Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1953 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About Those New Twitter Revelations. Were Laws Broken？

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

00:01:04.560 yeah that's good that's good

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

00:16:49.360 is that illegal

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

00:22:12.000 is that illegal

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

00:26:31.360 just tell me what tell me what they found

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

00:27:25.280 did they strong army i don't think so 0.99

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

00:31:58.800 what do i do now

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

00:32:41.600 that's a good suggestion

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

00:34:16.800 roth see a bad guy go bad guy

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

00:34:48.560 well we can't read his mind

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

00:40:25.600 guard

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

00:41:08.800 him to do it 0.97

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

00:42:32.720 all right

00:42:36.080 um what else is going on

00:42:41.440 um

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

00:44:04.480 i don't have any problem with that at all 0.99

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

00:44:23.920 fuck you you're gone all right um 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

00:45:15.440 i'll hide you on this channel

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

00:46:43.840 other ways he said to be peaceful but um

00:46:47.440 do you think the election was changed by anything that twitter did

00:46:58.400 some of you do

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

00:47:22.240 i i might have might have

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

00:48:16.320 um

00:48:18.720 all right

00:48:21.920 what else is happening oh um

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

00:49:39.760 yeah um

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

00:52:17.200 having uh liars on non-stop all day long

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

00:53:09.840 twitter was not supposed to be biased

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

00:53:58.240 mine

00:54:01.760 all right

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

00:55:04.800 platform

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

00:56:40.480 there

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

00:58:02.560 that party does

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

00:58:32.560 um

00:58:37.120 yeah

00:58:40.800 so i guess

00:58:41.440 um

00:58:44.560 right yeah yeah kirsten cinema is now independent but is she

00:58:48.560 um

00:58:54.080 um

00:58:57.840 some are libertarians yeah yeah certainly a week before the election people had their word their

00:59:03.280 minds made up

00:59:04.080 um

00:59:09.600 um

00:59:10.320 are you enjoying triggering this morning a little bit

00:59:14.320 you literally just said twitter is the same

00:59:18.640 like

00:59:18.880 analogies are so difficult are they

00:59:23.200 to twitter is the same on one dimension

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

00:59:36.880 elections that's the same

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

00:59:51.200 yeah did grab them by the 0.99

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

01:00:05.040 you think you think yes 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

01:01:05.440 uh somebody says his wife played it that way

01:01:14.800 uh did the fine people hoax change the votes

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

01:01:45.280 holding up all the others

01:01:51.520 um

01:01:51.840 all right twitter amplified it right

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

01:02:06.640 thanks for joining bye for now

01:02:17.200 you

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 10, 2022

Episode 1953 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About Those New Twitter Revelations. Were Laws Broken？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript