Episode 1953 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About Those New Twitter Revelations. Were Laws Broken？
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 2 minutes
Words per minute
141.5276
Harmful content
Misogyny
2
sentences flagged
Toxicity
34
sentences flagged
Hate speech
13
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode of the highlight of civilization, Scott Adams is joined by his good friend Scott Adams to discuss a variety of topics, including: - What is the role of the free market in our society? - Why do we value black lives more than white lives?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization yes it's coffee
00:00:12.000
with scott adams and it's going to be a rousing affair today yes i've been putting my stick into
00:00:18.560
the stew and stirring it up a little bit let's see if we can get people to reveal themselves as
00:00:25.520
the npcs they are and uh clank you say yeah i just blocked sticks and hammer today for being the
00:00:35.280
dick uh that's another story if you'd like to take today's experience up a level all you need
0.92
00:00:41.840
is a cup or mug or a glass a tank or chalice or stein a canteen drink if less a vessel of any kind
00:00:46.400
fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the
00:00:53.440
dopamine here in the day the thing that makes everything better it's called simultaneous sip go
00:01:10.000
yes i do uh i do block people for being um condescending
00:01:17.920
and if they blocked me for the same reason that'd be a good reason
0.65
00:01:20.880
perfectly good reason yes dixon hammer was kind of a condescending dick to me today on twitter
00:01:27.280
for no good reason that i could see so i've decided to remove him from my life forever
00:01:34.960
yes i do make decisions like that you should just talk to some of the people i've removed from my life
00:01:40.320
forever they they will confirm that when i remove somebody from my life forever i really don't go back
00:01:46.320
don't go back don't go back so he's gone forever you may have noticed i removed my profile picture
00:01:54.720
on twitter that featured me in my black lives matter shirt because i feel like our work is done
00:02:04.000
our work is done you know i think the whole black lives matter thing it had a had a role to make sure that
00:02:12.160
we valued black lives as well as as well as we should and i think the britney griner uh event
00:02:21.600
shows us that we now do value black lives higher than white lives and that's all everybody wanted
1.00
00:02:29.600
so i i feel like our work is done we can now say with confidence that black lives are valued by america
00:02:36.960
more than other lives so good for you britney griner but i don't need to wear that shirt anymore because
00:02:43.840
our work is done um like like to give a shout out to mark cuban you might know he's got a startup called
00:02:54.880
costplusdrugs.com where i guess he's up to uh 350 types of pharma medications that you can get through his
00:03:04.000
online outfit substantially cheaper than you could get your drugs any other way i guess
00:03:11.600
so isn't that what you want to see more of and also to his credit my understanding from the news
00:03:20.320
anyway is that mark cuban is very directly involved you know with the company it's not just a passive
00:03:27.120
investment so there's somebody who doesn't need to do anything am i right did did he need to do any
00:03:34.960
extra work no yeah he hasn't need to do any extra work for decades but he still goes to work and he's
00:03:45.600
working on behalf of the people of the united states in this case so that's like that's like the best of
00:03:51.680
america right there in my opinion that that's us operating at our very best because the free market
00:03:59.280
was there somebody who did not need to work said well looks like i might be the person who needs to
00:04:06.000
do this because i can and now he's working on it now i don't know if it'll work you know in the long run
00:04:11.680
who knows how that'll turn out but i just want to see more of that right just more of that so that's
00:04:18.800
your good news all right shall we talk about the latest twitter file dump what do you think
00:04:30.400
you're gonna be able to handle this all right here's what i saw uh there's something about this
00:04:37.120
situation that is causing massive cognitive dissonance but it's causing it for everybody it's not just the
00:04:45.440
not just the left and it's really fascinating um a lot of npcs have have you know revealed themselves
00:04:55.840
you can tell the npcs because they have the same tells so if i say something like the sky is blue
00:05:03.120
the npc will say so you're saying your car is on a gas now you don't have to read anything after the
00:05:10.880
the word so because that's telling you i'm in cognitive dissonance whatever follows the word so
00:05:18.000
will be something wholly unrelated to the conversation which i will say is my is my dunking on you l you get
00:05:26.400
the l take the l um yeah so here's here's what i think has happened um let's first of all talk about
00:05:38.560
what we learned yesterday from the twitter files some of you don't follow the news so here is what we've
00:05:44.080
learned number one uh trump was very aggressively throttled before the election so a week before the
00:05:56.560
election he was basically almost erased from twitter not good uh we also know that they went after james
00:06:05.120
woods hard hard and we know that the twitter terms of service were not sufficient to address all the
00:06:16.080
situations in the in the view of the employees and uh yoel roth in particular seemed to be in a position
00:06:26.080
where he was kind of making up the the guidelines as he went um would you agree that seems to be the
00:06:35.680
conclusion he was making up the guidelines as he went and of course the people on the right say well
00:06:41.120
that's that's a bad sign nothing worse than that making up the guidelines as you go and always
00:06:49.760
always always nailing the conservatives oh and also breitbart breitbart was specifically uh throttled
00:06:57.840
back on twitter which basically was a huge blow to the business you know breitbart's traffic was
00:07:03.920
probably mostly from twitter until they erased them so so here's what we can conclude for sure twitter
00:07:13.680
employees were doing something that looks like shadow banning so that's now just a fact
00:07:21.360
but interestingly i don't know if you caught this there was no mention in any of the documentations
00:07:28.320
that we've seen yet that suggests that jack dorsey was aware of the specific actions
00:07:36.800
i'm not saying he was or he wasn't i'm saying that no evidence has been produced of it
00:07:42.000
now that would be consistent with the fact that jack dorsey um said publicly to um to musk you should
00:07:51.840
release all of the documents because if dorsey wanted all of the documents released
00:07:58.880
he obviously knew that it wasn't going to hurry him right and so so far he's so far he's accurate
00:08:05.920
okay now uh let me let me tell you all of the bad things that i see in terms of analysis
00:08:13.920
let's try not to take this personally okay number one bad analysis jack dorsey lied to congress
00:08:22.240
because he said we don't do shadow banning now that's a bad analysis because the evidence so far
00:08:29.760
suggests now we don't know but the evidence so far suggests and by the way musk has confirmed this as
00:08:36.160
his opinion as well that dorsey didn't know what was going on at the level of these you know these
00:08:43.680
decisions which means that he would not have been lying to congress he would have been telling him what
00:08:50.720
he believed was the company policy and i think it was the company policy like officially they didn't
0.96
00:08:58.080
shadow banned now suppose you you had jack dorsey in front of you and you you said damn it jack i know
0.86
00:09:06.000
you're lying because you know that these people were specifically looking for people and banning them
0.80
00:09:12.800
you know that was happening what do you think jack dorsey would say
00:09:18.000
would he say i didn't know anything about it because he was actually on one of the committees
00:09:22.240
that made decisions about it now he would say i assume i can't read his mind but i assume he would
00:09:30.240
say yeah we have a very active um active uh suppression tool and i am part of it and we suppress people who
00:09:40.800
do things that are uh dangerous or against the terms of service then you say aha you just admitted to
00:09:48.400
shadow banning and then what would jack say probably no i just told you we do what everybody does we get
00:09:56.080
rid of things that are dangerous and clearly bad or illegal that's what those tools are that's what we do
00:10:04.160
and that's not shadow banning right now i'm not i'm not telling you that it is or is not oh let
00:10:10.800
let me be clear for those who are a little bit maybe new to me i'm going to be saying some things
00:10:19.040
that sound supportive of twitter and supportive of yoel uh roth do most of you can most of you confirm
00:10:28.240
for anybody new that that does not mean i'm apology i'm an apologist for them or that i'm on their side
00:10:34.960
can those of you who know me tell the rest of the people that i show both sides and you will not know
00:10:43.520
which side i'm taking i'm just going to describe things if that makes you uncomfortable this isn't the
00:10:49.120
right place for you right i'm just going to describe things all right now would you agree with the following
00:10:57.200
facts that um nothing has been shown yet that would implicate jack dorsey except that he said to congress we
00:11:06.720
don't do the shadow banning but as far as we know as far as we know he wasn't aware of it now could he
00:11:14.400
be aware of it yes of course but that's not an evidence so let's just deal with what's in evidence okay
00:11:20.960
now number two um was it illegal what twitter did how many of how many of you think that there was a
00:11:33.840
crime that you've detected in what has been reported so far anybody okay well i have a very educated
00:11:47.120
audience because on twitter people are saying it's obviously a crime and and here's what that and
00:11:53.440
this is how you know that the conservatives are experiencing cognitive dissonance it's both i'm
00:11:58.640
going to get to the i'm going to get to the left but here's how the conservatives are experiencing it
00:12:03.760
they are positive they see a crime but there isn't one and so they're they're hallucinating crimes
00:12:11.760
and they're convincing themselves they see them here's what they've here's what a number of people
00:12:17.360
are hallucinating on twitter right now they're hallucinating that that twitter acted like a pr agent
00:12:24.800
for the democrats that part you could argue is true but therefore therefore twitter was giving a
00:12:32.960
donation in kind to democrats and that that would be illegal because it's not you know they're not
00:12:39.440
disclosing it how many of you think it would be illegal that they're giving a donation in kind
00:12:46.560
by helping the democrats illegal okay for those of you think that's illegal uh do you think fox news
00:12:55.600
ever does anything that would help say trump when he was president do you think fox news has ever done
00:13:02.000
anything that would look like a donation in kind of course about uh msnbc have they ever done anything
00:13:10.800
that looks exactly like a donation in kind to the democrats of course how about the new york times how
00:13:16.880
about the washington post how about cnn of course with the exception of axios the only entity i know that's
00:13:25.280
in the news business that is trying to be you know objective as far as i can tell every other news
00:13:33.680
agency is very clearly doing work in kind for one of the parties very clearly who disagrees with that
00:13:42.960
nobody right right doesn't that fuck you up a little bit if thinking oh this is clearly illegal
0.90
00:13:49.920
and then i tell you it's what everybody's doing all the time it's it's it's the baseline of everything
00:13:56.560
biased people doing things that are helping one side that's all that's happening there's nothing but
00:14:02.480
that happening except for axios it's the only one axios is the only one who's not doing it so you'd have to
00:14:11.040
you'd have to prosecute everybody except axios right so that that's a terrible argument the the uh
00:14:20.640
the donation in kind argument you're not going to see any tv lawyer argue that i don't believe
00:14:27.920
because as soon as you say what about fox news it's over that's the end of the argument right
00:14:33.280
um the question about whether it should be section 230 or not um i don't i don't find it interesting
00:14:44.240
i don't know why but you know yeah let's talk about it but i don't know i just don't find it
00:14:50.400
interesting i'm not sure why um all right was it a crime that the fbi and maybe the department of
00:15:00.960
justice and the dni i guess so government entities were meeting regularly with twitter
00:15:08.080
to try to influence uh what things were banned is that illegal crime and the crime would be
00:15:17.920
a violation of the first amendment because when the government's involved right okay
00:15:24.720
now let me ask you this do you think that those same government agencies talk to the other news
00:15:30.640
entities and encourage them to do or not do different things of course they do do you think
00:15:37.840
there's any entity that the government does not talk to the big ones on a regular basis to try to
00:15:43.760
influence them it's all of them what would make twitter different here here's the defense for the fbi
00:15:52.640
uh that's our job that's our job if we see something that's uh both inaccurate and dangerous we're going to
00:16:03.200
tell the people who are spreading it so that they can decide to maybe not spread it
00:16:08.240
if you think it's illegal are you going to be surprised when there's no no court case because
00:16:16.320
there's no court case for anybody else why would they be treated differently so let me ask you this
00:16:24.400
if you remember the fbi and you say to a big company let's say could be cnn or fox news or twitter if you
00:16:33.120
say i'd like to have a meeting is that illegal the meeting's okay right yeah and then let's say in the
00:16:41.920
meeting they do talking they do some talking and they say we think this is what would be a good way to go
00:16:50.160
let me give you a story that happened to me uh i have a a well on my property
00:17:03.280
which is rare because um it's grandfathered in from many years ago when i bought the property i
00:17:09.440
inherited that right but when the uh when california had a big uh water shortage a couple years ago
0.92
00:17:16.320
um i was the only person who could uh water my lawn now it's mostly drip irrigation you know it's
00:17:24.000
a pretty efficient system but i was using my own water to water my own lawn what did my local
00:17:31.120
government ask me to do my local government asked me to cut it out and they said explicitly it's totally
00:17:39.280
legal what you're doing it's your own water we cannot make you stop using it i'd like you to stop using
00:17:45.680
it and i'd like you to do it because we think it's you know good for the basically good for the
00:17:53.840
community you know that they it's bad optics right bad optics and i i agreed and it cost me fifty
00:18:02.640
thousand dollars because that's how much of my landscape died and i had to replace it something like
00:18:10.320
that i mean might have been thirty thousand i don't know but it was really very expensive very expensive
00:18:15.600
and i did that because my city leaned on me was that legal was it legal for my city to lean on me that way
00:18:30.160
if it wasn't legal for them to lean on me that way why would it be legal for them to offer an opinion to
00:18:37.120
a news entity if there's no threat remember there's no explicit threat my my town did not give me an
00:18:44.960
explicit threat they just said this is what we think is the right thing to do now it's a bad analogy if
00:18:54.720
you're comparing all the parts the right way to use an analogy is to pick out one thing you think is the
00:19:00.400
useful part and only focus on that and the useful part is if my government leans on me
00:19:09.920
but i don't have to do what they want but i do feel like it's a little bit of mafia talk
00:19:15.040
like maybe they might come after me some way i don't know i don't know the answer to that i don't
00:19:22.160
know the answer but here's what i think in my perfect world the government uh is full of human
00:19:29.200
beings who are citizens of this of this uh country and those citizens can say anything they want
00:19:36.640
wherever they are that's what i say i say if you're in the fbi you can say exactly what you think is
00:19:43.360
right to anybody to anybody because the fbi also have freedom of speech they can have a meeting with
00:19:50.400
anybody and they can say anything that isn't you know their opinion now i would like their opinions to
00:19:56.480
be well-intentioned and so far there's no evidence that i've seen that the government came it came to
00:20:04.080
twitter with bad intentions has anybody seen counter evidence i've seen evidence that they met evidence
00:20:11.280
that they influenced them is there evidence that their influence was the bad kind or did they simply
00:20:18.320
help them take down things that were literally dangerous and untrue
00:20:24.560
somebody says suppression is bad but the problem is you can't say you can't suppress free speech
00:20:34.400
to support free speech and that's what you're suggesting you're suggesting that the the government
00:20:40.400
the fbi should not have free speech in this case because if they exercise their free speech it would
00:20:48.000
impinge on your free speech that's what you're saying
00:20:53.280
well i i think uh i think the fbi as an entity maybe should not you know do a thing that's against
00:21:01.680
your free speech but the individuals within the fbi have free speech they can have a meeting with anybody
00:21:09.680
they want and they can say anything they want as long as it's legal
00:21:18.240
i don't think they have anything to to answer to now i haven't heard the specific examples
00:21:25.040
if if the if the specific examples were i'd like you to suppress republicans totally illegal would you agree
00:21:34.640
if the if the government asked twitter even just asked without any threat just asked if they said
00:21:44.160
can you suppress these republicans so that they don't get elected totally illegal everybody on board with
00:21:50.320
that that would be totally illegal that that would be an obvious you know pressure on free speech that
00:21:56.560
we couldn't but what if the fbi went there with the only intention of making sure the twitter knew what
00:22:03.920
was true and what wasn't true of things that could be dangerous suppose that was their legitimate intention
00:22:15.120
i don't see how it could be because that's what i will want my government to do
00:22:19.440
if you told me my government wasn't telling people important things that they knew i would i'd say
00:22:26.400
that's a bigger problem i want the government to tell anybody who needs to know there's some danger
00:22:32.640
that we see that maybe you don't see you don't want your government to alert you to danger
00:22:39.600
even if they're wrong they might be wrong but seriously you don't want them to alert you
00:22:44.640
to a legitimate danger that they honestly see as a danger
00:22:51.040
now if you're saying to me scott scott scott they're pretending to be honest brokers
00:22:58.480
but really really it's all about suppressing republicans it might be but it's not an evidence
00:23:07.840
your suspicions would be you know certainly well placed but it's not an evidence
00:23:12.960
i think i'd want to all right i'm trying not to get triggered
00:23:24.000
if you can't deal with the fact that i'm just going to try to show both sides of this as as
00:23:30.080
straight as i can and that looks to you like i'm spinning or like i'm i'm of an apologist you are
0.98
00:23:39.200
really missing the fucking show all right there's nothing like that's happening you you don't know
0.97
00:23:45.360
my opinion i'm just describing things just describing all right
0.98
00:23:55.360
um would you agree that all of our major media have bias in favor of one side with the exception
00:24:03.440
of axios would you agree and and how different is twitter is it some people say scott you're
00:24:11.760
missing the difference because a major media entity is only censoring itself whereas twitter
00:24:18.800
was censoring you citizens to which i say what that's not true the major media is censoring you too
00:24:28.400
they're totally censoring you yeah do you do you think if you had an opinion that was counter
00:24:37.280
to the narrative on msnbc they would invite you as a guest as a citizen hey citizen come on here
00:24:44.400
and give us your counter or no no they would censor you right now the fact that individuals tweet
00:24:51.840
whereas the news you know is they're doing more vetting to see who gets on that's kind of a small
00:24:57.200
difference it's a pretty small difference these are entities which are absolutely squashing opinions
00:25:04.400
on one side to promote the other and they are squashing them of citizens who have an interest
00:25:10.720
in the news representing them all but it's not happening when they do it covertly it's not for the public
00:25:18.640
good it's all covertly it's all covertly are you aware of the meetings that msnbc has about who they
00:25:27.280
put on the air and who they don't no it's all covert
00:25:32.720
so one is broadcasting they're both broadcasting
00:25:39.360
yeah yeah you have to work pretty hard to find out why you'd be angry at twitter for acting exactly
00:25:44.800
like all the media that you're kind of okay with i mean you don't like the ones that disagree with you
00:25:50.960
but you're not you're not fighting with the fact that they're all biased because you like the one
00:25:55.200
that's biased on your side twitter was strong-armed by the fbi is not an evidence that's not an evidence
00:26:04.400
there's no evidence of strong-arming nothing well if you've seen it
00:26:10.240
uh i have not seen it so when i let's be clear about something we're still in the fog of war a
00:26:17.200
little bit so if i say there's no evidence to something don't tell me i'm wrong tell me what
00:26:23.920
the evidence is okay can you do that because it doesn't help me to say i'm wrong if i think i'm right
00:26:34.240
if you're saying it's implied because of the fbi i don't think that's true put yourself in the room
00:26:44.080
put yourself in the room fbi says we would like you to ban this one this one and this one and you
00:26:52.560
say huh okay i agree on this one i agree on that one no this one doesn't violate our terms of service
00:27:00.320
i disagree on that one then what do you think you're going to get audited or something
00:27:06.320
if you put me in that room i would not be afraid of the fbi
00:27:10.400
i mean unless they really wouldn't mafia talk on me but if they were just coming in to say i think
00:27:14.560
these three things are problems lost my connection if they're just coming in to say these three things
00:27:20.240
are a problem and then i say i agree with two but not the third and then that's the end of the meeting
00:27:33.200
you're saying it's laughably stupid i'm telling you how i would feel
0.91
00:27:40.400
today a number of people have told me i'm wrong about my own opinion in my head
0.98
00:27:47.120
my opinion could be wrong but i'm not wrong about what i'm thinking that part i get right every time
00:27:55.280
all right uh what about all the doctors suspended what about it what about it now
00:28:07.280
some of these what about this what about that you're taking it from the perspective that i agree with
00:28:12.160
everything twitter did that's not happening i'm not defending twitter i'm describing so you don't have
00:28:18.960
to say what about what about that would be for somebody defending i'm not defending i'm describing
00:28:26.320
so so don't challenge me to defend something that's not the topic i'll describe it for you if you want
00:28:40.480
when i say you're not going to like it i'm priming that's not
00:28:42.880
you know that right i'm priming you to be more flexible i'm not that's a priming statement all
00:28:51.760
right all right let's see what else is going on um
00:29:01.040
well here's the thing here's what i see i think it's going to be very unsettling for the public to learn
00:29:07.680
that uh voters do not consider the facts and then go vote because that's sort of the model that we all
00:29:17.920
had you know some years ago we imagined that voters would look at the information they'd come to their
00:29:24.000
decisions and then they'd go vote but you know nothing like that happens right that that's like our
00:29:30.560
our our fantasy version of our system in the fantasy version we become informed voters and then we vote
00:29:39.680
that's never been the truth never what's true is for every big media entity there's usually one billionaire
00:29:48.400
who tells that entity what they can and cannot say and then they assign that opinion to the public
00:29:54.480
and the public believes they made up their own mind and then they vote yeah the the biggest the
00:30:03.040
biggest problem with what we're finding out about twitter is people are learning that they were never
00:30:08.560
independent agents they were just sort of doing what they were programmed to do so that's sort of the
00:30:15.760
bigger picture and once people realize that none of this stuff is real like all the who did what
00:30:23.360
whatever let me give you an example how many of you think that the election was changed by the fact
00:30:30.720
that james woods got banned on twitter do you think that changed the election
00:30:38.480
no i don't i don't think he changed any votes i'm not even sure that banning uh trump on twitter
00:30:45.600
made any difference i don't know i mean it made it certainly helped him get elected the first time
00:30:51.840
but by the time they were suppressing him a week before the election might have made a difference but i doubt it
00:31:01.520
uh stopping the new york post had an effect did it do you do you think there's even one person who
00:31:07.680
really would have voted differently that this should there there's a survey that says that some number
00:31:14.160
of people would have voted differently if they'd known about the biden laptop that's not the real world
00:31:20.320
let me let me describe the real world and then compare it to that fantasy one that you have in
00:31:25.680
your head where people got information and then the new information changed their decisions is that the
00:31:32.800
world you live in where people can get new political information right before the election and then they
00:31:39.040
change their decision that doesn't happen in the real world let me describe how happens we just got some
00:31:46.240
information that everything about the laptop is true i'm a democrat voter and i have to vote tomorrow
00:31:52.240
what do i do what do i do i'm a democrat voter and i find out that everything about the laptop is true
00:32:02.400
i explained it away in my head i explained it away as no that's about hunter and then other people say no no
00:32:09.360
you're missing the story it's not just about hunter it's about the big guy and then the influence but
00:32:15.760
i'm but i'm a democrat and i don't want trump to win so i say yeah that's just about hunter and i say it's
00:32:23.760
like you're not even hearing me it's not about hunter it's about his father and potential connections
00:32:29.440
yeah but that's not proven see what i mean you you tell me
00:32:46.640
you tell me that you think that a democrat would have changed their vote because about something
00:32:51.920
about hunter's laptop i don't think there's any chance of that there's nothing we've learned about
00:32:57.680
people or the world or anything that would suggest that that would change any minds whatsoever
00:33:03.600
are you seeing these the twitter file the twitter file revelations have you seen anybody
0.56
00:33:08.320
change their mind have you seen any democrats say damn i had no idea i was on a team that was doing
00:33:15.280
bad things i i'm going to change to republican now no no yeah so we can we can get all excited
0.92
00:33:25.760
about how much difference any of this information makes but it probably doesn't what what does make
00:33:31.120
a difference is that it's good to know you know i think transparency helps so the more transparency the
00:33:37.680
better now here's here's gonna be the toughest part for you uh consistent with my theme of the month
00:33:46.000
individuals are innocent until proven guilty jack dorsey innocent unless proven guilty so far there's no evidence
00:33:57.520
to implicate him for the decisions you don't like none will we find out that he is maybe i i would
00:34:06.400
say that would be well within the possible range of outcomes but not yet not yet now let's talk about yoel
00:34:26.560
see some yeses not a fan all right what what do we know about his intentions
00:34:36.720
from the twitter files and everything else we know what were his intentions with his actions
00:34:42.160
around what he banned and what he didn't what were his intentions do you know
00:34:51.840
but the intention that let's say would be suggested by his actions are that he had a world view of what
00:35:01.680
what was good and safe and you know what would be a good way to live in the world and then he acted as
00:35:08.160
best he could to be consistent with some notion of what would be the right thing
00:35:14.800
that's all i saw now you're saying but scott he did the wrong thing did he he had he had two ways to
00:35:23.200
lose and no way to win right because if he followed the terms of service to the letter
00:35:32.560
you know that that won't won't capture all the the weird possibilities right would you agree with
00:35:38.080
that he certainly had the option he had the option of following the letter of the terms of service
00:35:44.160
but if he had done that would you agree there would be a whole bunch of gray areas
00:35:50.240
that maybe a human should have made the decision about or a group of humans
00:35:54.800
do you want the rules to be the rules because there's a reason that we have
00:36:00.000
jury trials the reason we have a jury trial is that you think things are cut and dried
00:36:06.400
but they rarely are there's always these extenuating circumstances that you'd rather have a human
00:36:13.200
wrestle with not a not a terms of service so i would say the following thing
00:36:19.920
anybody who thinks that you could just follow the terms of service that's very unrealistic
00:36:25.920
that's very unrealistic and i would certainly not want to know you if you believe that anybody who
00:36:31.920
would follow a technical rule and allow it to harm somebody when they had the power to stop it that
00:36:40.400
is very unethical right very unethical if you see a rule and it's your job to follow the rules and
00:36:48.240
everybody agreed on the rules but there's this exception your human fiduciary responsibility is to take
00:36:56.560
the exception because you have a higher you have a higher responsibility to humanity than you do to
00:37:02.720
following some rules even if everybody likes those rules
00:37:08.480
so i don't think that whoever was in that position would have any choice but to make judgment calls
00:37:15.840
and he made judgment calls it was his job now suppose he'd made them differently would everybody be happy
00:37:22.560
suppose suppose suppose he had looked at these situations and made whatever is the opposite of
00:37:27.520
all his decisions would that have made everybody happy nope because these are judgment calls
00:37:34.720
there isn't any situation in which a small group or even one person can make a judgment that makes
00:37:41.280
everybody happy so don't ask don't ask your wrath to do something that's literally impossible
00:37:48.560
literally impossible you can't do the impossible and we're asking him to do that and judging him harshly
00:37:56.720
because he didn't do the impossible the impossible was making everybody happy there was no path to make
00:38:03.520
everybody happy this was some poor bastard who as far as i can tell as far as i could tell was doing the best
00:38:12.800
he could in an impossible situation but if you say there's an impossible situation and it's going to affect humans
0.53
00:38:22.560
i want a person in that situation and i want that person to be empathetic more than a rule follower right
00:38:31.680
i want some empathy in that job did he have empathy i think so he looks like a
00:38:38.080
like a normal caring person who thought the world should be one way and i think he had narrative poisoning
00:38:46.000
as many of us do yeah i think he was buying into a narrative a little bit maybe more than you think
00:38:51.920
he should have but that's not evil it's not different than the rest of us and here here's why i'm
00:38:59.280
um here's why i'm going hard at this if you tell somebody to do an impossible job and then they do it
00:39:09.040
because somebody has to do it right somebody's got to do it and then they make a decision within that
00:39:14.400
impossible job it's kind of up to tell them they made a mistake because you didn't have to make that
00:39:20.560
decision right you should just be lucky it wasn't your job because it wasn't any way to do it to make
00:39:25.920
everybody happy so if you're complaining about him because he didn't make you happy you're on the
00:39:30.560
wrong page where where was the option he could make everybody happy that didn't exist so if you're
00:39:38.160
saying he did not make me happy with his decision that says nothing about him that's not about him
00:39:46.000
that's about the situation is impossible somebody had to do the job and somebody had to take the arrow in
00:39:53.200
the back and he did now should he have been fired probably but that probably had more to do with
00:40:01.440
you know what he told his boss and you know how the company would look if he stayed and a lot of
00:40:07.360
lot of considerations there but so far with what we know it looks like a person in an impossible situation
00:40:14.720
who has tried to do their best job now how many of you thought to yourself oh you mean like a nazi prison
00:40:28.720
if you thought that about an american citizen just trying to do the best he could for america and you
00:40:35.920
said oh like a prison guard at a nazi concentration camp check check yourself check yourself right if you
00:40:44.560
think that's a fair comment an american citizen with actual empathy for human beings doing the best
00:40:51.520
he could do in an impossible situation where nobody's going to love it
00:40:58.320
i i think he's closer to needing a medal than you know being prosecuted but he probably needed to get
00:41:04.320
fired because there was there's something that needed to get fixed there you probably had to get rid of
00:41:14.880
all right well cindy says in all caps scott really is getting more ridiculous so that's cognitive dissonance
0.81
00:41:26.000
right so if you want to know a tell for cognitive dissonance it would be all caps scott really is
0.91
00:41:31.760
getting more ridiculous until number one all caps until number two no reason given
00:41:42.480
so everybody is just coming after me personally because my arguments are very simple aren't they
00:41:48.000
i'm not making a complicated argument it would be really easy to say well you forgot this fact
00:41:53.600
or your logic is incomplete easy one sentence you could say what what you don't like about my opinion
00:42:00.720
but if your opinion is there's something wrong with scott today he used to be good but now he's not good
00:42:06.800
anymore what happened to scott he used to be wise but now he's not if you're having that reaction
00:42:14.000
you are having cognitive dissonance i didn't get dumber today i did not get dumber today i'm exactly
00:42:22.320
as wise as wise or unwise as i was yesterday if you think i changed suddenly it's probably you probably you
0.67
00:42:45.120
this is kind of funny uh one bizarre this is a tweet from mike solana on twitter he says one
00:42:51.840
bizarre element of the twitter story is it's pretty clear at this point that the quote trust and
00:42:57.200
safety team was effectively running the entire company and elon musk responded that with absolutely
00:43:04.000
the real ceo was the head of trust and safety which again is uh confirming that jack dorsey wasn't aware
00:43:13.920
of the details that were going on so elon musk seems to be excusing jack dorsey at least
00:43:21.680
in terms of knowledge of the situation he knows more than we do so
00:43:30.240
all right um but i i love the fact that the the the perfect literary um thing here is that twitter's
00:43:41.840
trust and safety group is the group that we don't trust with our safety there's nobody you trust less
00:43:49.040
than the trust and safety group nice and nice irony there
00:43:58.640
so what about the fact that uh that twitter was making up the rules as they go
00:44:09.120
scott trusted the vaccines incorrect just me you fucking assholes starting rumors and
0.99
00:44:15.200
saying bad things about me so people will try to come after me as they do you
1.00
00:44:19.120
you fucking jerk no i did not support the vaccines that never happened
1.00
00:44:32.640
we also found out so far that there's no evidence that the trump administration or at least
1.00
00:44:40.000
the trump uh team asked twitter to suppress anything
00:44:45.520
what do you think that's going to hold do you think we'll get to the other side of this and there
00:44:51.520
won't be any evidence that that the trump team asked twitter to suppress something
00:44:58.640
now it's a little unclear because the fbi worked for the trump administration so you know what do you
00:45:05.120
what do you call that um am i blocking people yeah i'll block you
0.51
00:45:20.880
um you can make the same view about putin he has a world view i do make the same argument yeah
00:45:27.680
see the the only the only thing i'm uh trying to add to the conversation is if you believe
00:45:35.360
that the twitter employees knew they were doing something bad that's not an evidence
00:45:43.840
that's not an evidence i mean it might be true but we don't have any evidence that they were aware
00:45:50.080
they were doing something bad now are you telling me that the nazis were not aware that the the
00:45:54.960
concentration camps were doing something bad you know i i get that they had their weird justification
00:46:01.040
for it but i think they knew i mean i think they knew um apparently one of the tweets that got suppressed
00:46:11.680
was on january 6th trump had a tweet that told everybody to go home with love and peace
00:46:19.360
and that's one of the ones that was suppressed i think can you fact check me on that
00:46:25.520
i i i thought that's what i saw but if that's true then trump got um
00:46:35.120
he got in a lot of trouble for not saying something he did say which is be peaceful now we do know in
00:46:47.440
do you think the election was changed by anything that twitter did
00:46:59.040
and specifically what do you think changed the election was it suppressing trump suppressing
00:47:07.680
one week before the election was it suppressing james woods or was it suppressing the laptop
00:47:13.440
now i think we have suspicions that might have changed things but i'm i'm highly suspicious
00:47:25.440
now apparently according to a twitter user name redacted name redacted 24 7
00:47:37.120
who seems to be very well informed uh this twitter user who is anonymous listed 12 prior fbi
00:47:47.760
employees who now work at twitter in important positions so there are 12 fbi agents
00:47:54.000
past fbi agents embedded at twitter and they were all hired after uh after trump
00:48:05.600
that's sort of a red flag isn't it a little red flag
00:48:08.720
but uh that was tweeted at elon musk we'll see if he if he looks into that
00:48:27.680
so cernovich said something about all the child exploitation stuff on twitter
00:48:33.920
and um apparently under the musk regime musk is doing more to combat it and
00:48:45.440
one of the comments that musk responded to is that it is a crime that twitter refused to take action
00:48:51.440
on child exploitation for years but jack dorsey chimed in on that and said this is false
00:48:56.640
so it is false that twitter refused to take action on child exploitation but elon musk chimed in on jack
00:49:05.840
and said no it's not false uh when somebody who works there who now runs trusted safety joined twitter
00:49:12.160
earlier this year almost no one was working on child safety she raised the issue and then uh musk
00:49:19.920
um i guess musk um is the only one who staffed it up properly according to musk so this is sort of a
00:49:29.280
half fake news twitter was doing things about it it wasn't as much as musk was doing
00:49:41.200
so musk is doing the right thing by the new ceo move so i've taught you um
00:49:51.600
friction always does something that's right i've taught you the new ceo move right the new ceo move
00:49:57.840
is when you establish who you are about what you do in the first you know week or two of being the ceo
00:50:03.120
and what musk has cleverly done is going hard at the child endangerment stuff so that that becomes
00:50:13.920
like something you remember it's like a first impression you'll always remember musk as being
00:50:20.000
a champion against child endangerment now if he'd done just as much as he's doing now but he did it
00:50:27.760
let's say a year after he took the job you wouldn't even notice you wouldn't even notice so he's doing
00:50:35.040
it exactly right like psychologically strategically leadership wise exactly he found the biggest the
00:50:45.120
biggest thing that wasn't being addressed that everybody cared about and then he's putting on the
00:50:50.640
show of addressing it in a big way that you can't do better than that that that's that's the best you
00:50:57.360
can do you pick the most important topic that everybody agrees on mostly he went after a hard
00:51:05.600
and he went after right away that's a triple plus you you there's nothing you can do better than that
00:51:12.880
that's as good as anybody can do anything all right um
00:51:19.840
how many of you think that twitter meddled in the election that that's a statement of truth
00:51:31.680
they meddled in the election all right yes would you say that cnn meddled in the election
00:51:41.440
would you say that all of the major media fox news
00:51:45.200
etc did they all meddle in the election yes yes they did now would you say that what twitter did was
00:51:53.600
um functionally worse now you could argue that it's a different kind of platform different people use it
00:52:00.160
different people see it that's not the question so i know different people are using it but is it
00:52:04.880
is it is it more or worse than what msnbc did it it's not worse you think it's worse you think that msnbc
00:52:24.400
you think that that wasn't that's not worse than twitter trying to ban you know james woods and
00:52:30.320
lives at tiktok to me it's not even close you know i mean this is a judgment call so i'm not
00:52:38.960
going to say you're wrong but my opinion for what it's worth is that msnbc is an order of magnitude
00:52:47.040
worse than anything we've seen in twitter and i would say fox news as well but only because they
00:52:53.920
clearly are you know they're they're narrative makers they make a narrative for their side
00:53:03.760
they're credible but twitter's not credible i don't know
00:53:14.960
that comment though twitter is not supposed to be biased that's not really a real world comment though
00:53:22.880
in the real world there's no such thing as unbiased communication that's not a thing
00:53:31.600
maybe they were supposed to try but now what makes you say they're unbiased
00:53:38.320
because from their point of view they probably weren't what why is your opinion of what bias is
00:53:44.560
why is that more important than someone else's opinion of what biases well like why do you get to be the
00:53:50.160
judge of what bias is and i don't why can't i be the judge it's a tie right it's just your opinion versus
00:54:06.320
here are the uh things that i hoped i could get across today
00:54:11.680
what twitter did isn't worse than the other major media companies
00:54:19.120
is that an apology is that an apologist did did i just defend twitter by saying they're no worse than msnbc
00:54:29.360
somebody's going to say that oh i defended twitter by saying they're no worse than msnbc
00:54:33.360
if you don't know anything else about me if i compare somebody to msnbc i'm not defending them
00:54:42.240
that's the opposite of defending them that that is damning them in the strongest terms
00:54:48.080
i'm just saying they're all sort of in the same cesspool right which is if you're looking for the the the
0.86
00:54:54.640
no bias platform i believe there's only one option
00:54:59.360
just axios and they don't really cover every bit of news so they're a little bit of a different
00:55:13.280
and while i don't disagree with you about your suspicions of what anybody knew or did or privately
00:55:20.400
thought um innocent until proven guilty now if you told me that we could get this far into this
00:55:28.640
with no evidence no direct evidence that uh jack did something illegal or immoral or wrong
00:55:36.400
i would have been surprised yeah you figure any ceo is going to look
00:55:42.000
a little bit bad if you start digging in enough but so far so far now if i'm not going to defend
00:55:52.240
whether he managed the company in the optimal way i don't know the answer to that but you know clearly
00:55:59.760
there was an issue here so i'm not going to defend it on that level and i'd be surprised if he defended
00:56:05.760
it himself i don't think anybody who is running two major companies can quite honestly defend that they gave
00:56:13.760
their best to both would you agree nobody could be running two companies at the same time and say i
00:56:20.640
gave my best to both i mean i think i think a realistic person would say you know that could
00:56:27.040
have been better but at the same time you know there's a reason that jack came back
00:56:33.360
to active management is because what they had before wasn't working so i don't know what the trade-off is
00:56:44.960
defending jack is a fool's errand somebody says okay did you miss all of the parts where i said i wasn't
0.98
00:56:51.840
defending anybody did you miss all of those parts can you get yourself out of that mode
0.89
00:56:58.720
just for me yeah if you're dealing with somebody else that's fine but i'm just describing
00:57:06.160
no i'm describing that is your interpretation if that's a defense right that is your interpretation
00:57:14.000
because i would tell you if it's my interpretation it if if i were defending anybody i would tell you
00:57:23.040
i'm defending them because why wouldn't i i have no reason to hide it i would just say i'm doing it
00:57:27.680
and then i'd do it right i'm i'm describing it and then you can judge whether that's good or bad
00:57:36.640
scott thinks we are the ignorant ones that somebody says gosh why would i think that
00:57:45.760
uh you didn't speak of how the independent voters might have dealt with the laptop yeah because there
00:57:49.600
are none independent voters are a myth um independent voters almost always vote with with one party
00:57:58.240
it's just they call themselves independent because they don't want to be slimed with the bad things
00:58:06.800
yeah twitter is the public square all right the things that don't add to the conversation
00:58:13.520
because everybody knows it twitter is the public square
00:58:17.280
we all get it we all get it it is different than other things and it's special in that way
00:58:22.160
uh and twitter's a private company we all get it we all i get it right
00:58:44.560
right yeah yeah kirsten cinema is now independent but is she
00:58:57.840
some are libertarians yeah yeah certainly a week before the election people had their word their
00:59:10.320
are you enjoying triggering this morning a little bit
00:59:27.200
and different on the other dimensions can you handle that
00:59:29.760
so twitter twitter is the same in the sense that they're a biased organization that influences
00:59:39.920
i didn't say that they're literally the same they're the same in that one way
0.86
00:59:46.960
scotty wants to give you over off the medal i assume that that's you're pretending to be a troll
00:59:55.760
pussy change any uh votes i've never i doubt it i think some people say maybe but i doubt it
0.99
01:00:07.200
maybe i just doubt it i i think that it was a fake because
01:00:11.760
some people might have wanted to do it and they said okay that's that'll be my my reason
01:00:19.760
imagine if you were uh you're a woman and you're married to a conservative who's definitely a trump
01:00:24.320
supporter and you don't want to vote the same way as your husband but you also need to live with
0.99
01:00:29.920
your husband you just don't want that donald trump and then they grab him by the pussy thing happens
1.00
01:00:35.440
and you say there it is i can use that as my reason to not vote for trump and my husband can't say a
0.99
01:00:43.440
damn thing it's my ultimate out right it's my get energy ill free ah now i can vote against trump
0.62
01:00:51.040
and i've got a reason but is it the real reason probably not probably not it's a fake because
0.99
01:00:59.120
although it might have changed the vote the fake because can change the vote
01:01:20.000
probably did yeah i think the the fine people hoax is the tentpole hoax it's the hoax that makes
01:01:26.480
you believe the other hoaxes because if they can get you to believe that absurd hoax that you just have
01:01:32.720
to watch the video to debunk they can really get you to believe anything and then all right we've
01:01:38.640
proved he's a racist now everything else that might suggest that must be true because this one hoax is
01:02:02.480
okay that's all i got for now i'm going to go talk to the locals people for a little bit