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
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
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
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
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
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
00:09:06.000
you're lying because you know that these people were specifically looking for people and banning them
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
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
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
00:23:39.200
really missing the fucking show all right there's nothing like that's happening you you don't know
00:23:45.360
my opinion i'm just describing things just describing all right
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
00:27:40.400
today a number of people have told me i'm wrong about my own opinion in my head
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
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
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
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
00:41:26.000
right so if you want to know a tell for cognitive dissonance it would be all caps scott really is
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
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
00:44:15.200
saying bad things about me so people will try to come after me as they do you
00:44:19.120
you fucking jerk no i did not support the vaccines that never happened
00:44:32.640
we also found out so far that there's no evidence that the trump administration or at least
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
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
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
00:56:51.840
defending anybody did you miss all of those parts can you get yourself out of that mode
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
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
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
01:00:29.920
your husband you just don't want that donald trump and then they grab him by the pussy thing happens
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
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
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
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