for free speech.
All the things that Elon has said and done in the beginning, you know, I got,
behind him, you know, I used my name to promote what he was doing, and I was doing it because I believe in him.
And this...
to me personally, this is a big disappointment what's happening here,
because let's just compare Twitter to the church, right?
And the church has been known to cover up all these child abuse scandals around the world with their priests.
And now let's say someone new, a new pope comes in, wants to reform the church and says, this is all over.
We're not doing that anymore.
We're going to be super transparent.
And then the person that he appoints,
to work with him on, you know, fighting child abuse is the biggest child molestation organization in the world.
That is the equivalent of what's happening here.
The WEF is not for the people.
It's only for corporation, the super rich, and it's a power brokerage that is all about globalism, that is all about business and doesn't involve what's best for the people.
Right.
That's where they planned their pandemic response before COVID even came out.
That's where these people are meeting to corrupt politicians around the world
by basically identifying smart young leaders, turning them into WEF puppets,
and then placing them in parliaments and political parties around the world.
This is what we're talking about.
If a person like this,
now runs Twitter.
I'm extremely concerned about this.
Let no one say, hold on you, Gene.
Let no one say that our spaces don't have free speech.
I clearly strongly disagree with Kim on this.
But I think he has a complete right to say it.
And I think that if I do, I do disagree that there is that some sort of grooming going on here,
that there is some sort of bigger, uh,
bigger sort of conspiracy around here.
But I'm always, one, learning that you never know anything.
I say that to myself every morning before these shows.
And then two, that there is a lot more information out there that is not being shared.
So, Kim, you might be completely right.
And you have a complete, and I wanted to highlight that because this is happening on Twitter.
You know if this was happening on YouTube, our show would already be gone.
And that's the honest truth, is that at least on Twitter, Kim and I can disagree.
And by the way, Kim, I could be 100% wrong and you have every right to speak out loud.
Well, I mean, I do acknowledge that you are saying, you know, we can talk about this freely and that you disagree.
That is no problem.
But people who know me know that I'm extremely educated on everything to do with, you know, this international cabal that is trying to
undermine our rights, that is trying to take our rights away, that is attacking our freedoms,
and is doing it in the name of the corporations, billionaires, and people that have their own
agenda. People who know me understand that I'm coming from a space of
vast knowledge about the matter.
You know, I've been one of the early supporters of Wikileys.
So, Kim, just to clarify your point really quickly, and I'll let you continue.
I just, is your primary concern the WEF connection?
It's not the NBC stuff, right?
It's the W.EF that you're concerned about.
Well, NBC is not the issue, right?
I mean, if you have someone who really understands how to monetize the content that will be on Twitter, no problem.
But if that same person is a chairperson at the WEF, that is a major.
They're not the chairperson.
So, Kim, I think you missed it earlier.
This individual, so LinkedIn does this disfavor where they just put like the title but not like the full title of things.
So she's the chairperson of the task force on the future of work.
And just to get a clarification, it's like, I think I'm like 21 task forces.
I'm on two of them.
I'm on the Metaverse task force.
And, you know, the chair is just random people.
And, you know, when I was on the global future councils of Wef, they just kind of rotated around.
I mean, these aren't even really, to be frank.
I think that influential inside Wef, we're just like.
you know, sort of random participants.
And I'm just actually curious also about...
Let me just put it this way.
In order to be appointed to a position like this,
you need to be a person of trust in the inner circle of the WEF.
You're not getting into a position like this
without having the inner circle access to the WEF.
Eugene literally was just mentioning that that's not the case.
Eugene, is that not...
I just want to get it...
Since Eugene has actually been in the WEF, go ahead.
Yeah, I sort of, you know, I mean, this person could be in the, they could or could not be in the inner circle.
But I think just because they're the chair of the future of work task force, I don't think that they, that necessarily says that, you know, quote, as part of the inner circle.
I mean, it's also like, you know, I think there's a misconception.
You know, when you go to Davos, you know, first off, like Trump was like one of the big, you know,
attractions when he was invited at Davos,
which was interesting.
But, you know, like, a lot of times
there's just like these random people,
first off, you know, you go there and,
you know, whether you're like the CEO of Delta Airlines
or, you know, little old me, you're just,
you know, it's just you,
you very few people have, like, there's no like entourage
or anything. And,
most people are just kind of worried about what color their badges,
right? Like, do they have a white badge? Do they have a blue badge or whatever?
And, you know, did I get invited to the right events?
I feel like,
a lot of it's a lot of what these theories and conspiracy theories and I've been on like one other
Twitter space where people kind of push back um you know for me I just going to you know I just
think it's a you know it's an interesting group of people um you know built a good community and uh you
know I don't know this this is like I mean even even Professor Schwab closer Klaus Schwab the few
times you interact with him it's like you know people on Reddit got all over this thing that
somebody said years ago and they weren't even part of Weft they were random parliamentarian somewhere in
Europe and
And they said, oh, you know, in the future, you will own nothing and be happy, which was related to, by the way, like, you know, the sharing economy, like Airbnb and all that stuff, Uber.
And then that suddenly became like, you know, the memes about about this stuff.
And by the way, I'm not necessarily, like, defending or not defending.
I'm just saying, like, I'm not sure where this, like, global cabal, like conspiracy theories across Reddit, by the way, like in these other social media platforms.
You know, I mean, you can see that, you know, people like Professor Schwauer, kind of.
you know, just kind of scratching their heads about, about the sort of the emergence of this, right?
Which I think it's sort of related to the meme economy and the meme sort of media.
So anyway, but I will say just because someone's on a chairperson of a task force, I mean,
they usually just pick random people for these kinds of things.
I mean, this person could still be, quote, in the inner circle, as you say, Kim, but
doesn't necessarily mean so just because we're on this one.
You know, they're on this committee that has like, there's like 21 of these committees with like agriculture. There's circular economy, cities and urbanization, a bunch of other mundane things. I think a lot of things like this are just more mundane than people might might think or seem.
Yeah, I want to let you respond.
The people who are running these circles and these organizations, they have been handpicked.
They are there for a reason.
And here's the thing.
You know, what I'm saying is it's bad...
optics. It couldn't be worse at a time like this. When we just came off all the Twitter
files, we learned about all the corruption, the censorship, the lies that were going on.
Why would Elon put someone in charge?
who is associated to the very groups and people that have been trying to fight what they call
misinformation and disinformation because it got in the way of the WEF agenda. Why not
pick someone who is a pure industry player who understands how to monetize an internet side,
who has, you know, no association with organizations that are taking the freedoms of people
away.
I can tell you what I'm saying.
Can I ask a question real fast?
So, Kim, you said it's bad optics.
Do you also think it's bad optics when Elon makes a tweet mocking AOC or another Democrat?
Yeah.
Look, he has a sense of humor.
I love how funny he is.
And he does that for other reasons than you think.
I think he actually likes EEOC.
If she wanted to have a dinner with him, they would probably have a really fun dinner
and would both be laughing together.
Elon is a great guy, but I think this is a short-sighted decision
because there are so many people.
who are really observing right now what's happening at this new Twitter that he has created, right?
And there are obviously also a lot of pressures against them.
Just remember, not too long ago, Twitter was basically sabotaged by a large number of advertisers.
Elon told us in spaces.
that he needs to be successful with his subscription model so that he has more independence
from these attack of advertisers that are of course all the big corporations that are organized
under the WEF trying to manipulate politics, right? These same people attacked
Elon when he tried to bring free speech to Twitter.
And now this person is coming into the fold.
And it's greatly concerning.
I think no one should...
How this is going to affect the credibility.
I want to push back a little bit on this, just to be clear.
The thing that was really interesting, and it's in the nest above, is that
I actually think I know why he hired her because he's a good again I can disagree with his politics at times I kind of do agree with some of them
But you know one thing that is interesting about Elon is he's never shied away from a fight and
What he saw Linda and him it's in the nest up. It's the Mario's tweet last month during an interview
She pushed back. She pushed back at Elon and
And he then pushed back and then she pushed back again.
And I think he liked that.
I think he likes it when somebody doesn't just eat out of his hand.
Like 90% of people do because he's so convincing and incredibly bright.
You know.
She disagreed with him on his approach.
And she presented some ideas that could help restore profitability for this platform.
And we all know that businesses need to be profitable and sustainable.
Now,
I think what's interesting is maybe it's not about the advertising.
Maybe it's about the fact that she has a view on monetization that he was very impressed
And Dr. Danish, if you don't mind, I have a question for Kim fairly basic in that sense.
It's almost the reference to Sun Tzu, the enemy of your.
enemy is your ally in the sense that if he understands, I need to create a media conglomerant
and essentially there's a legacy media center behind it.
How do I create the most valid platform, i.e. for Twitter, in order to then have this,
let's say, launching platform for other, let's say, individuals like Tucker Carlson and or other
individuals that might be interlaying.
Maybe like Kim, like I could imagine a actual formal podcast in permanent space with Kim.com
having his discussions in that sense.
Yeah.
Can I actually,
I think,
Eugene, let Kim respond to that,
and then I want to hear from Kim first.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so, I mean, when Elon took over,
he almost became an activist.
He joined the people in the chorus of saying,
you know, no more shadow banning,
we want freedom of speech.
He went along with that,
and he's done a really good job
providing transparency about what was going on.
And just because the mainstream media is not reporting about it in a big way doesn't mean that this isn't one of the biggest scandals that we have seen when it comes to censorship and attacking the freedom of speech in the United States that is guaranteed under the Constitution.
And for him now to ally with someone who is seen to be on the other side simply because of that W.
W.EF connection.
is problematic because we are still just growing our affection for Twitter again
and growing our trust with Twitter because of Elon's efforts
and it's the wrong time to bring someone into the fold
who has a problematic connection to the WF. That's all I'm saying. I don't know too much about
the details about this person. I've seen a couple of tweets of people with concerning revelations
about her being a vaccination extremist, you know, masks extremists and have showcased some of her
tweets and some of the videos that she's made in the past. She is part of
the system that
that we are trying to fight.
And that is something that Elon really needs to consider
because love and hate are very closely related.
If he makes a mistake here and this person comes on board
and all of a sudden we have more censorship again,
more shadow banning again,
everyone is going to blame Elon
and is going to affect him in a great way.
So he needs to be considerate about opinions
that see this as an unlawful
unnecessary move. The market for talent is huge. He can find people that don't have this kind of
baggage. And he would be well advised to do that. I mean, I will say, hold on, I will say that, you know, there is a
There can be people out there, Kim, that disagree with you on things like vaccines and masks and how COVID was handled, given the fact that we have complete uncertainty about everything.
And still believe in freedom of speech and the ability to run a platform effectively.
You know, it is actually possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
But, Joe, I wanted to give you a chance to jump in here.
Do you mind if I just...
Okay.
I just want to ask this about Kim because, okay, so you're saying, all right, so this task force, right?
And the precursor task force was the global future councils.
So like the one I'm on is the task force of the Metaverse.
And before that, it was the global future councils on VR, AR.
And, you know, before.
And if you look at the LinkedIn, if you were to believe that,
2019, right?
So that's just before COVID.
After COVID, by the way, these task forces, all we've done is gone on these Zoom calls and talked, you know,
You know, I mean, you know how these Zoom calls go with like, you know, 30 people on it or 20 people or, you know, even just a few people.
I think everyone's familiar with that.
You know, before that in the Global Future Councils, we'd actually go every year to Dubai and, you know, you know, Shaq Muhammad would actually, you know, host us.
And it was actually kind of an interesting, you know, I hadn't been before, by the way.
Yeah, quickly, my friend.
We got that.
Yeah.
So I'd say that, so the question that I have is since 2019, you know,
you know, this person has been part of something for just a few years.
I actually agree with you on the media side, though I don't want to, you know,
I don't want to, you know, innocent and until proven guilty, right?
But, you know, this individual has been with NBC Universal for almost 12 years.
And before that with Turner for 20 years, right?
Establishing media, I think Donish has been talking about this.
Kim, you've been talking about this.
I think I actually agree with your position, Kim, on that.
Though, again, I don't want to.
you know, you know, try to throw vitriol about somebody about their job before they're even
confirmed to be in the job. But I am also, you know, somewhat disappointed. I don't want to
express that disappointment without having this person be able to, you know, see what they can do. But as
I expressed before, I think, you know, something more like ownership and Web 3, you know,
is sort of the ethos there, and I'm excited about that.
That's what Ethan was doing and this sort of return to establishment on the media side doesn't excite me.
But, like, what, like, Kim, you're complaining about something that is, okay, this person's been four years on something that hasn't honestly been doing that much because of COVID versus like 30 years in traditional media.
Like, shouldn't we be focusing more on that?
Let's say you love or hate the web, right?
I'm not even saying anything about what you think about that, but why are we talking about...
some like side gig when we should be focusing on the 30 years of history of this individual right
isn't that the reason why people are feeling like that is because no offense to the web three people
uh and by the way i bc incubates web three and ai companies so i again as you know i don't believe as much
in web three as some of you all do but you know ultimately that is not what's scaring people
like the whole world is not worried about the fact
that Web 3 is not taking off in this situation.
The reason why people are freaking out is because people like many of the people that are
listening to us, I see Doc and a few others, were kicked off the platform because they had a
dissenting view.
Now, I disagree with their view.
Doc down there knows that I disagree with his view, and Doc will have you up in a second.
But I was going to say that, you know, ultimately...
I disagree with a lot of views, but I'm willing to let people have those views out in public.
And I don't think that there is something wrong with having this conversation around it.
And I think that's really what people are freaking out about.
And W.EF, I think that's a little bit of a red herring.
I think the bigger red herring.
the bigger conversation needs to be around
should he have gone after somebody
who came from that part of the political spectrum
and also in terms of the freedom
if we were going to make a spectrum on freedom
where does she really sit
and I think it's time to start having that conversation
because Elon talked a lot of shit when he came on board
and this does not jive with that sort of thought process
Joe, go ahead
If I may, just really quick, before Joea speaks.
Kim, if it's okay, let Joa speak and then we'll go to the book for the right now.
The problem is I have to leave.
Give me one more minutes.
Give Kim, give Kim a quick minute.
Kim, go ahead.
We'd love to hear from you.
Go ahead, man.
Okay, so I think here's what's really important, what everyone needs to understand.
Twitter right now for a lot of people is a beacon of hope.
Okay.
When you watched Tucker's last video, he said, this is the last place where free speech is still alive.
This is why he is choosing this platform for his future work, right?
This is significant.
Why take the risk?
to put someone in charge of this organization that is associated with the WEF.
It just doesn't make any sense.
You know, people expect better.
They want to see a candidate that is just as pro-freedom, pro-free speech, as Elon says he is,
and I don't believe that Linda is that person.
Now, I've never met her.
I'm sure she's going to participate in some spaces and answer some questions.
At least that's what I would expect Elon would do.
And I hope this decision isn't final.
And it's something that he can still, you know, look at after this criticism,
which I see is growing on Twitter right now.
I think the opinions that are out there are much more negative than in favor of this candidate.
Thanks, Kim.
Appreciate you coming up.
Joe, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean,
Elon is a great businessman.
He's obviously about making money.
Typically, purpose is something you use.
I've worked in this area for 20 years.
For example, Airbnb was tied with Home Away until they came up with, live like a local.
Purpose is really important.
And that's something Elon does in all his companies.
So when Tesla is about getting the planet off petroleum and stop polluting the planet,
It works and it takes off and you and you're and you believe in the mission.
But then he also made rockets, which are the biggest polluters there are,
and we're launching more rockets today than ever before.
So is that really his purpose in creating Tesla?
No, it's about making money, right?
So this whole thing about, oh, I'm going to launch a platform for free speech.
He doesn't care about free speech.
He bans people because they've said things that he doesn't like.
Him himself has banned people.
So it's not about free speech.
It's about making money.
This woman, Linda...
It has a humor that's very similar to Elon.
That's probably why they got along.
She streamlined the sales process.
She created innovative advertising models.
She integrated digital.
She's very data-driven.
She's well-known in the marketing area.
She can bring innovation to Twitter on how to monetize online.
the platform.
And that's one of the biggest problems Elon has.
That's why he's bringing her on.
He's not bringing her on to, like,
maybe can stop free speech.
Yeah, he wants it open,
but he has shown himself that he's not 100% about free speech.
Joe, can I push back for one quick second?
So, you know, do you know the commentary that she made to Elon on stage?
Did you have a chance to read through that?
She literally asked for an influence council of advertisers
that would regularly interact with Twitter's leadership.
And so the only pushback I'll give is that, yes, yes, he wants to make money.
He believes that capitalism is the tool that drives innovation.
Money is good.
You can't have a double bottom line.
You can.
It is actually possible.
And I do want to be honest about the fact that.
The reason why SpaceX exists is not to save the environment is to build a multi-planetary species.
The reason why Tesla exists is to accelerate the innovation to sustainable infrastructure.
You know, the reason why all these companies and spaceling exist so that people can't just cut off your internet like they have in Pakistan right now.
I just want to be honest about the fact that while he is kind of contradicting himself across the board,
What he has done is he builds vectors, these companies that are focused on one primary goal,
and they're willing to do whatever it takes along the way to get there.
The money part of it is the thing that sustains the engine.
You need fuel.
And I, but talking about her, I, again, for people that don't know this, when Kim was up here, I disagree with so much.
I don't think there's some, some big cabal that works together to fucking do all this shit.
Like, there are bad people in this world and they do bad things because incentives align.
But, but ultimately, it's not, it's not this big thing.
It's just people are chasing a goal and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get to.
that. That's actually like the...
On your point, you know, I just wanted to interrupt.
You know, Twitter is about free speech.
And, you know, if you listen to Elon himself, explain it.
He doesn't see a future without free speech, right?
If we don't have the ability to communicate it freely, we cannot innovate.
We cannot be creative.
We cannot have a say in anything.
That's why Twitter exists.
That's why he's taking...
Ian, so sorry to cut you off.
Breaking news.
Linda Yakorino actually resigned from her position.
Yeah, that's not really...
Go ahead.
30 minutes ago.
But yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Go ahead, Ian.
Yeah, yeah, no, like Twitter.
Yeah, to your point, to your point, Ian, what you're saying, like, I think it goes further than what you're saying.
I don't think people, free speech is really important.
Problem is because of AI...
Yeah, I recently saw a video and it just made so much sense where they were saying, if China really wanted to attack America, just give everyone a Trump and a Biden filter with a voice modulator that makes them sound like them. And then you don't know who the hell is talking. Right. So like.
Human verification is extremely important.
I think the platform is extremely important.
I think X will become almost like an identity wallet type thing.
I think you need someone like Linda,
whose their entire career has been very innovative
on how you monetize those kind of things.
And I think that's what it's about.
It's not about the...
the free speech that everyone keeps talking about it.
It's part of it, right?
She's coming here because she has a tie.
I think you're on to something here.
It is part of it.
It's just a layer.
It's just a layer.
That's all.
And I wanted to go to Amy.
Amy's had her hand up for like ever.
And I apologize, Amy.
Go ahead, Amy.
I want to give you a chance to speak.
Thank you, doctor.
You know, I want to be very transparent up front and just say,
My background is actually in media.
I started my career in broadcast media at Fox News.
And I was in the Washington, D.C. Bureau during the infamous bombshell era.
So I, to say I have a somewhat jaded view of how large media conglomerates operate,
is putting it lightly because I was living that experience sort of,
it felt sort of otherworldly to be in an environment where I was learning the ropes
of how a large media company operates and how they sort of produce and generate the news.
While at the same time, there was sort of this growing louder and louder but unspoken
serious news reality happening at the Bureau behind the scenes that people were to an extent aware
that there was something going on. But this was years and years before any of the lawsuits
were filed and anybody actually came forward. But I was there when it was happening and nobody was
allowed to talk about it and I saw how, you know, a large media company responded to a situation
like that. And I think to me it's not a political thing. I, you know, went from there to
to write for the Huffington Post, which is a completely other end of this political spectrum. So I've,
I've had sides on both of the political ends of the media experience. But I'm
I think when you're looking at this particular situation, when it comes to free speech, the issue I see is that I think hiring a new CEO from this large media conglomerate background, she's probably going to improve the platform in terms of monetization.
It's probably going to be a better experience for content creators.
It's probably going to be more profitable.
It's going to move in that direction that offers a lot of positives for people.
But I think there's going to be a little bit of a price that you pay that's always paid in free speech.
Whenever you're talking about ad money, whenever you're talking about eyeballs, whenever you're talking about what's required to get to that profitability.
I think money is always the bottom line.
And the people who have it are inevitably who these media conglomerates have to sort of cater to.
And, you know, to me, it's not really an issue of politics or WEF.
It's really just an issue of capitalism and money and how that juxtaposes against free speech.
And my concern coming from my background is I don't want to see this become a platform where it chips a little bit away, a little bit just at the edges at free speech.
And to do that just because it's going to make it more profitable.
You know, I wanted to, on that note, you know, I wanted to pivot the conversation to what this means coming and the timing of this.
So interestingly, the timing of this comes.
after uh jami diamond talks about people on twitter if they tweet and pump and dump stocks
they should go to jail interesting two we just had tucker carlson say that he's exclusively
going to be using twitter as a video streaming platform and we'll have weekly shows and then three
to me the the biggest one we have an upcoming election
And I find these three things to be very interesting that he went with somebody, again, that came from the mainstream media side of things.
Let's start with the Jamie Diamond thing is interesting, but I just think that he was, you know, I will say nobody in this country has more power when it comes to financial decision making of the government than Jamie Diamond.
I feel like he's he choreographs a lot of things with the government, which is very interesting.
These people who do pump him dumbstocks.
They're scam artists.
They should go to jail.
They should go to jail for fraud.
Interesting.
Ian did not expect that from you.
Very interesting.
So that's where freedom ends.
Is that where freedom ends?
I mean,
I mean,
if you're calling people,
you're breaking the law,
right?
you're scamming people out of their savings or livelihoods.
I don't think that should be allowed.
A lot of them,
I mean,
some of them have been prosecuted,
which is good.
Someone's,
in someone's mind,
a pump and dump is another one
buying and selling stock,
right?
Like,
You know, let's say, you know, like people, they make all these shit coins, right?
And they're not real, right?
They're put on the F20 platform and they just rip people off and then they just run away.
I mean, that should be a crime.
I mean, it is a crime.
But it is a crime.
I think that the fiduciary responsibilities go a lot deeper than that.
Like when I alluded to the pension structures in Canada and their investments within the actual crypto worlds,
it was a lack of fiduciary responsibilities to your actual clients and beneficiaries within those structures.
And essentially to then have this prospect that I'm going to create a standardized portfolio within my asset classes in,
and create a lack of competitiveness since ZERP, so essentially since 2010-2008 after the great global financial crisis,
it created this huge complexity of lack of competition and lack of price discovery
in the sense that the majority of these portfolios is, again, I'm going to be redundant, standardized.
Everyone is invested in the same vessels.
47% of all stock participation currently is within passive structures.
And that implies the Schwab's Fidelity and Vanguard's, and specifically the Nasdaqs, Dow Jones, and the actual S&P 500.
And we understand the actual implications that that implies, right?
Tesla and all of these other forms of Apple, Google, and Amazon are seeing the majority of the actual price action because these vessels support inflows and or outflows towards these actual stocks and or these sectors within the stock market.
I should be more accurate.
To your point, David,
like I was around in the dot-com bubble
and when that burst.
And,
Amazon went from 135 back down the $5.
And when they were at 135,
everyone was saying the same thing they were saying about Tesla at the top saying,
it's more valuable than every bookstore in the world.
How is that possible?
People are crazy.
But nothing actually changed at Amazon.
They were still adding millions of users a year.
Nothing actually changed with the,
company the stock is a sentiment and you're right like there is a very fine line between what is a pump and dump
And what is a Charles Swap broker calling up his clients and saying, hey, I think you should buy this thing?
Or even someone else just giving an opinion like on CNBC.
There's a really fine line.
And I think that fine line is, do you own it?
Are you transparent about owning it or not?
And that's, I think, the difference that doesn't exist today.
And this happens a lot in crypto, but the same exact thing happens with stock.
Yeah, he was talking specifically about banking stocks more than crypto, just to be clear.
Go ahead.
Hold on.
I got it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, and I love you.
I want to make it very clear, though, what the difference is, right?
So between these two different things that Jamie Diamond said in a pump and dump.
So pump and dump.
You know, I mentioned much earlier in the space that, you know, there's been like financial fraud.
Basically, the history of finance is a history of fraud where people, where the innovation gets ahead of things.
And then people, you know, realize the issues with it.
And then they regulate it.
Then it becomes a safe product.
And it creates value for the world.
Pump and dumps have been illegal in the U.S. since 1933, the Securities Act of 1933.
And what it specifically is, is if somebody or group,
like pumps up something like today you mentioned you know these these sort of nefarer these sort of like
crappy crypto assets you know you pump it up and then you sell it right so you're pumping up the
price so that you can sell it that's just straight up illegal at least in the united states and
there's different you know different things in around the world what jamie diamond saying
is very different what jamie diamond is saying is a short seller meaning somebody who's going
short the stock betting against it should be punished
if they then say, hey, I'm shorting it for this reason, right?
That's a very different thing.
A pump of them is somebody who's trying to actively commit fraud.
A short seller might truly believe whether wrongly or rightly that a stock is bad, right?
Right.
and then they advertise their position, right?
They're just saying, hey, look, I think this is a bad stock.
I think SVB has, you know, too much duration risk, right?
Like what Jamie Diamond is saying is very different than a pump and dump.
What he's saying is somebody who believes something and takes that position and then tweets about it should be prosecuted.
I think that's.
I think that's so guys I mean you know I just want to think one time is behind that sorry I'm going to go to you just a point of clarification because we have received some comments on this
Linda, what's her name, Linda Yakorino, she hasn't resigned from Twitter because she's not
been signed yet. She's resigned from her mainstream media position. And obviously that's
clearly because she plans to sign with Twitter as CEO. So just a clarification. But yeah,
if you've got any more comments, it's bottom, right inside corner, click on it, comment.
We are reading through them. Anything that's brilliant, we will bring it up to the stage and ask
the panel questions. Go ahead, David. Sorry, I interrupted.
Thank you.
It's fine. And I think one of the brilliant conversation we should go back to is the Aspen
institution four years ago with the Jamie Diamond specifically alluding to certain circumstances
that would arise in inflationary context, specifically giving context to let's say the banking
compression and where rates should be. And I think that EYC brings a good point in the sense that
my question to you is, do we now consider these short sellers with
in substantial proof of claims towards, let's say, a position within a bank fraudulent activity.
On a fiduciary level, he's suggesting Jamie Diamond is at this point,
that that is a lack of fiduciary responsibility,
specifically when we're looking at individuals that have, let's say, standardized
and or even credibility within these realms.
And so on that point, it would almost be alluding to, let's say, a
pump and dump and it creates this whole idea where there's a synonymity between both
developments within market participation or market manipulation. So I just want to at
I wouldn't want to use the word pivot, but I just want to bring up Mario's post.
And Danish alluded to this, this back and forth.
And in there, what it said is, Yacarino, what she wanted was,
or what she requested in that exchange with Musk was a reinstatement of an influence council
for advertisers to regularly interact with Twitter's leadership.
So, like, again, what is this influence council that existed before?
That is now going to exist again, Ian.
Ian, you might know a bit more about this.
So go ahead, bro.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's basically a board of directors.
So that's what it is.
Like, we were able before to speak directly to Twitter's executives,
say this is what they want or want to see on their platform.
It doesn't necessarily mean that they get to, you know,
make decisions, right? I mean, I'm not talking about the influence council, obviously,
they're executives. I don't mean that, what I mean is that the advertisers don't have the
ability to control Twitter, but rather, you know, provide input. Right now, the only person,
the only point of contact that they have is Elon. That's difficult for him to just like interact
with them and then run the company at the same time, do technical, you know, production stuff,
you know, and also, you know, manages other companies.
He's running multiple companies at the same time.
So it kind of makes sense.
I don't know if he's going to go with it.
I mean, if anything, she's probably going to be the sole point of contact to these advertisers,
or at least she'll maybe have like, you know, a couple of people that she appoints.
to help her run, you know, to communicate advertisers.
But that's not really the, like, the concern, right?
I think the problem with the previous influence council,
if you want to call them that,
is that they were staffed, right, by ideologues, right?
People who 100% say, yeah, we need to censor free speech.
We don't care about free speech.
We just want to make money.
That is obviously a concern.
But with, you know, the fact is Elon is the executive chairman.
You know, like, if...
If she would have made a decision that he doesn't like, he can always shut it down.
So, people need to keep up.
I mean, she's someone who's clearly based on some of the posts that are coming out about her,
some of the videos that she's been participating.
She seems like she's an ideologue.
What's going to stop her from?
Not really, no.
I mean, do you know that she served on Trump's fitness council?
She's a conservative.
Like, you know, sometimes, yeah, you're going to have some opinions.
Maybe you talk on a podcast and say that, hey, you know, it'd be cool if you did X, Y, and Z.
But it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I mean, she worked for Trump.
So I'm not super concerned about this.
I mean, in fact that she is a conservative, if you look at her timeline, she's a Christian.
And this is not something that, you know, your typical WF ideologue is going to be, right?
They're typically going to be, I would say, anti-religious, not even non-religious, but anti-religious.
They're going to be pro-sensorship.
She doesn't seem to be that way.
So I'm not really sure what the concern is.
Like, I think people are blowing this out of proportion.
They just see WF and you think a lizard person.
I don't think she's a lizard person at all.
I think that she has worked in the mainstream media and obviously the WEF is a way for.
I mean, Mario has gone to the W.F.
Right?
And people might say, oh, this is WEF counsel.
Right here, you know, like this is a WF space here.
No, it's not.
Don't be attacking my boy.
He's come back to the light now.
He's anti-establishment.
I don't, like, yeah, she is a part of the establishment that needs to be mentioned.
But.
Yeah.
look at what her job was at NBC. It wasn't to do it programming. It was to do it advertising. And she did
massively grow peacock. It came out from nothing, right? And it's a success. And it'd be nice to
see her transform Twitter into a success as well, you know, with advertisers, of content and the ability
to manage content creators. I think that's the one thing, the biggest thing, not the one thing, but the
biggest thing that Twitter right now is currently lacking is that Elon is this whole point of
contact for content creators. That shouldn't be the case, right? He's the guy running the show. He should
not be the guy that you have to talk to in order to get something done. I mean, he wants to work
on product, and you have to have someone who's actually in charge of this stuff. And she seems,
you know, like the qualifications, they speak for themselves. So, I mean, you take the WF thing
out of it. And suddenly, you've got a pretty damn competent...
CEO type person, right?
Someone who can actually manage advertisers and manage content creators and grow the platform
to be as big, if not bigger than YouTube, right?
Look at YouTube.
There's still some free speech on there and it's more or less staffed completely by woke
people.
So, you know, money does speak, right?
They're not banning Tim Poole.
They could, right?
They could do that, but they're not doing that.
And there's a reason for that.
And Twitter is a freer version of that.
I'm not worried about it at all.
What's up?
Can I tie together something Dinesh said and you said?
Because I think it's important in this space
because so often we talk about this like,
this council that runs the world.
And I always find it really ridiculous.
If you're in Russia, you don't believe in the establishment.
You have basically a dictator.
And then here in America, it's capital driven.
All models have negatives and positives, right?
So about the COVID vaccine and people pushing it, yeah, there's pharmacies behind it that
one to sell their medication.
that's the sales guy and the person in charge of marketing has a x amount of budget to push it that's
their job that's capitalism right everyone looks out for their own self-interest and they do what will
benefit them monetarily that's what happens and that's why the wef which looks at money and capital
everyone hates so much
But that's also what drives innovation.
That's why you get the salaries you have.
That's why you have the spending capital you have and live the life you do is because of capitalism.
So you can't hate it on one side and love it on the other and be like,
Oh, the bad side is just this, you know, this invisible counsel that rules the world.
No, it's just people lining up that have similar motives.
And sometimes it's negative.
Sometimes it's not.
But it's people trying to fill their job.
That's all it is.
It has nothing to do with like some guy pulling the levers.
Right?
So trying to make the WF as this like evil overlord I think is ridiculous sometimes.
No, but look, we've already, we've only heard about her in a,
it's only been a few hours there's also for example videos about her she's
yeah people freaking out no i mean i mean look look at this one she's saying
about the mask she's saying mask up or pack up so that shows the level of ideal ideological
it's not really um no i mean it is it is a pro masker i was a pro masker in the early days right
and and this is an old video this is from like very early 2020 when she said this
Everyone believed that masks worked because we didn't have the studies showing that they don't.
But did you want to ban people, Ian? I don't know, because I don't know.
She's in which.
And she was from New York. She's in mind as well.
Not but Ian, did you want to ban and censor people?
No, of course not.
And so she's saying mask up or pack up, she's literally wants to ban and censor people.
Yeah, but she's in New York, right?
Yeah.
It doesn't matter. Where she's from, that shows her level of censorship.
She could be in, she could be in the mask.
I don't think so. I didn't, she didn't call for that.
I mean, it's like you're living in New York and everyone's supposed to, you know, like we're all in this together.
Remember that slogan that everybody was saying that we all had to wear masks?
If not, they don't work.
I mean, that makes sense, right?
And obviously nobody wore masks in the end anyway.
And so it was totally pointless.
But so so things things evolved right like so like people's opinions back then evolved throughout the years as COVID wore on and we've found out new information.
I think it's right.
That's why that's not the point.
Brian, a person's position can involve no problem.
I understand that you get more information.
But it's the way you present.
So like right now a new thing happens.
Let's say a new pandemic,
alleged pandemic happens
or a new situation happens.
The way people reacted at the beginning
will demonstrate how they'll react
in that new situation.
Now, there could be...
So someone wanting to mask up,
no problem.
I understand it.
Peer pressure,
whatever it may be,
they may believe it,
no problem.
But to basically try and censor other people,
say if you mask up,
you need a pack-up
and these type of slogans.
It wasn't censoring you want to.
It was just saying mask up back up.
It depends on a narrative that's being sold.
I mean, that's a slogan, isn't it?
What does it mean about pack-up?
But, well, so, so when...
Get out of New York, basically.
And I don't...
So you want to excommunicate someone from New York.
But, but...
But all depends on the severity narratives that are being sold.
Because when we first saw COVID come around, I mean, they released videos of people in China dropping on the floor on the ground and just kind of dying or being suffocated from this unknown disease that we didn't know about.
So when people are afraid and when there's fearmongering and a narrative of, you know,
depends what kind of media you're looking into, pushes a certain narrative.
You may want to follow the status quo.
You may want to follow the status quo.
You may want to wear a mask.
But that doesn't mean that once statistical research comes out and these certain things are debunked, people's ideologies can't change.
Yeah.
I'm keeping in mind that Trump was the one who pushed the vaccines.
And people don't hold him accountable for that.
No, no, it's not about you wanting to mask up.
I have no issue.
Like, someone can put a mask on, someone can not put a mask on, whatever it may be.
But essentially, if you want to, as Ian said, you want to excommunicate someone from New York,
because you need to leave because they don't agree with your ideology, that is,
It wasn't an ideology that was a health issue.
It's not the ideology.
It was the law.
Yeah, and it was literally the law.
In New York, he had to wear a mask, right?
They had a masking rule.
Like, if you took off your mask in a restaurant or something,
they would kick you out.
That's just the law.
They would arrest.
Yeah, but why was it, again, why did that become the law?
Because the CDC says that,
and Trump was all on board with this.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, like, how can you have the mainstream media.
Well, well, I agree about Trump.
Like, you should never have done any of this vaccine stuff,
but the problem is,
is in addition to that,
you had the mainstream media
propagating the situation
to such an extent,
which she was a part of,
and essentially,
as part of that,
I wouldn't say that.
I mean,
she's not making the comments
in a vacuum.
Yeah.
it's clearly not the case i mean like you know everyone was saying it like i mean
i mean everyone wasn't saying there's a lot of people who got banned there was a
making a programming i mean everyone was well the doctors were the one saying put on a damn
mask no no repetitive doctors were getting banned on social media for disagreements
solomon in new york city no one was an anti back here in the beginning a lot of people
were dying no one was an anti mask wear like
No one.
Everyone's like,
you're saying that because
everyone
They were full.
Like people were dying
left and right.
I mean,
people seemed to forget about this.
But,
you know,
hospitals were completely full.
That did happen.
I mean,
yes,
some hospitals in America were empty.
But the ones in New York,
they were really,
really packed because,
you know,
it's a packed city.
And many of them
It wasn't.
It was all propaganda.
It was propaganda.
It was propaganda.
It wasn't all propaganda.
It wasn't all propaganda.
No, like we've had doctors on the stage who can tell us, right, that it wasn't propaganda.
Yeah, so I can give you a, not so, for example, I looked at the data, specifically in the United Kingdom, but it clearly showed that all this drama about hospitals being overwhelmed was something that happened.
happens every year because again, in the UK is the NHS, in the UK, in America, you know, the medical system, it is overwhelmed. It is, it hasn't, doesn't have enough funding. It is in winter times does have over. It has a situation where it's overwhelmed. It was just dramatized by the mainstream media.
and it was done to propagate this idea.
It wasn't the mainstream media.
It was propagated on social media.
All those videos of, you know, the morgues being full
and that they had to have like mobile units, you know,
to dispose of the bodies.
I mean, that was happening.
That was being posted not on the mainstream media.
It was on social media.
I was on social media.
I saw it on social media.
And it was just a fog of war.
Solomon, I actually went to,
I actually had an argument with the best friend,
and we actually went to these hospitals that were supposedly full.
Some that they were saying were full, we're not full.
Some that they were saying was full, were full.
But there was an excess amount of death.
And the media always, always dramatizes things.
That's how they get people to watch their show.
So that's just part of the course.
Now, did they overdo it?
Yeah, don't they overdo everything?
Don't they always oversell?
isn't the left not going to say look the establishment is coming to Twitter
and all the on the right they're going to say
finally we're going to have a liberal at Twitter like
did anyone notice they're going to dramatize everything did it
Did anyone notice that during the time of the height of COVID, the cause of death for many deaths was listed as COVID when it was not actually the fact?
Yeah, and we did know that.
Yeah, my father passed away and it wasn't from cancer because his lungs filled up with water, but it was from the cancer.
So do you see what I mean?
Like that happens all the time.
There are illnesses that.
have effects that you don't wind up dying from the COVID.
You wind up dying for what it did to you and it causes other things.
That happens with a lot of diseases.
And so another one of her videos coming out is obviously some people agree with it.
Some one, Ian won't agree with us.
She said in terms of her hiring policy, that she commended the seat,
she praised Jeff Shell and Brian Roberts.
for their hiring policy.
And she said that it's because it's fighting social justice and equality.
And she commended her company for hiring 50% of women and 50% of people of color.
So again, it shows that's again ideological.
When you're hiring practices are different.
I think that.
So I think that what people are missing is that Elon owns the vast,
vast majority of shares.
He's going to be the chairman of the board.
If he doesn't like something,
It's not like she's going to say, hey, I'm going to do this anyway.
He's going to have tremendous pool.
So I think that's really important to understand as well.
Yeah, I think I think I think I'm actually to build on that.
From a corporate, from a corporate governor's perspective, this person has never been CEO.
So I think the odd thing, right, regardless of what you think about her affiliations or whatever, right?
But if you're looking at, hey, I'm going to fill a company that used to be public.
that has lots of employees.
I mean, obviously, you know, the employee base has been decimated.
Normally, unless you get somebody from the inside who's been, like, you know, on Twitter for like 20, 30 years, it is odd, right?
And this is why I posed a question earlier.
Is this person actually CEO?
Do people here actually think this person's going to be, like, CEO in name only?
Yeah, it's a figure-hit position, right?
I mean, it's some, I mean, obviously she has her tasks to deal with advertisers, which is her primary job, right?
I'm not...
concerned that, you know, oh, she's going to start some DEI group within Twitter.
I mean, if she would do that, Elon would shut it down instantly.
He shut the one down at SpaceX, right?
When they tried to start something up like that, some, you know, mid-level managers start to start a DEI group in SpaceX
and then they complained about him a lot and said his tweets are bad.
He fired all of them.
So, you know, like Elon isn't someone who like refuses to backtrack, you know, like he will back, he will literally reverse course if he needs to.
Like this is not a guy who who believes in like the sunk cost fallacy.
He doesn't do that.
He doesn't do that mistake where a lot of leaders, they make a bad decision and they just go with it all the way until it just collapses completely.
Right.
A lot of CEOs do that.
He's not.
a guy who does that. I mean, you look at his own projects with launching rockets.
You know, he blows them up so that they can fail faster.
That's literally the reason why his rockets blow up is because he pushes them to the limit,
and then they blow up, and then he gets to reiterate and design a new rocket.
And it's the same thing here on Twitter, and maybe she's a bad hire. I don't know, right?
I mean, we have to see. We have to wait and see, give it a chance.
And if she's a bad hire, you know, it's like the rocket blowing up fast,
and then he's just going to hire somebody else.
Like, you know, people seem to forget that Tesla and SpaceX have gone through different leadership before, right, before they landed on the current situation, which they have great leaders now.
But before, they did go through all these things.
Sarah, go ahead.
Yeah, Ian, did you just say that you thought that this was, that her hiring was, that she was just a figure had, that she wasn't.
That she wouldn't have any real power?
Was that what you did?
No, no, no, that's not what I meant.
I mean, like, she doesn't have, like, hiring capabilities.
She can't change the company policy, right?
I mean, his mandate is on free speech, and he has said this repeatedly.
And even today, when he was responding to Luke, what's his face, right?
The...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You responded to him and said,
this is not going to be the case.
They're not going to be banned for your free speech.
So I'm not concerned about that.
She's not going to just be able to, you know, reverse the rules and say,
hey, no more free speech can't mock the WEF, no more commentary on Klaus Schwab.
You know, I'd rather well ban you.
That's not going to happen.
Like, I don't see that happening at all.
He's still the guy in charge.
He's still the executive chairman.
And he is the CTO at the same time, right?
Well, how long do you think that?
And Sarah, what I was saying was posting it was posting it as a question, right?
Like, I'm not even, like, and I agree with Ian.
Like, let's let's give this individual if they are into into, indeed, be the CEO of Twitter.
Let's get them a chance.
But absolutely.
I really would love to give them a chance.
But are they, are they?
No, but then the question is, E.R.C.
I'm not to ask a question.
I wanted to know how long.
No, but, no, but Ian.
willing to give her a chance?
Weeks, months, a year?
No, but Sarah, the question, the concern is this,
the way she sounds like,
and we're just getting certain videos on,
give Twitter another week,
and we'd have a lot of more information on her.
Essentially, she sounds like she is the Yol Roth
to, you know, to, you know, to...
I don't think so. I disagree with that.
I mean, she's...
I mean, her high...
Really, Salamon.
You think her.
The hiring practices...
I still am at she she hasn't hired anyone before in the past because no no she said she said that she said a company should have 50 she was praising her boss you know people stuck up to their boss all the time you know you know but she may not even necessarily agree the decision no but she said she's proud of the fact that we got 50% women and 50% you know like well no you shouldn't hire based on them ideas I want to own a lot anyone
I want to land his point, Salaman.
So the problem right now that what you're seeing is they're seeing a one-sided narrative being driven by a number of people on Twitter, right?
Like Amuse, for example.
I like the guy, I like his account, you know, but he's the one putting out all these videos.
He put a pretty compelling narrative about her, right?
That makes people turn against her.
I get it.
You know, I watch it.
I'm concerned.
But...
Keep in mind, that's a narrative. That's a one-sided picture.
Why don't we show videos, I mean, if someone's got a lot of time for it, you know, show the videos of her talking about free speech, show all her interviews that she's done, show the play the long-form video that she had that interview with Elon Musk, which is doing the whole back and forth thing.
Show that whole video, and then you can portray a complete different picture.
You could do the same thing about Trump. You could do the same thing about DeSantis. You could do the same thing about...
Maybe not Joe Biden.
The guy's a clown.
But like for a lot of people, you can easily create a narrative, whether they're good or bad, that they support your ideas, that they hate your ideas.
I mean, I've seen videos where people are trying to portray Zelensky as this kind of war hero.
And clearly we all, I mean, most people in this channel, I would say, Lleiman, right?
You would disagree that he's like some war hero that he's doing great for his country.
You probably think he's a grifter.
I think he's a grifter, right?
But you can easily, right, I've seen NAFO videos where they portray him as like this enigmatic leader because all they do is they remove all the criticism of him and they show all the good things that he has done for his country, right?
They do that.
You see Russians do the same thing with their leaders, you know, and it's like...
China, obviously, they're probably the best of it.
You know, when they promote Xi Jinping,
they're going to portray him in like the best light possible.
They're not going to include any of the negative criticism about him.
But likewise, vice versa, you can also create a very evil narrative about someone.
You can say that Putin's probably the worst leader that Russia's ever had,
by showing all the mainstream media coverage of him, by saying that, oh, he's a dictator, he's an evil person, he's never done anything good for the Russian people.
You could very easily create that narrative by simply selecting clips and selecting certain news articles about this person, right?
Or even selecting certain speeches where they sound like they support something bad.
right? It's very easy to do that.
And it's the same thing I see happening to Linda right now,
where people are selectively clipping interviews of hers that she has done,
where she says something that we would probably disagree with.
And now they portrayed her as this W.E.F. Stoge, this disciple of Klaus Schwab.
I don't think her track record speaks to that at all.
I don't think that's true at all.
Like, she's not, she's not, you know,
Christopher Freeland, you know, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, you could very easily do that and you wouldn't even have to try very hard because she is legitimately, you know, a stooge of the W.F and Klaus Schwab and so on. I mean, she's the, what, biographer of George Soros, for example, right? This woman, Linda, is not that person. I mean, we got to stop looking at her through this very narrow lens and actually...
get a broader scope, a broader vision of who she is, what she actually does, what she did for NBC.
And right now, like, just looking at her resume, just looking at the work she's done with Peacock,
she brought a tremendous success to that company.
I don't think people have a bad word to say about her.
And on top of that, she has worked with the Trump administration before.
She's served on his fitness council.
So, I mean, that speaks a lot to her character that she's willing to work, you know, like some would say across the aisle.
I would say that she's actually conservative.
Ian, what was the fitness council?
I think that's a leadership council for Trump.
I think it.
When I was reading, I've only had a quick read,
but it looked like it got hard to do with COVID and propagate in COVID.
Yeah, I mean, you brought a lot of...
Ian, you brought up a really good point.
I just want to add to it because I think it's really, really crucial.
You're talking about editing video the way you want to portray it.
And I want to reiterate that people do that because of their party politics, right?
So if you're on the right, you ignore the fact that Ivanka got...
a ton of patents from China after having dinner with the leader.
You clip out of your memory the fact that Jared got $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.
And then if you're on the left, you clip out, you know,
who is the big guy that got the check in that ledger?
You clip out the Hunter Biden laptop.
And that's what happens.
These people would party politics.
edit their own image and don't take in all the data.
So people are doing this to themselves because of the party politics.
And what I implore people to do is stop the party politics and just look at the entire picture.
This isn't about party politics.
Joe, this isn't about party politics.
Joe, Elon Musk.
It is.
No, no, no.
One second.
It is. One second. No, it's not. No, it's not. So essentially...
Yeah, let me finish my point, please.
So it's not about party politics. This is about Twitter. We all believe in...
We all, to an extent, obviously, I disagree with some aspects of what Elon's done, banning certain people.
Without there being a specific policy, but generally speaking,
we're all happy with the direction Twitter's going, generally speaking, both in terms of free speech and both into also in terms of...
you know, the additions that happen are just brilliant, right?
It's for that reason that a lot of us are thinking,
let's not even waste our time with other social media platforms
and just focus on here.
So let me get that straight.
Now, when someone from...
who has links to the WEF, has links to the mainstream media,
has certain ideological positions, although you may disagree.
That's what people are thinking, and that's what I think is coming across quite consistently.
I'd love for Ian to do a counter thread and should demonstrate maybe her alternative positions.
But essentially, when you've got that, the concern is, and I know we mentioned this Ian before,
someone like Brian won't get banned.
Probably someone like me won't get banned.
But somebody who's more closer to the line,
already
but on
Elon
Musil.
I'm on
the line.
So, I am on the line, and guess what?
She follows me.
I mean, you're not on the line, Ian.
You just talk about...
I am totally on the line.
You're not.
You're not.
I post statistics.
I post...
You know, I'm one of the noticers, right?
As you might call them.
And I post these statistics.
And people say those statistics are racist.
I'm like, Dad, I cannot be racist.
They can't because they can't.
I mean, again, that's not the line.
Like, Elon agrees with you online.
That's literally...
Saliman.
Try doing that on YouTube.
To answer your question.
No, no, but Elon agrees with you.
He regularly propagates those type of tweets.
so you're not on the line
you're agreeing with the guy in charge
they're just going to censor all of us because
you know like if this was YouTube or Facebook
I would instantly get banned for posting these things
No, no, but you don't get it.
Your tweets agree with the man in charge.
I'm talking about people who, for example, people like Ryan,
who would get banned because they're so close to the line already.
So those type of people, they're the ones that actually,
if she moves their parameters and makes it more about mainstream.
So people like you and me won't get banned,
but people like them will get banned.
That's my concern.
Go ahead, Joe or Sarah.
Solomon, about censorship, it's basically what you're talking about.
They're...
there's different solutions to censorship, right?
You either pull it, right, so people can't post it, or you put a warning label on it.
Right, so like in the 80s, Guns and Roses came out with a tape and they were going to pull it,
and then they finally agreed to put a warning label.
The same thing happened on Twitter.
There was a lot of false information that was pulled, right?
And now they've come up with a solution, which is the community notes.
So instead of just pulling fake content, now there's almost a warning label on it.
So you no longer need to pull the content.
There's a lot of content that's weren't a danger.
I know somebody just yesterday someone had to delete the post just because it upset somebody.
So it's not what post was it?
What post was it?
Was it attacking them like personally?
Does it docks them?
No, no. So it was basically an...
It was somebody who basically...
So I disagree with the position because I wrote a thread refute in that position,
but he wrote about Muslims and that post he had to delete.
Now, I don't believe that he should have had to delete that post.
Was he called Muslim terrorists or something?
Sorry, no, no, he said...
He talked about Muslim grooming gangs.
And I've debunked that.
I know it's a false notion that's based on propaganda, but I...
It is false notion.
I respect his right to make that point, even if it's flawed.
How was he making his point?
I mean, I'm curious, because that is typically the case, right?
If I post statistics, I'm not going to get banned for it.
But if I post statistics and then I say, we need to do something about this, grab your guns,
you know, then I'm going to get banned for it, right?
Like that context matters.
Yeah, so his context wasn't bad at all.
It was something like these things are happening and people should speak out against it.
Uh-huh.
And look, this is someone who disagrees with this position.
I've wrote a thread refuting it.
I've done a YouTube video debunking it.
I don't know.
I'd have to see the thread or the screenshots of the thread for myself, you know, like to judge it.
I can, you know, it's hard to tell.
Yeah.
But my point is, the only reason I'm telling the story is because it's not as simple as what Joe is saying that there's just community notes now and a count and posts are no longer removed or suspended.
That still happens.
Sarah, go ahead.
You know, the very first tweet that I saw about this woman was how conservative she is, and it listed...
all the conservative accounts that she followed.
There was nothing that I saw that said that she was going to be liberal
or that she was going to bring all of these diversity hires.
It was she follows these people.
And I had a chuckle at it because one of them was Ian
and anybody that follows Ian should not be allowed to be Twitter.
No, no, no, no, no. Ian's a brilliant contact career.
I follow him so he knows what he's also really good.
I follow Ian. Come on, I'm joking.
I follow Ian.
But I didn't get the sense that she was going to be this cowboy liberal that was going to suddenly start banning people.
People do still get banned off Twitter.
When Elon took over, I thought that it was going to be a free-for-all.
And I think a lot of people did that...
Now we can go back to saying whatever we want and there will be no consequences, but people get suspended and I've had to remove tweets.
So people get suspended and banned all the time. I don't think that's going to change.
But I don't see her as liberal as I guess you do. I don't see her as mainstream as you do.
And I guess I can't make the connection between A and B like why you think that she's
so liberal and I guess would be dangerous to the platform.
Yeah, I mentioned it.
For me, it's not this dichotomy of liberal and Republican.
That's just lame.
For me, it's her connection to the WEF, her connection to the mainstream media,
her propagating ideological positions.
I gave a few examples.
There'll be more.
Wouldn't that make her a walk liberal?
But you're going to see that with anybody.
You'll see that with anybody, though.
I don't know.
There's nobody, I guess, that could be...
Every single person works for the...
Every single person who is a possible hire for CEO
has worked for this...
I mean, I think people are complaining working for the WBF
and working on a task force.
I mean, you have to understand what a task force is.
Basically, it's just a panel of speakers, right?
That's what it is.
No, I mean, I could tell you, I mean, it's just, it's just like Zoom calls in the post-COVID area.
It used to be a lot more.
It used to get together and, like, you know, actually spend some time and talk about stuff.
But it's not, it's like a sign game.
What do you mean by talk about stuff?
Please expand.
Yeah, sure.
So, I mean, I've said this.
I mean, you know, Kim.com was here and I was explaining I don't think anyone is here.
But there's like 21 of these.
I think there's almost exactly.
There's a little over 20.
No, no, no.
You've been already.
Now, you've explained.
I mean, when you say you go that to talk about stuff, what do you mean?
Well, you literally just sit, like, for example, I can talk about the Metaverse one.
You know, you sit in the circle and you talk about, well, you know, what is happening in the Metaverse?
There's a lot of disagreements.
It's actually kind of like a Twitter space in person, to be frank.
You have a bunch of people who sort of disagree and you go around and you talk about your
different.
And eventually at some point, someone tries to write a white paper and it takes like forever because nobody answers to emails and everyone's got other jobs, which is why I keep saying like, I think that part is a red herring.
I think Ian is absolutely right.
In saying that, I do disagree with his opinion about about weapon and structure.
But, you know, generally speaking, I think, you know, the 30 years of traditional media history should be more, you know, should be.
should be more under discussion than like basically an in-person Twitter space.
That's basically what a task force, which is the successor to the global future councils is, right?
You sit around, you talk about and you debate stuff and hopefully people respond to your
email so you can get a white paper out that gets published on the website, right?
Like that's literally that.
So guys, not much more.
Sorry.
So just guys.
So just guys.
If you want to comment on the comments section and let us know what's your opinion about this hire.
Do you agree with Ian and Sarah that it's basically no problem whatsoever?
We are over-exaggerating her ideology or is there concerns about her links to the WEF,
her links to the mainstream media when you're trying to create an alternative media brand
that is totally different to the mainstream media.
So just leave your comments on the bottom right inside and we will go through them.
So just...
Sarah, just go back and see.
I think the goals for these task forces, by the Silemon, are a lot higher, right?
But the reality is, you know, most people involved have day jobs, like, for example, being at NBC or whatever it might be.
And so not a lot actually gets done, right?
I think the goal is to actually, like, you know, try to set policy and these things that you guys are all talking about.
But the reality is it's like, okay, you know, you end these meetings in Dubai or whatever.
And you're like, yeah, we're going to write like, you know, 20 white papers and, like, maybe one comes out every two years, right?
So...
I mean, and also COVID did have a big effect, I think, on the effectiveness of these because they ended up being over Zoom.
But, yeah, I mean, again, I'm not read many of these white papers, but I know how this works in academia.
So essentially, if you're writing a white paper, you're going to be propagating a specific idea, a specific position that you want to propagate to the people.
Correct?
Yeah, but that's, that's, you know, like,
Silemon, I mean, we've been on a few Twitter spaces.
Like, you know, I think, I think,
I know enough about you to probably presume
that you can correct me.
Like, you know, I think just thoughtful free discourse
is something that,
I think a lot of people here value.
I can't say maybe everyone values it.
We actually had a discussion about that earlier with Scott and some others.
I think Scott values it, by the way.
But, I mean, that's literally what these are.
Like, they're literally like people with very differing opinions that get together.
And we all just debate and argue, right?
Respectfully.
You know, we just debate and argue about stuff.
It's like the one people, some people think, hey, this should be the case.
Other people think this should be the case.
It's like, it's classic Socratic method, right?
Like, I mean, Twitter space is the beauty of it is, I can't say it's aocratic method, but it's like,
you know you sit here and you get you know a bunch of people you know hopefully hopefully they're
mostly smart people and they disagree on things right and through disagreements and discussion
you come up with what you hope is some semblance of the truth right now the truth that we've
debated that in the a i space what is truth right like we we started going down the you know
like the david hume route and all that so i don't want to go down that rabbit hole but um but like
or the day cart right rabbit hole but basically it's like you just disagree and
and you try to figure out what the truth is and then you kind of write about what you think the truth is right i mean
it's kind of no more than that these task courses i mean there's other parts uh i don't you want to go down
the rabbit hole of like other parts of of the web but like this thing is you know these task forces
i think they're cool i think they're interesting but it's almost like an in-person twitter space
i think you would enjoy it to leman oh i would never be part of the wdf on the agenda
I'm the man of the people and the people on the comments are speaking.
What if you could influence them from within, from within the W.F.
Wouldn't you want to do that?
Well, the problem is this is an argument David made that basically it's, you know,
the Sun Su, like the enemy or my enemy is my friend.
But no, when you've got an entire corporation that is corrupt, it's not easy to just go in that.
Well, it's not a corporation, though.
It's just a conglomeration of various different people.
The conglomeration of people who want to propagate us.
They don't necessarily even agree with each other, right?
I mean, yeah, Klaus Schwab, I don't like the guy.
I think he's dangerous.
He's a dangerous person, and he wants his views to be out there.
But what if you...
Just like hypothetical...
Ian, why do you think he's dangerous?
Oh, why do I think he's dangerous?
Because, I mean, I read his book.
He wants a great reset.
He wants a centralization of powers, right?
What if you could go in there and dismantle that,
dismantle that idea, point out to all the other speakers,
to all the other influencers in there, in that space,
that centralization of powers is very dangerous
and why we shouldn't be doing it,
and that Klaus Schwab is wrong.
I mean, you could do that.
I mean, that's what the WF is for, right?
Yeah.
You should do it, Solarman.
No, no, I would never join the, I would never join the backside, guys.
I mean, these are the people you want to influence, right?
Because they control the leverage of power.
People like that, let's be clear.
You're not going to influence someone like Schaub or Bill Gates or these type of people.
They have their idea.
Maybe not Bill Gates, not Schwab, but I think that there are a lot of people.
They spent billions of billions of pound created that, you know, he's the,
head of the W.EF, there's a reason for it,
and he's not going to listen to, like,
average people to change his position.
I mean, there are people like that
who are in those spaces,
who come to our spaces and listen to us in the audience.
I see them there.
I'm not going to name them,
but they listen to us.
They wouldn't be sitting in these spaces, listening to us, having these conversations if they didn't want to have different perspectives.
If all they wanted was an echo chamber, they were going to do WF, not talk to anybody else, right?
But there are a lot of influencers out there.
There are a lot of billionaires out there who...
you know, not necessarily political people.
They want to know what to do with their money.
They want to know what the best course of action is for the future.
And many of them are looking to Elon Musk.
They look to our spaces, for example, to get some ideas,
to get a conglomeration of very different ideas,
because we have many different perspectives on these spaces.
That's one of the beautiful things about this platform
is we're able to have this free speech here, right?
I don't think you can have this on YouTube or anywhere else.
And so, you know, I think there are a lot of people who are looking for guidance, you know.
It's not, you know, like, they're not all Bill Gates.
They're not all super brilliant and they have, like, ideas to take over the world.
It's not all of them.
It's like there's a handful of people who want to do that.
There's the Cloud Schwab's and the Bill Gates and the Mark Zuckerberg's.
but you know the vast majority of people go to these events they just want to network and they just want to get ideas so i think that it's our job as influencers of whatever you want to call us right on this on the space uh to actually talk to people you know not just cut them off and be like you're bill gates you're you work with bill gates you know i don't think that's a solution because at the end of the day they still have to
I'm all for talking with them, but I would never join a corrupt organization that is there to manipulate people.
So as an example, this whole notion of overpopulation comes from these type of people.
And now, luckily, Musk has talked about it.
I wrote about this like a decade ago.
And now people are realizing how it's not true, how there is an overpopulation.
And now it's actually more towards a population collapse.
So these are type of evil ideas that are permeated from these type of organizations.
Wouldn't it be good if our ideas would be the one for the organization?
Sorry, go ahead.
I said, wouldn't it be good if our ideas are the ones permeating the WF?
I think a big reason for why this overpopulation scam, right?
It is a scam, right, that's being propagated right now in the mainstream media is because they're the only ones going to these organizations.
going to publications and newspapers and becoming columnists and opinion writers and so on,
they're the ones writing about it, right?
We need to be the ones doing that as well.
Like, Elon is doing it.
Elon is speaking out about underpopulation.
That's the population collapse problem.
And he shouldn't be the only one.
I think that everybody else should be doing it as well.
If you have some expertise in the...
in the fields, you should be going out there and speaking to everybody, right?
Going to news sabers, legitimate news papers, going to the Wall Street Journal, going to the New York Times, and actually influencing the readers there and offering a different perspective than the one they've been, you know, spoon-feeding their readers for so far, for so long, because they've only had one side of the discussions.
And I don't think the editors, and I've worked with some of these people, I don't think they're going to close you off just because they disagree with you.
Many of them do want to have alternative viewpoints.
It's just that there are people on our side, right, the people on the anti-establishment side, if you will, who simply refused to speak to the other side.
They won't even go on Fox News.
They think that Fox News is too mainstream.
So they will just complain to themselves on their YouTube channels, right?
So, they'll just.
surprisingly enough,
they do have YouTube channels,
complain on their YouTube channels
about how they hate the mainstream,
and then when they get an invite
from, you know,
Fox News or MSNBC or whatever
to go on there,
they're like, no, I'm not going to do that.
They're too mainstream for me.
It's like, okay, then you just want to, you know,
complain to your own echo chamber.
I mean, we got to be doing more than just, like, I think the big problem of a lot of influencers
on our side in particular is that they're not really in it for the cause.
They're in it to carve a knee shot for themselves in this anti-established space and then
make money from it, whether it's selling coffee or whatever, right?
They're not interested in actually reaching a broader audience because they don't care for it.
It's too much work.
But if you actually do care about these issues, then you will be going out there and establishing
yourself.
Look at Michael Schellenberger.
I mean, I would say he's an anti-establishment liberal, but what is he doing?
He's actually going out there to all these different spaces and actually sharing his views
about nuclear energy.
I mean, his views in nuclear energy are fucking fantastic.
I love that.
We'd love to see more of guys like that, you know?
And we need to, you know, we need to be more proactive
if we're serious about, you know, saving the world.
But I agree with you about being proactive.
That's imperative.
It's an it.
And the whole reason on these Twitter spaces is to permeate our ideas.
And I agree with not cutting yourself off,
but I don't agree with having to basically,
the bit I don't agree with,
they basically becoming part of it,
like basically,
an essentially evil organization,
thinking that you're going to change it from within.
Like,
that's not going to work.
These guys are in charge for the reason.
Their ideas are propagated through that for a reason.
But the rest of it,
I agree with,
like,
you should propagate all these ideas.
In terms of newspapers,
again,
let's be clear,
When it comes to newspapers or mainstream media,
they'll allow certain types of information.
They'll allow it up to a point.
But then again,
when that information goes outside of the line of the accepted narratives,
even towards the right or the left,
then they won't allow it.
And that's what I said,
on these platforms,
yes, there will be certain people who are allowed.
And I know you think that you're out there,
but you're not that out there.
You would be allowed.
But somebody who's more out there,
who has more kind of...
problematic ideas for the establishment, their positions won't be.
I mean, I can give a minor example.
Just a very minor example.
This is not trying to propagate.
This is not a true example of it.
But when I wrote a paper for a newspaper, it was cancelled because of, and they put it
open and then it was cancelled within days.
Because again, when the idea isn't within the establishment position and then what
I mean by that is you can have a position that is anti-establishment, but again, they have
a line where they allow it and when they don't.
And that's where the issue is.
Sarah, go ahead.
Sarah, go ahead.
Sarah, you get a hand up.
Yeah, I'm so sorry.
I was sending the tweet.
You know, I reading, even reading the comments in this chat,
there's so many people that are upset over this hire.
I just, you know, and I send it in the chat,
I see her as Elon 2.0.
I think,
I don't see anything really changing.
I don't see any, I see it still remaining a very, to me, this is a very conservative site now.
I see it remaining very conservative.
Brian, do you agree that's a very conservative site?
I mean, I think he replies to you more than anybody else, Elon does.
And you get, your engagement is very high.
Go ahead, Brian.
I do think it leans to the right right now.
I don't think it necessarily has to stay that way, though.
What I was going to say is that, like, I don't know why anybody would be surprised at this move.
Elon's MO has been...
going both sides, you know, like going to the left, going the right, going to left, going
the right, and pissing off both people. He even said it. He tweeted about it, right?
So like, this shouldn't surprise anybody that he, that even Linda isn't, I wouldn't say she's
to the left, right? She's in the middle. She caters to both sides. So I think this is like the
perfect fit if you actually been following what Elon's been doing for the last several years.
I agree, Brian. And on a bureaucratic note, we have to assume.
On a bureaucratic note, we have to assume that the monetization of the platform is the most pertinent form of development for, let's say, Elon and or any new administrative body coming in.
And I think Warren Buffett alludes to a lot of what Ian was saying, but in a different manner, specifically in the ethics.
of a business conglomerant. We know that 98% of ethical developments for the last 50 years in
businesses have necessarily been negligent and have had, let's say, less ethical standards
on a fiduciary level. And so by virtue, it's our job as one investors and or any individual
participating in a platform to identify those discrepancies and then participate in a way where
we can necessarily allow that to occur. But my main point is essentially, it's our, and this is a
Noam-Trumsky idea, it's
again, our job to create that discrepancy between legitimate platforms and illegitimate platforms.
But again, it becomes a lot more nuanced because when we have large, let's say, conversations
surrounding certain topics, it becomes a lot more, let's say, easy for people of renown
and or reputation to have a lot more standings within those conversations.
So, I mean, I'm reading the comments and people are vehemently, vehemently against this hire.
Someone posted, because I think...
Was it Ian or David?
Someone was mentioning about how she was very successful.
I mean, obviously she won't be responsible for all this,
but NBC lost, was it $3 million or $3 billion?
Sorry, is it $3 million?
She's responsible with Peacock Terestreaming Service.
That is actually successful.
It still is.
So what?
She was in charge of Peacock specifically, not the, not the...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, not NBC as a whole, yeah.
Okay, and what were the figures for Peacock?
I don't have the figures ready for me.
I think someone else in here brought her up.
He might want to ask him.
I'm not sure if he's still on stage now.
Okay.
So essentially, Ed, you were banned under the previous regime.
Obviously, you're not banned anymore.
And now we've got a scenario where this...
And so one of my concerns was when it comes to Elon,
he didn't have a consistent policy and procedure when it came to banning people.
And we saw when there's a few examples, him banning people just because he didn't like them.
So essentially, what's going to stop her from doing the same thing or having similar type of ideology?
Elon.
I think it would be him, right?
I think Elon...
But then how can he?
Because he's banning people off- whim as well.
When he doesn't like someone, he'll ban them.
There's no consistent policy or procedure to do so.
I don't think much changed with the banning.
I think that that's pretty much remained the same.
from before, people still lose their accounts all the time.
I don't think that Elon really stopped that.
Yes, I have seen him.
He did.
Like, he has implemented a new policy.
Like how?
Freedom of speech versus freedom of retreat.
And that has been changed in the policy.
Like,
misgendering, he got rid of that rule.
So previously, you couldn't identify Dylan Albany as a man, which he is.
He's a man, right?
You couldn't say that.
You would get banned for it, literally.
They would ban you in a heartbeat.
Jessica Yanif, right?
Jessica Yanif is a trans person in Canada.
Got a lot of people banned.
And what did Elon do?
He reinstated all the accounts that were banned by Jessica Yanief.
So Jessica Yanief is this activist who petitioned Twitter, got a lot of people banned,
got the misgendering rule.
put in place, he repealed all of that.
And that's why, like, the trans...
But Ian, it's still there.
It's still there when I...
If I go to report your tweet,
say, I know, I know that's still there.
That needs to be changed.
I know that needs to be changed,
but that's actually gotten rid of.
Like, they actually got rid of that rule.
Like, it's...
I know it's still written there.
So I, if I report your tweet for misgendering...
Or I think it's called dead naming or dead naming or whatever per what's in the
Yeah, the system is still there.
The system needs to be changed.
This is something that needs to be brought up.
You will not be, you will not be suspended and you will not be forced to remove the tweet.
Yeah, no, no.
That doesn't happen anymore.
Okay, well, one of my girlfriends just got suspended because she said CNN can eat shit.
And that got reported and she is having a seven-based suspension.
They do need to fix that.
There are still lots of bugs to be ironed out.
I would consider that to be a bug and not a feature.
So that does need to be addressed.
Because they said that it was a threat, that she was threatening.
So I think that's hilarious, but terrible.
They need to fix that.
I do agree.
They need to fix that.
There are still problems.
There are a lot of problems.
But can they?
I mean, can't, of course, they can.
Can they fix that?
I mean...
And that's why Elon being the CTO, right, he's in charge of the product now.
He's in charge of developing it.
That's his job, right?
He'll be able to do that more efficiently.
Because before, you know, as a CEO, he has to handle so many different things.
He couldn't oversee these things at the same time, right?
So him being freed up to actually do these things to actually fix the product and make it better.
I think it's just a work in progress.
You know, we've just got to give it time.
Because keep in mind, he didn't build the system, he inherited it.
And it's a mess.
Yeah.
It is a fucking mess.
So it needs to be dealt with.
And him being in charge, I have confidence, full confidence, that he is going to do that.
He's not going to just let it be the same way that it is because the policies speak otherwise.
His own policies speak against the system that's currently in place.
So it's just a matter of time before they fix all of this.
Well, I don't know the man, but I imagine that he is not going to hand over his platform to anyone and just take steps back.
Yeah, he's not going to do that.
He's still going to be very hands-on.
Yeah, he's always in charge.
Yeah.
If he owns a company, he's always in charge.
He's not one of those guys who just, like, you know, sits back and goes and drinks a margarita or somewhere.
You know, like he doesn't do that.
He's a full-time guy.
Right.
I think she'll very much be reined in, Salaman.
I think that she's going to have.
the rains pulled tight, at least for a while.
I mean, less hope so.
Let's hope so.
I understand everyone's concerns.
We've got thousands of messages.
And I can only relate the concerns of the people because I am the man of the people.
But anyway, separate to that, we are going to wrap up now.
I do appreciate everybody coming.
We do, you know, we have covered the issue quite extensively.
Brian and Ed, I think you guys have got a stream on this later on as well, haven't you?
So join that stream.
They're going to be talking about this more on their stream.
But other than that, guys, yeah, thanks for joining us.
There is going to be another space.
on in the evening about web 3 crypto so join that space it's meant to be amazing it's going
to be a I'm I'm told it's going to be a bombshell of a space and it's a must see so everyone
joined that that's that sorry when I say 11 p.m it's 11 p.m. UK 6 p.m. Eastern time so make sure
you join it thank you very much appreciate all you guys
