E23: Radical DAs, breaking down FB/Google vs. Australia, sustained fear post-vaccine & fan questions

1. 0:00 – 10:52

   Reflecting on the controversial Robinhood interview, iterating on the show format, getting back to basics

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:00

      JK, are you going to do your Trump impression? We're going to do your, your Trump-

   2. JCJason Calacanis0:02

      Okay.

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:03

      Yeah.

   4. JCJason Calacanis0:04

      Everybody, (music playing) I'm getting my Twitter hammer back next week.

   5. DSDavid Sacks0:06

      Don't give him derangement syndrome right before we start the pod.

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:09

      We want to warm him up.

   7. JCJason Calacanis0:09

      Going to be like Ted Cruz.

   8. DSDavid Sacks0:10

      This doesn't warm him up, it gets him deranged.

   9. JCJason Calacanis0:12

      Get your show notes up, bitches.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg0:15

       I'm going all in.

   11. DSDavid Sacks0:16

       Let your winners ride.

   12. JCJason Calacanis0:19

       Rain Man David Sacks.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg0:21

       I'm going all in.

   14. DSDavid Sacks0:23

       And I said- We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:27

       Love you,

   16. DFDavid Friedberg0:28

       Queen of quinoa. I'm going all in.

   17. JCJason Calacanis0:33

       Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another All In podcast. With me today, of course, the Dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya, the Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg, and of course, yeah, definitely the Rain Man is here, David Sacks, who's an excellent driver in the driveway. Yeah. Okay, boys, uh, I guess we made it to episode 22.

   18. DFDavid Friedberg0:59

       Your- your intro, your intro becomes one second longer for every episode we do. It's just so-

   19. JCJason Calacanis1:04

       (laughs)

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:04

       But people love it. And people- the fans love it.

   21. DFDavid Friedberg1:06

       It's so laborious actually. (laughs) You know, they don't. They think it's so stupid. He was-

   22. JCJason Calacanis1:08

       I am... You have to understand persuasion. What I'm doing is I do the same intro and it warns people about the discussion.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:13

       Oh, okay. See, we're still, we're still talking about the intro.

   24. DSDavid Sacks1:15

       (laughs)

   25. JCJason Calacanis1:15

       Okay, let's just... You, and see, everybody's obsessed about it. You proved my point. All right, guys, are we going to address...

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:23

       Elephant in the room.

   27. DFDavid Friedberg1:24

       The elephant in the room.

   28. JCJason Calacanis1:25

       ... the elephant in the room or do we just move on to topics?

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:27

       I will say-

   30. DFDavid Friedberg1:27

       Elephant in the room.
2. 10:52 – 34:44

   Chesa Boudin cancelled on us, radical DAs & local prosecution in SF & LA, why criminal justice reform resonates

   1. DFDavid Friedberg10:52

      By the way, come with your A game. And this is a great segue to talk about what actually we were... A person that was gonna come on and realized that they probably were gonna get so pilloried, um, that they basically spiked themselves, uh, is-

   2. JCJason Calacanis11:06

      Yeah, they opted out.

   3. DFDavid Friedberg11:07

      ... Chesa Boudin, the, the District Attorney of San Francisco. Tell, tell the guys what happened, Sacks.

   4. JCJason Calacanis11:11

      Well, no, we, we invited him to come on the podcast-

   5. No, no, we didn't invite him to come.

   6. ... to talk to us.

   7. He... An intermediary said that she could get him on the pod, would we like to have him on the pod? We said... We discussed it, we said, "Sure, have Chesa Boudin on and then go from there," Sacks. We didn't like seek him out. He was-

   8. Well, okay.

   9. ... back channeled to us.

   10. Got it. So he, he agre- great. So he... But he agreed to be on the show, and then-

   11. Yes.

   12. ... you... Our scheduler got an email out of the blue, like a day or two ago saying, "Sorry, he's not coming on the show." No explanation, right? Isn't that what happened?

   13. Yeah, that's basically it.

   14. I mean, so look, here's what I would say is, um, Chesa, Mr. District Attorney, you don't have to come on the show, but I will challenge you to a debate-

   15. (bucks)

   16. ... any time, any place, any format-

   17. (bucks)

   18. ... on your policies in San Francisco.

   19. (bucks)

   20. So if you have, if you have the huevos-

   21. (laughs)

   22. ... to engage in a debate-... I am ready.

   23. Bok-bok-bok.

   24. And I thought Chasen was a guy who had a little bit of courage. I mean, there was that night-

   25. Hah.

   26. ... when people were discussing the situation in, in San Francisco and... on Clubhouse, and he jumped into the room. So I thought this was a guy who had some cojones. So Chasen-

   27. Some chutzpah?

   28. ... if you have... If you have the chutzpah, if you have the cojones, if you have the huevos, let's debate.

   29. Let's debate.

   30. Let's talk about your policies. San... And by the way, he's an expert. This is what he does, you know-
3. 34:44 – 47:26

   Breaking down the Facebook/Google situation in Australia, understanding fair use, potential saving grace for traditional media?

   1. DFDavid Friedberg34:44

      I think. Sachs, what the fuck is going on with Facebook and Australia and climate change and... This is insanity.

   2. JCJason Calacanis34:50

      Yeah, so I think what's going on in Austr- Australia is, is contemplating a law that would require Facebook and Google, and I think just those two companies, to essentially pay royalties for hyperlinks to, to, to, to news publications. And I think this is mostly at the behest of some powerful, uh, newspaper magnates down there, I think like Rupert Murdoch and folks like that.

   3. I love the way you say magnates. It's like ooh.

   4. Well, they are. I mean, you know, um, and so, uh, it, but, but, but this issue's, is gonna be very closely watched by Europe and maybe even the US. Um, it's basically a tran- uh, like a, a wealth transfer from Google and, and Facebook to the traditional media and to traditional publishers. Um, this is an issue where I actually, um, side with, with Zuckerberg and Facebook on this. I mean, I kinda throw up a little bit in my mouth saying that. But, um, uh, but, uh, no, but look, Tim Berners-Lee has come out and said that it, it could really interfere with the open internet and the World Wide Web if you start to tax hyperlinks. I mean, historically, hyperlinks and the titles on hyperlinks were, um, were, were, were, were fair use. You could, you could use those things without violating somebody else's copyright or need to pay them a royalty. And so I think that it's, it's bizarre to me that, that Facebook and, and Google wouldn't now be able to use hyperlinks, and I'm kinda worried about where that goes.

   5. Yeah.

   6. And, uh, you know, I, so, so, yeah.

   7. DFDavid Friedberg36:24

      Well, Facebook, Facebook said that they're not gonna publish links now for Australian news. And then, but then they followed that up with they were also going to start...

   8. JCJason Calacanis36:34

      ... uh, dismantling any anti-climate change content. I don't know if that's just, just in Australia or-

   9. Well, there's labeling. So there's another thing going on, which is they've decided now to label any posts involving climate change, which is part of the whole censorship debate. And, um, and so-

   10. Separate issue.

   11. ... yeah, I mean... Well, it's separate but related in the sense that the traditional media is cheering on censorship, but then when Facebook es- essentially, uh, censors these links 'cause they don't wanna pay royalties to traditional media, then the traditional media is up in arms. And so, they're very selective in how they, how they view these issues. My, my principle is very consistent, which is I want an open internet. I'm against censorship in all of its forms. And I, and I, you know... And I'm, I'm worried that this new Australian law could really lead to some... le- lead to an overall re- reduction or shutdown.

   12. He- here's what's really, I think, going on, is that with fair use, the doctrine of fair use, it's a four-part test. Uh, you're a lawyer, obviously you know all this, Sachs, but to sort of educate people in the audience who don't, there's no specific, uh, number of characters, no specific percentage of the original work that you, uh, can use you... to clear yourself of fair use. Fair use is a test. When it goes before a judge, a judge looks at this four-part test, the percentage of the work you used. Is the public confused? Um, is there some educational or criticism version of it? So if you were to use 10% of this podcast and you were to wrap it with, you know, put us in a picture window and you were 50% of it and there was no confusion that you were commenting on this, that would be fair use. Or if you were to use it in an educational system and if you were monetizing it. Now, if you were to just clip our podcast, like this one website clipped the podcast and made 60 clips of it, took our file, and I sent them a cease and desist actually and said, "Hey, don't do this. We're doing it ourselves." They fought us and they said, "We're fans." And I said, "I don't care if you're fans or not. You're not linking back, you're not giving us credit, and you're doing 60 clips." If you wanna do one or two clips and you wanna comment on it, that's fine, but you can't take all 60 clips and make a 60 clip version of this. Um, and so fairness is in the word fair use. The problem with Zuckerberg and with how Google has used journalist content is they are clipping out specific sections of it and putting it in something called OneBox on Google. So many of you might have said, "How many people... you know, how many pounds are in, you know, whatever?" Or "What time is this TV show on?" And then the content that was made by The Ringer or the New York Times gets clipped, and they put just that section, David, with an algorithm, and they give you the answer. So you don't need to go visit that website. This is tipping over into what I would call unfair use, because you're-

   13. Okay. I think that's a great point.

   14. ... eliminating the person linking. Now, let me finish.

   15. Yeah.

   16. If it was just the URL and you didn't pull the headline, you didn't pull the abstract, and you didn't pull the photo, that would be fine. There is a very easy solution to this, which is if you wanna pull the link and the headline, you pay $0. But if you wanna pull anything else, uh, 100 characters, et cetera, you need to get a license from that person unless you are doing actual criticism. So there's nothing to stop anybody in Australia right now from taking a screenshot of a New York Times story or an Australian, you know, newspaper story and writing some commentary on it. You just can't wholesale take everything. And so what we're seeing here is a real-time negotiation between private parties into what is fair. And I think Google has a really rich history of sharing revenue. Uh, the App Store, they give 70% to app developers. YouTube, they give 55% to creators. And with AdSense, they let you put AdSense on your website and they give you 68 cents on the dollar or something in that range. They never actually disclose the exact percentage, but that's what I'm told it is. Facebook has given $0 to Instagram users, $0 to WhatsApp users, $0 to Facebook folks. They're too greedy. And what Facebook needs to do is either not use the content or come up with some reasonable payment and come to an agreement with these folks who are now banding together. And they're realizing the traffic we get from Facebook and Google is not worth what they're taking away from with us, which is all that revenue that, you know, they earned in the free market. And so this is a free market debate, and I think the government should stay out of it, to a certain extent, and let the free market work, which is all publishers should get together in the United States and confront Facebook and say, "Pay us unless you use anything more than the headline." But Jason, I think these things are interconnected though, right? On the one hand, if you... if you have an economic stake in distribution of content, but then you're also then going to decide under, you know, a- an opaque definition what is truth or not truth, you all of a sudden just become, I mean, the purest form definition of a publisher, right? And I think it just becomes a very treacherous place for both Facebook and Google to end up in. So it's almost better- Well, Google's paying the bill, by the way.

   17. Yeah. No, G- you're right. G- Google's paying for it. Facebook decided not to. But Facebook, uh, they said something like only 4% of their, their, their posts involve this kinda content. So it's just not a big deal for them the way it is for, for Google. And I think-

   18. Well, I think it is a big deal for Facebook. They're just trying to make a point here, because Zuckerberg's a, you know-

   19. Yeah. Yeah. And they're, they're being-

   20. ... hardcore.

   21. ... they're being, they're being overly heavy-handed in their response.

   22. Yeah.

   23. There's no question about it. They're, they're throwing their weight around. It doesn't look good. But I'm not defending Facebook, I'm defending the principle. I mean, look, if this Australian principle were used, you wouldn't have the Drudge Report. You wouldn't be able to create-

   24. Yeah.

   25. ... a site, uh, uh, of, of news links. I mean-

   26. No, you could if it was commentary. You could put the link-

   27. But it's not-

   28. ... and write commentary.

   29. The Drudge Report's not-

   30. It's when you just rip the links, people are objecting-
4. 47:26 – 58:58

   Vaccine update, conditioned fear sustaining post-vaccine

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya47:26

   2. JCJason Calacanis47:26

      Yeah. Last topic for me 'cause, uh, I really want Friedberg's answer to this 'cause I also just saw an alert how the federal government is opening up a vaccination site in Miami-Dade County. I actually saw Francis Suarez retweet it. Um, what the hell's going on with vaccinations? Are we gonna get vaccinated soon? (laughs)

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya47:43

      So I said it in December, and I- I tweeted about it, and I've repeated it multiple times since, that the US has enough supply to vaccinate pretty much anyone that wants to get vaccinated (laughs) because we are producing and delivering three to four million doses per day in the US right now. And, um, there is a, just a fundamental issue, especially, like, I mean look at California, you know? They haven't opened up, quote-unquote, vaccination to people outside of tier, what they call tier 1A. Um, and so this is much more of a kind of policy issue than, uh, an administrative issue, um, than a supply and demand issue. There's enough people that want the vaccine, and there's enough vaccine. So just let people get fucking vaccinated. Um, and so I feel like the market forces are now kind of converging with policy a little bit more than they were a month ago. And the policymakers are no longer fighting and complaining about supply and complaining about constraints. You know, we've got mass vax sites now in California. The amount of money that's being wasted, by the way, in this process makes me want to vomit every time I read about it. That's a whole nother separate issue. But it feels to me like we're probably May, June.... when enough people are vaccinated, that we can have, you know, a circumstance where people are going to fly without masks and be comfortable doing so. But I'm sure there will be these over, you know, constraining rules around what people can and can't do in public for a very long time, like I mentioned would happen. I do want to say one thing that I've noticed. We- we were, we were all... We played some poker the other night, and we were with a- a friend who, uh, got vaccinated. And I was like... He said, "This is my first time playing poker with people," and I was like, "Well, you got vaccinated, like, why aren't you..." He's like, "Well, I don't know if other strains are gonna get me or, you know, if this thing's evolving and other people are going to get sick." And, um, if you think about what's happened over the last year, people have been conditioned to be afraid. And so even though we're getting vaccinated, even though this thing is moving and working, I'm concerned that we're not going to end up in a more civil state. Schools aren't opening. People aren't flying. People aren't doing stuff, even after vaccinations and science and data shows that these things are okay.

   4. JCJason Calacanis49:44

      Except in Texas and Florida, where people aren't opening. (laughs)

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya49:45

      Maybe there's some, maybe there's some cases of it. But I... What I'm saying is like, you know, the human subconscious gets trained first, and then our conscious mind rationalizes what we feel. We've all now been-

   6. JCJason Calacanis49:55

      Yeah.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya49:55

      ... trained over the past year to be very afraid. And then we all-

   8. DSDavid Sacks49:59

      But we have-

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya49:59

      ... come up with these rational excuses about why I can't do X, Y and Z. And it's like, but you've been fucking vaccinated. You're fine. Like all the data, all the science says go do whatever you want to do. Go into a nightclub sweaty next to people.

   10. JCJason Calacanis50:14

       (laughs)

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:14

       Throbbing beats and music.

   12. JCJason Calacanis50:15

       Keep going, Friedberg. Yes, tell us-

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:17

       And enjoy. (laughs)

   14. JCJason Calacanis50:17

       Tell us about the throbbing nightclubs, Friedberg.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:19

       Yeah, it's like that scene from-

   16. JCJason Calacanis50:19

       I've never seen you so animated.

   17. (laughs)

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:20

       It's like that scene from Good Will Hunting. Remember, when he talks about the psychologist, he's like, "Drop in." (laughs)

   19. JCJason Calacanis50:23

       Tell us about your rave stories again, from the '90s, when you would get arrested.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:25

       Activating fourth emotion. Yeah. Throbbing rave, give up to the mom.

   21. JCJason Calacanis50:31

       Pulsating, pulsating music.

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:33

       Pulsating sweating bodies and-

   23. JCJason Calacanis50:34

       Did the molly just kick in, Friedberg? Did you drop a molly at the start of the pod?

   24. (laughs)

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:38

       But my point is like, people are really afraid and I think, uh-

   26. JCJason Calacanis50:41

       I just got the best idea for an episode.

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:43

       The biggest concern I have is frankly less about are we going to get vaccinated. I feel like the convergence-

   28. JCJason Calacanis50:46

       All right.

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:46

       ... between market forces and government nonsense is now going to allow us to all get vaccinated.

   30. JCJason Calacanis50:51

       Do you guys-
5. 58:58 – 1:10:00

   Fan Q&A: what the besties are investing in over the next decade, bestie anti-portfolio, biggest current portfolio risks, what would you teach every 12-year old

   1. JCJason Calacanis58:58

      right, straight to Q&A. This is from, uh, Fadesh. He says, "Where are you investing your money over the next 10 years?" So Friedberg, you wanna start? And then we'll go to Sax and then, uh, Mr. Palihapitiya.

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya59:11

      I've talked about this pretty largely, uh, you know, uh, on the podcast. I mean, two areas that are super interesting to me that, um, I'm spending a lot of time on is obviously biomanufacturing, so the idea that we can kind of move away from traditional animal-based agriculture and systems of production, um, to systems where we use, uh, genetically engineered, uh, microbial organisms to produce molecules and materials and food. And that, that, uh, that system of production can have a radical impact on, um, uh, on the environment, on the opportunity for jobs, on the cost of goods and, uh, and things that humans want and consume. Um, and that's, that's a primary area, uh, of interest for me.

   3. JCJason Calacanis59:53

      Love it.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya59:53

      And I think it's a multi-decade. I think by 2050, you know, we should see, um, most of our goods that are manufactured rather than being made in the traditional sense, which is basically old technology scaled up, uh, which is what the Industrial Revolution did, uh, but really shift to a new model of manufacturing where we, uh, use a smarter machine, which is a, a genetic, a biologic organism to make stuff. So that's, that's my interests.

   5. JCJason Calacanis1:00:16

      Sax.

   6. Yeah, so I'm, I'm focused on the area of bottom-up SaaS, which is basically business software that can go viral, uh, very much in the mold of Yammer, which was a company I founded and sold back a, a dozen years ago. It was, it's, it's-

   7. It was the precursor to Slack, let's be honest.

   8. Right. Yeah, yeah. (laughs)

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:00:33

      Mm-hmm.

   10. JCJason Calacanis1:00:33

       It could have been 27 billion, but you did not ride your winner. You took the quick billy and that was-

   11. No, I mean, look-

   12. ... not a mistake because it let you invest in the other 20 unicorns, correct?

   13. It, it, kinda. I mean, so, so-

   14. So, oh, you do have a chip on your shoulder about selling too early. No, let it out, David.

   15. No, no, it's not, it's not, it's, it's not a chip. I, I would say that around the time that PayPal hit a $200 billion market cap and Slack had a $27 billion outcome, I started realizing, you know, if I just stuck with my ideas longer...... you know, I probably would, would, would do better. And I'm like, "You know, I don't really need to come up with a new thesis or a new idea. I already came up with the idea 12 years ago, which is to make business software viral. I'm just gonna keep investing in that thesis." So it's not that original or new for me, but-

   16. Hmm.

   17. ... um, but, but it is, it... You know, bo- bottom-up has become the, I would say, almost the, the dominant mode now of, of, of SaaS.

   18. Explain that to somebody who doesn't understand what you mean, bottom-up.

   19. Yeah. So, so bottom-up means that the entry point for the software is any employee in the company. They can just start using it. They go to your website, they start using it, they spread it to their coworkers. As opposed to top-down. Top-down is like the Oracle sales guy who carries a bag and goes to meet with the CIO and-

   20. Right.

   21. ... you know, sells him a big expensive implementation. That's the... And that's traditionally what business software used to be, is a bi- is a big top-down IT sale. Bottom-up is, um, is just going in through the rank-and-file employees.

   22. All right. Chamath Palihapitiya, for the next 10 years, where are you putting your money?

   23. DFDavid Friedberg1:02:01

       Uh, two areas. Uh, inequality... Well, uh, i- it's not even 10. I would say for the next... For the rest of my life. Um, so it's... I think it... These are actually multi-decade, but, uh, inequality and climate change. And so, um, you know, the inequality side, what does that mean? It's any business-

   24. JCJason Calacanis1:02:18

       By the way, the second you said inequality and climate change, Sax left.

   25. DFDavid Friedberg1:02:22

       Oh, he went to throw up. Yeah, yeah.

   26. JCJason Calacanis1:02:24

       He's just like, "What is this nonsense?" (laughs)

   27. DFDavid Friedberg1:02:27

       He, he went, he went to throw up. No, no, no.

   28. JCJason Calacanis1:02:27

       "He just read."

   29. DFDavid Friedberg1:02:28

       He went to throw up. No, no, no.

   30. JCJason Calacanis1:02:29

       He's like, "Oh, God."

Episode duration: 1:24:24